Markdown from IGF pages

2026-09-18 12:50:59 +02:00
commit 26db01c712
165 changed files with 137619 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #133 What If? Learning Alternative Internet Governance Futures
+
+## Description
+
+Many of today's Internet governance institutions emerged from political decisions made under unique historical circumstances. Yet policymakers rarely have the opportunity to examine how different choices by governments or stakeholders might have reshaped today's Internet governance landscape. Counterfactual analysis offers a way to revisit key moments, challenge institutional assumptions, and explore alternative policy pathways that remain relevant to contemporary debates.
+
+This workshop brings together experienced practitioners involved in major Internet governance and cybersecurity negotiations to discuss three historically grounded counterfactual scenarios drawn from the evolution of the multistakeholder model, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and international cyber diplomacy. Each scenario will be introduced by the moderator, followed by diverse perspectives from speakers representing government, the technical community, civil society, academia, and international organizations.
+
+Participants will then join the discussion, testing the plausibility of different outcomes, identifying overlooked assumptions, and exploring how alternative political choices might have affected today's governance ecosystem.
+
+To enrich deliberations, the workshop will use a multi-agent AI platform operating as a silent facilitator throughout the session. This platform will provide historical context, retrieve relevant evidence, identify comparable precedents, synthesize emerging arguments, and document areas of convergence and disagreement in real time. Participants may interrogate these outputs, challenge them, or ignore them entirely.
+
+By ultimately examining whether structured counterfactual analysis can become a practical tool for policy learning, the workshop will explore how AI can responsibly support complex policy discussions without displacing human judgment but, most importantly, conclude by inviting participants to consider a forward-looking question: Which governance assumptions should the next generation of Internet institutions be willing to revisit?
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+**Scenario 1:** How might the Internet governance ecosystem have evolved if the WSIS negotiations had concluded with stronger intergovernmental oversight of critical Internet resources, rather than the multistakeholder governance arrangements that accompanied the creation of the Internet Governance Forum?
+
+**Scenario 2:** What if international cybersecurity policies had evolved through technical and operational collaboration rather than diplomatic norm development?
+
+**Scenario 3:** What if AI governance had been integrated into existing Internet governance institutions rather than developing through multiple parallel initiatives?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+Participants will understand how counterfactual analysis can strengthen policy learning by revealing the long-term implications of alternative governance choices. Through dialogue with experts from diverse stakeholder groups, they will develop a deeper understanding of the institutional trade-offs that continue to shape Internet governance and international cyber policy.
+
+The workshop will produce a concise report documenting the principal policy insights, alternative governance pathways discussed, and areas of convergence and divergence identified by participants. AI will support evidence retrieval, synthesis and institutional memory while remaining entirely subordinate to participant deliberation. The report will also reflect on the practical contribution of AI-assisted facilitation to supporting evidence-based, inclusive, and transparent multistakeholder dialogue. The counterfactual scenarios, discussion methodology, and workshop outcomes will be published as an open resource for future Internet governance schools, diplomatic training programmes, and multistakeholder capacity-building initiatives.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The workshop is an interactive deliberative exercise rather than a panel discussion. Participants assume the role of decision-makers at pivotal moments in the evolution of Internet governance and international cyber policy, exploring alternative governance pathways through structured counterfactual scenarios.
+
+**Each scenario follows a four-stage cycle:** Decide → Debate → Reconsider → Reflect. Participants first make an individual policy choice through a live poll based on the historical context presented. Expert speakers then analyse the institutional, technical, geopolitical, and societal implications of each option from diverse stakeholder perspectives. Onsite and online participants engage in moderated discussion before voting again to assess whether the exchange has changed their views or identified areas of convergence and continuing disagreement.
+
+An AI-assisted facilitation platform synthesises the discussion, highlights historical parallels and emerging themes, and documents how collective reasoning evolves. AI supports transparent, inclusive, and evidence-informed deliberation while participants remain the decision-makers.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The workshop is designed for an equivalent experience for both onsite and online attendees. Each counterfactual scenario will begin with short interventions from invited experts, followed by moderated discussion involving participants in the room and online through equal speaking opportunities. The moderator will alternate between onsite and remote interventions to ensure balanced participation.
+
+Participants will be invited to respond to one another's reasoning. The AI platform will support by capturing emerging themes, and synthesising areas of agreement and disagreement in real time. These outputs will be displayed during the discussion and used to stimulate further debate, allowing online participants to engage with the same contextual information as those attending in person.
+
+**Interactive methods:** Moderated discussion, audience interventions, live polling.
+Open Q&A with both onsite and online participants.
+
+Digital tools:
+An AI-assisted facilitation platform providing historical context, evidence retrieval, thematic synthesis, and documentation of the discussion. Live polling.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** PABLO HINOJOSA, TechGov Digital
+**Organizer 2:** Madeline Carr, 🔒
+**Organizer 3:** Anriette Esterhuysen, African School on Internet Governance
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Anriette Esterhuysen, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 2:** Ian Sheldon, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 3:** Francesca Bosco, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** PABLO HINOJOSA, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Madeline Carr, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+PABLO HINOJOSA, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+PABLO HINOJOSA, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+4. Quality Education
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #172 Continuity and Convergence: Internet and AI Governance
+
+## Description
+
+This panel brings a distinct perspective to IGF: young people from different countries, cultures, and backgrounds, unaffiliated with governments or big tech. That independence gives the panel a critical vantage point and opens space for non-partisan discussion.
+
+Every argument now made about AI governance : that it moves too fast to regulate or that state and corporate power will inevitably capture, has already been made about internet governance. This session does not call for a return to some imagined golden age of internet governance; we don't believe one existed. Bangladesh, India, Nicaragua and Uganda all repeated the same pattern of disconnecting their people from the worldwide internet, showing that states still default to switching infrastructure off rather than negotiating over it.
+The alternative is plurality. Built the way Africa is already building it. Kenya's Jacaranda Health runs a large language model for maternal health in Swahili. Uganda's Sunbird AI develops language AI for communities too small for global models to serve. Lelapa AI designs small language models for the power, compute, and connectivity constraints most of the continent actually faces. On connectivity, Starlink now faces real competition in Africa from Eutelsat OneWeb and direct-to-phone providers, meaning no single government can bargain with a single company to control access.
+**This is the model this session argues for:** a thousand AI companies instead of two or three global labs, publicly owned where possible, alongside community-owned tech resources and citizens' tech collectives; hardened Bluetooth mesh and offline-first tools instead of waiting for permission to reconnect; and Aaron Swartz-style open infrastructure for AI, treating datasets and models as shared commons the way Africa's language-model builders already do. Technologists, legal scholars, and community organizers will debate — using Kenya and Uganda as live case studies — where this plurality strategy works, and where it doesn't.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. Under what conditions can a plural ecosystem of independent AI companies and community-owned network solutions contribute to an inclusive and democratic governance?
+B. How can democratic decisions be made about the internet and AI infrastructure?
+C. How can the lessons from a plural, democratic internet governance model be transferred to governance of AI, its datasets, models, and connectivity layer, so that they can be built as a public common good worth to be sustained and governed?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session is designed to produce three tangible outputs.
+First, a published report synthesising the discussion as an openly licensed brief (deposited on Zenodo). This document would document current best practices in plural, community- and publicly-owned AI, drawn from the Kenya and Uganda case studies.
+Second, the beginnings of a standing network (working group) of actors including technologists, legal scholars, community organisers, and builders who share an interest in more plural and inclusive AI governance and are willing to continue the exchange beyond the session.
+Third, a shared map of future solutions and ways forward to build a democratic and inclusive AI governance. To the end, we will publish a roadmap of consortium development along with our report.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The session brings together youth and established practitioners across disciplines and regions, speaking independently. A roundtable seats everyone at equal standing rather than arranging speakers in front of an audience, which is what makes real discussion possible between technologists, legal scholars and organisers, and what allows younger participants to intervene rather than listen. It also lets onsite and online discussants share one table.
+Ninety minutes carries the session from shared context to exchange. Ten minutes open with a team explainer and a short film on the Kenyan and Ugandan builders. Twenty minutes of provocations follow. Participants then spend twenty minutes mapping cases they know onto a shared works / does not work board. The closing forty minutes are open discussion, the final ten reserved for turning that board into an openly licensed brief, a roadmap, and a working group.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The session is a roundtable, a format that invites exchange rather than broadcast and travels well across the hybrid divide. We will seat online and onsite discussants around one shared table, prompt the discussion asking for opinions and experiences and sequence the conversation so contributions visibly alternate between room and screen. A dedicated online moderator, separate from the onsite chair, has equal authority to bring in remote participants, surface their questions, and hold speaking time, so online voices are never an afterthought.
+
+Alongside the IGF-provided link, we will run Jitsi — open-source, low-bandwidth, and self-hostable — as our complementary platform, a deliberate choice mirroring the session's commitment to open, commons-based infrastructure over proprietary tools. We will also use a live shared document and a real-time poll so every participant can mark where plurality "works / does not work," feeding the discussion directly into the report. Captioning runs throughout.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Pedro dos Santos Maia, Skema Business School
+**Organizer 2:** Chandrima Ganguly, DARS Worldwide
+**Organizer 3:** Emaan Malik, National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR)
+**Organizer 4:** Meem Arafat Manab, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Chandrima Ganguly, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 2:** Emaan Malik, Intergovernmental Organization, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 3:** Meem Arafat Manab, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Pedro dos Santos Maia, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Pedro dos Santos Maia, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Pedro dos Santos Maia, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #173 Joint DC-CIV and D-AIG - Bridging Internet and AI Governance
+
+## Description
+
+Internet governance has accumulated over two decades of technical, institutional, and procedural experience that offers valuable insights for AI governance, through both similarities and differences between the two domains. Building on work by the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, the Policy Network on AI, the United Nations University, the AI Governance Lab for Humanity, and others, this session reflects on the past decade of Core Internet Values challenges and asks how core values such as openness, interoperability, and human rights online can inform AI governance while addressing its unique challenges.
+A central lesson from this comparison is methodological: separating a technology's own effects (such as massive scaling or friction reduction), from constant patterns of human behaviour and motivation, such as crime or altruism, and then reassembling the two to generate regulatory insight. Scaling and friction reduction recur as parallels across both technology worlds, though they surface differently: AI's scaling produces paradoxical effects of its own, and its friction reduction manifests as a distinct, cognitive form of friction. Because openness and interoperability flow in both directions between the two domains, preserving them becomes even more critical to building actionable governance mechanisms.
+The session aims to move from abstract principles to concrete, actionable policy recommendations, using regulatory learning and adaptation between internet and AI governance as its core method. Rather than treating AI governance as an entirely novel problem, the session argues that internet governance's hard-won lessons, about values, mechanisms, and the limits of technical fixes; offer a disciplined starting point for AI policy, provided the comparison is made explicit rather than assumed.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. What are the key similarities and differences between Internet governance and the governance of AI, and their relation to known human agency?
+B. How can the Core Internet Values applying to the Open Internet enhance and improve the prospects for beneficial AI governance?
+C. What lessons from the process of building Internet governance's stewardship of Core Internet Values can be applied for an AI governance that enhances AI safety, AI security, AI ethics, and at the same time an expanded infrastructure, access and use of AI for all?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+**Policy Recommendations:** Develop actionable guidelines for integrating Core Internet Values, such as openness, interoperability, and neutrality, into AI governance frameworks, aiming to maintain an open, fair, and user-centric digital environment.
+**Best Practices Compilation:** Create a repository of best practices that promote transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in AI development and deployment.
+**Collaborative Frameworks:** Establish models for stakeholder collaboration to address challenges at the intersection of Internet principles and AI ethics.
+Emphasis on practical outcomes, including country-specific outcomes of AI systems that work and serve the global community.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The on-site moderator will explain the discussion topic and introduce speakers and subject matter experts, who will then engage in a round-table conversation. After this, the facilitators will open the floor for a full discussion amongst all participants. Speakers will be encouraged to engage with the points made by all participants. The round-table format is very helpful in facilitating full dialogue and our Dynamic Coalitions encourage such dialogues.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** After years of organising IGF, ICANN and ISOC hybrid sessions, the organisers have extensive experience in fully utilising the hybrid format.
+
+The session will have (1) panellist participation,  then (2) invited speakers reactions and (3) Open Discussion - and for each, there will be local and remote speakers. At the end, each speaker will be given an opportunity to summarise major takeaways from the discussion.  The online moderator will both interrupt the local co-moderators when there is a hand up in the room, but also look out in particular for the written contributions online, because not all participants are comfortable actually speaking their contributions. After the session, the report of the session will take into account both what was said and what was written during the session.
+Our 2025 IGF Session made full use of the hybrid nature of the session by having extensive participation from remote participants.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Olivier Crepin-Leblond, 🔒ISOC UK England
+**Organizer 2:** Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, 🔒Nameshop
+**Organizer 3:** Luca Belli, 🔒
+**Organizer 4:** Yik Chan Chin, Beijing Normal University/UNU Macau
+**Organizer 5:** Alejandro Pisanty, 🔒UNAM, National University of Mexico
+**Organizer 6:** Walter Britto Gaspar, CTS-FGV
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Vinton CERF, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 2:** Luca Belli, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 3:** Alejandro Pisanty, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 4:** Yik Chan Chin, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 5:** Sandrine ELMI HERSI, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 6:** Milton Mueller, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Luca Belli, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #183 Make It Stick: How to UPR for AI Accountability
+
+## Description
+
+The UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has proved its potential to transform peer pressure into tangible change many times. Mongolia adopted legislation to protect human rights defenders. Serbia rebuilt its anti-discrimination safeguards following recommendations. Dominica formally joined the torture convention mid-process. These shifts show that States act when scrutinized by peers. Yet artificial intelligence governance, though increasingly featured, often remains inconsistently enforced. This shows how algorithmic power eludes accountability architecture, especially when the mechanism is non-bidding and the authoritarianism advances.
+
+Now comes the harder test. If the UPR succeeded in transforming state behavior on torture and discrimination, what would be needed to make it equally effective in constraining the proliferation of unaccountable AI systems? The path forward hinges on various dimensions: making algorithmic harms visible; providing implementation-oriented recommendations and follow-up steps that replace generic commitments; and building capacity support for states to integrate UPR-AI assessments into domestic policy, especially in countries of the Global South.
+
+This session examines how to turn the UPR into a sustained advocacy and accountability tool for AI governance, understanding the gap between peer pressure and institutional change. Its impact depends on translating recommendations into national monitoring and follow-up mechanisms.
+
+The workshop brings together expert voices from the Civil Society Alliances for Digital Empowerment (CADE), OHCHR, and state-mandated bodies, with perspectives from both the North and the South. The IGF remains a unique convening space for these and other multistakeholders to converge and strategize on advancing AI governance.
+
+This session will surface lived experiences and institutional capacities, acknowledging that the UPR's real power isn't just about the recommendations but in what happens after, when civil society decides to hold States accountable to their own commitments.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+- What methodologies are useful when assessing AI human-rights impacts, including those that are most difficult to measure, such as indirect or cumulative harms?
+
+- How can UPR AI recommendations be more specific and implementation-oriented, and avoid generic commitments that do not change domestic policy? What follow-up actions are necessary if the recommendations are accepted?
+
+- How can the UPR process influence AI regulation across regions (N-S) with different capacities? What capacity support do States need to integrate UPR AI assessments and recommendations into their policies?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+After the event, we will produce a session report with best practices for integrating UPR into effective AI governance advocacy. We will adapt this information into different formats to improve visibility across pertinent partners, networks and social media, and for futher discussion in the CADE’s Digital Governance Working Group, enabling replication in partners’ contexts. We aim for:
+
+- Leveraging the UPR mechanism building on its proven track record to advance human-rights accountability through multi-stakeholder engagement.
+
+- Reach consensus on strategies/resources to identify and measure AI human-rights impacts.
+
+- Share best practices to translate the AI harms into actionable UPR recommendations.
+
+- Provide lessons learned on UPR advocacy in North and South contexts.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** A round table displaces the expert-to-audience hierarchy that silences implementation experience. When multistakeholder from the panel and the audience sit together, this configuration fosters the space to candidly surface why UPR-AI recommendations fail domestically: capacity gaps, conflicting institutional mandates, budget constraints. This peer-to-peer vulnerability is where real solutions emerge.
+
+Ninety minutes allow time for initial framing without rushing participants into dialogue, space for substantive breakout-room discussion across in-person and virtual cohorts, and a closing window to distill emergent insights without truncating the synthesis. Hybrid participation rhythms also demand buffer; this duration prevents the false efficiency of compressing complexity, allowing genuine deliberation on how to make the most of the UPR for AI accountability.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** Collective Brainstorming: On-site participants contribute via post-its; online participants via Miro board. A designated support person will transfer inputs between spaces. This exercise will nourish the session's conversations with inputs.
+
+**Breakout Rooms:** To encourage candid participation, we will create parallel breakout spaces: at least one cohort for participation at the venue, and one remote breakout on Zoom. Depending on the number of participants, we will divide them into additional groups. Each group explores the same policy question through their regional and institutional lens, then reconvenes to share distinct insights. On-site and remote speakers will support their respective cohorts.
+
+Open Floor. Now that participants have broken up the ice, we will open the floor to revisit the central ideas we want to capture, so they are well established for the reporting and follow-up steps. A designated support person will ensure remote participants who want to comment are given proper space.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Angela Alarcon, Forus
+**Organizer 2:** Iwanska Karolina, European Center for Not-for-Profit Law
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Patricia Ainembabazi , Intergovernmental Organization, African Group
+**Speaker 2:** Abed Kataya, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 3:** Line Gamrath Rasmussen, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Gina Romero, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+
+## Moderator
+
+Angela Alarcon, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Iwanska Karolina, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Angela Alarcon, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+5.5
+5.b
+9.1
+9.4
+9.b
+9.c
+16.10
+16.6
+16.7
+16.8
+17.14
+17.16
+17.6
+17.8
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #192 The blind spots of digital governance: Exposing assumptions
+
+## Description
+
+Digital governance frameworks travel further than the contexts in which they were created. Technologies, standards, and governance approaches developed in particular environments are applied across regions with different infrastructures, institutions, languages, and social realities.
+
+When these assumptions are treated as universal, blind spots emerge. These blind spots affect inclusion, accountability, representation, and human rights; plus, the rapid expansion of AI makes them more urgent. We should ask: Are the frameworks guiding digital and AI governance sufficiently adaptable to the realities in which they operate?
+
+The Global South provides a critical lens for examining these tensions. Not because these challenges are exclusive to the region, but because different technological, institutional and social conditions make hidden dependencies more visible.
+
+We will examine case studies in which assumptions embedded in digital and AI governance approaches create challenges in practice, including:
+
+The pathway assumption that everyone follows the same route: Mobile-first ecosystems and leapfrogging, for instance, demonstrate how countries have developed digital services without replicating infrastructure pathways common elsewhere.
+
+The representation assumption that everyone is represented in the system: AI systems and digital services can reproduce gaps when local languages, cultural contexts and knowledge systems are underrepresented, for instance.
+
+The universality assumption that every context shares the same risks, institutions or priorities: Technical standards and governance approaches designed for global use, for instance, can overlook local realities.
+
+The session will move beyond identifying challenges to examine how these blind spots can inform better digital and AI governance approaches. Through diverse perspectives and evidence-based examples, it will explore which assumptions need to be reconsidered, which elements require contextual adaptation, and what practical changes are needed to ensure that technologies and governance frameworks work across different realities.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. After decades of efforts to promote human rights, inclusion, and accountability in digital governance, what assumptions remain unchallenged, and what lessons should they offer for AI governance?
+B. How should digital and AI governance balance universal human rights principles with the need to respond to different realities, needs and conditions?
+C. What are concrete examples of governance standards that were designed in specific contexts but created unexpected challenges when deployed elsewhere?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will:
+1. Generate a clearer understanding of which assumptions embedded in digital and AI governance frameworks remain valid across contexts, which require reconsideration, and where approaches need adaptation.
+2. Provide participants with a practical framework for examining digital and AI systems through four questions:
+>> What context was this model designed for?
+>> What assumptions does it make about users, institutions and infrastructure?
+>> Who or what is missing from the design?
+>> What needs to change for it to work in different realities?
+3. Contribute to the development of more context-aware governance approaches that preserve universal human rights principles while responding effectively to diverse social, institutional and technological realities.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The roundtable format is best suited because the session is designed as a collective examination of assumptions rather than a sequence of presentations. The three case studies will serve as starting points for testing how digital and AI governance frameworks perform when applied across different technological, institutional and social realities.
+
+Speakers will respond to a shared question: Which assumptions embedded in digital and AI governance frameworks hold when they move across contexts, and which become problematic?
+
+The format will allow participants to compare perspectives from different regions and stakeholder groups, including policymakers, civil society, and technical communities. The 90-minute duration will provide space not only to identify blind spots, but also to discuss possible adaptations and practical pathways forward. The objective is to explore how governance approaches can remain rights-respecting while responding to diverse realities.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The session will be designed as an interactive hybrid dialogue: Speakers will introduce case studies illustrating different governance blind spots, followed by a moderated discussion involving onsite and online participants.
+
+An interactive tool will allow participants to test each case through a set of questions: What assumption is embedded in this model? Does it hold across different contexts? What adaptation is needed? Responses will be collected in real time and used to identify recurring patterns across regions and stakeholder groups.
+
+Dedicated onsite and online moderators will ensure balanced participation and integrate remote contributions throughout the session rather than reserving them for the end. Online participants will be invited to contribute examples and challenge assumptions emerging from the discussion. Whenever possible, online moderators will facilitate multilingual participation to broaden accessibility and inclusion.
+
+The session will consolidate key lessons on how digital and AI governance approaches can become more adaptable across contexts.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Mia Marzotto, Oxfam
+**Organizer 2:** Stephanie Borg Psaila, 🔒DiploFoundation
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Gitungo Wamere, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 2:** Juliana Guerra, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 3:** Molivurae Andrew, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 4:** ANTOINE BARBRY, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+**Speaker 5:** Stephanie Borg Psaila, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Stephanie Borg Psaila, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Mia Marzotto, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Ben Zid Haythem, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+5.b
+9.5
+10.2
+16.7
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #237 Who Shapes Global AI Governance? From Dialogue to Action
+
+## Description
+
+Decisions on international AI governance today will shape how people access information, exercise rights and participate in society. Yet emerging institutions and processes risk reinforcing inequalities by limiting the ability of governments, communities with fewer resources, civil society and other stakeholders to influence priorities and hold decision-makers accountable.
+
+The first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the preliminary report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI established an agenda and evidence base. The next challenge is translating these priorities into implementation and accountability. As preparations begin for the Second Global Dialogue and the 2027 Global Digital Compact review, this workshop will explore how governments and stakeholders can shape this transition.
+
+Convened by the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), the session builds on the Coalition’s Joint Multistakeholder Statement on the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance and its commitment to a rights-respecting approach. It will bring together governments, civil society, technical community and private sector to examine how evidence, participation and accountability inform implementation.
+
+Aligned with the IGF 2026 theme, the session will explore how shared responsibility can be applied in practice: embedding human rights, transparency and accountability; addressing capacity and representation gaps; and ensuring meaningful stakeholder influence.
+
+Through three policy questions, the session will facilitate an interactive government–stakeholder dialogue. An opening poll will identify priorities for the next Dialogue, including human rights safeguards, AI value chain transparency, capacity gaps, AI’s environmental and social impacts, and stakeholder participation. Speakers will respond to the results, followed by participant-driven discussion.
+
+The discussion will build on, but not be limited to, the FOC Statement and civil society perspectives from the first Dialogue. Recommendations will be captured in the IGF session report, shared with stakeholders preparing the Second Global Dialogue, and inform follow-up work by the FOC Task Force on AI and Human Rights.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+- Building on the priorities identified during the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance, where does the second Dialogue offer the greatest opportunity to advance practical progress?
+- In the areas prioritised by participants, what concrete outputs could the second Dialogue realistically advance, such as shared guidance or benchmarks, implementation roadmaps, capacity building initiatives, or mechanisms for monitoring and follow-up?
+- What consultation and follow-up arrangements would enable civil society, countries with limited resources and capacity, and historically underrepresented groups, to influence the priorities, outcomes and implementation of the next Dialogue more meaningfully?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The workshop will produce:
+- A participant-ranked assessment of where the second Global Dialogue offers the greatest opportunity for practical progress.
+- A short set of practical actions or outputs that the second Dialogue could advance, informed by participant contributions from different regions and stakeholder groups.
+- Practical recommendations for strengthening stakeholder influence over the next Dialogue and connecting its outcomes to implementation by governments and other relevant actors.
+- A concise record of both areas of convergence and important unresolved differences across stakeholder and regional perspectives.
+- An IGF session report that will be shared with the Co-Chairs and other stakeholders preparing the Second Global Dialogue on AI Governance and will inform follow-up work by the FOC Task Force on AI and Human Rights.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Theater
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** The theatre layout is well suited to the session’s purpose of enabling direct exchange between a diverse IGF audience and speakers from different stakeholder groups. As the session focuses on moderated dialogue rather than small-group work or collaborative drafting, participants will engage through an opening poll, questions and direct interventions. Poll results, online participants and submitted questions will be displayed on screen to create a shared point of reference, while roving microphones and a digital question channel will support broad participation.
+
+A 60-minute format provides sufficient time to gather onsite and online input, address the three linked policy questions and reflect on key recommendations, while keeping opening remarks concise. Most of the session is reserved for participant interaction, making the format well suited to generating focused, diverse and actionable input without reverting to a traditional panel.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The workshop will use a “one room, two access points” approach, ensuring equal participation for onsite and online audiences. Moderators will alternate between both participation modes throughout the session, integrating online contributions rather than treating them separately. For each policy question, interventions from both audiences will be gathered before speakers respond. The online moderator will monitor chat and raised hands, surface written contributions and flag under-represented perspectives, while the onsite moderator will reference the virtual room and poll results. No more than two consecutive interventions will come from either mode.
+
+All speakers will join the virtual platform to ensure equal access to captions, links and polling. A rehearsal will cover accessibility, timing and contingencies. Participants will shape discussion through an opening poll and digital questions. A low-bandwidth tool will support polling and engagement, with chat and floor access available as alternatives. Contributions will inform the final report.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Marland Klara, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC)
+**Organizer 2:** Hannah Brice, Global Partners Digital
+**Organizer 3:** Helen Turek, Freedom Online Coalition Support Unit
+**Organizer 4:** Zach Lampell, ICNL
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Zach Lampell, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 2:** Luc Dockendorf, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 3:** Jamal Tonzua Seidu , Government, African Group
+**Speaker 4:** Nicole Karlebach, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 5:** Sabhanaz Rashid Diya, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Zach Lampell, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Marland Klara, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Hannah Brice, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #247 Knowledge and AI: Reconnecting AI governance and WSIS vision
+
+## Description
+
+Knowledge lies at the heart of AI. It is both the source from which AI systems learn and a key output of AI processing. Knowledge is also a fundamental asset of individuals, communities, institutions, and countries, shaping development, innovation, cultural identity, and the exercise of human rights. Yet, knowledge is less visible in current governance debates than data, infrastructure, algorithms, and computing power. This represents a shift from the original WSIS vision. In 2005, the Tunis Commitment and Agenda mentioned knowledge 29 times and data only 10 times. As AI reshapes societies and economies, it is time to return knowledge to the centre of digital governance. This session will examine knowledge as a critical AI asset from technical, legal, security, economic, human rights, standardisation, and development perspectives. It will explore how open-source platforms, open data, standards, taxonomies, and knowledge infrastructures can support the creation, exchange, and responsible use of knowledge. The discussion will address intellectual property, licensing, attribution, and the balance between protecting and sharing knowledge. Creative Commons will be considered as possible framework for enabling access while safeguarding the rights of knowledge creators in the age of generative AI. The session will also explore knowledge as a strategic and security asset, including risks related to manipulation, loss, concentration, and external dependency. Particular attention will be given to bottom-up AI: systems developed around local languages, cultures, institutions, and community needs. Such approaches are increasingly technically feasible, economically affordable, and ethically desirable. Finally, the session will examine both explicit knowledge, preserved in books, documents, and databases, and tacit knowledge, embedded in oral traditions, professional experience, and social interaction. Through an open, interactive format, the session will revolve around this central question: who creates, preserves, organises, validates, controls, shares, and benefits from knowledge in the age of AI?
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+As AI systems increasingly depend on knowledge as core input and output, how can governance frameworks give knowledge a more central place, and what would returning to the WSIS emphasis on knowledge mean in practice? How can intellectual property, licensing, and attribution frameworks balance the protection of knowledge creators' rights with open access to knowledge in the age of generative AI? What conditions, mechanisms, and enabling environments would allow communities, local institutions, and smaller actors (particularly in developing and least developed countries) to develop bottom-up AI grounded in their own languages, cultures, and knowledge, while safeguarding that knowledge from exploitation?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+This session aims to reconnect AI and digital governance debates with the WSIS vision of knowledge societies, generating insights on how knowledge is created, protected, shared, and governed in the age of AI. Expected outcomes include: A shared understanding of knowledge as a governance concern distinct from data, infrastructure, and compute. A mapping of tools and frameworks (such as open data, standards, taxonomies, and licensing models such as Creative Commons) for balancing the protection and sharing of knowledge. Potential guiding principles and examples for bottom-up AI grounded in local languages, cultures, institutions, etc. especially in developing countries. Suggestions for policy actions giving knowledge a more central place in governance. Participants will gain a clearer vocabulary for distinguishing data, information, and knowledge, exposure to diverse disciplinary and regional perspectives, and familiarity with the concept of bottom-up AI and its application in practice.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+
+**Format description:** We propose an open-ended conversation that would maximise the degree of audience engagement, bringing the moderator, the speakers, and all session participants on the same level and encouraging anyone to speak up. The length of the session is medium, allowing just enough time for participants to warm up and not too long for the conversation to lose its focus.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** We invite IGF participants to join us for a somewhat different type of session - an open-ended conversation dependent on audience inputs. All participants will have a chance to speak, onsite and online, guided by the moderators. There will be no panellists with lecture-like presentations, and the proposed speakers will focus on “provoking” the conversation. The session will rely on experienced moderators who will – throughout the entire session – pay equal attention to onsite and online participants, ensuring that interventions from both audiences are treated equally. Online participants will be constantly encouraged to contribute their views, both by voice and by text chat. An additional experienced online moderator will engage with participants in the chat and ensure that the discussions happening there are integrated into the overall session. Moreover, we may use live discussion tools (e.g., Slido, Mentimeter, and Pigeonhole) to facilitate real-time exchanges between onsite and online participants.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Sorina Teleanu, DiploFoundation🔒
+
+**Organizer 2:** Jovan Kurbalija, 🔒
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** KATHERINE GETAO, Civil Society, African Group
+
+**Speaker 2:** Henri VERDIER, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+**Speaker 3:** Julia Williams, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+
+**Speaker 4:** Jovan Kurbalija, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Jovan Kurbalija, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Sorina Teleanu, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Sorina Teleanu, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+4.7
+
+5.b
+
+8.2
+
+8.3
+
+9.c
+
+10.3
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #268 Bridging the AI Governance Divide: A Policy Roadmap for MENA
+
+## Description
+
+AI governance in MENA is moving beyond principle-setting. Governments and firms are progressing from generative AI pilots toward wider deployment, including increasingly agentic systems, while capabilities to procure, evaluate, monitor and govern them remain uneven. The challenge is how countries and organizations with very different foundations can meet emerging expectations for interoperability, accountability, operational human oversight and evidence of effectiveness.
+MBRSG’s Bridging the AI Divide report examined unequal AI readiness across MENA and how regional cooperation could strengthen participation in global governance. In 2026, the policy challenge has evolved. The UAE’s announced framework for deploying agentic AI across government illustrates the pace of change, while other countries continue to face constraints in infrastructure, data, skills and regulatory capacity..
+Building on the MBRSG-Google.org Bridging the AI Divide study of 327 AI and digital companies across ten MENA countries, this session asks what shared responsibility requires when countries are moving at different speeds. It applies a three-part lens: a common governance baseline; requirements adapted or phased according to risk, sector and institutional capacity; and scarce capabilities that could be shared or coordinated regionally.
+A short context update and a multistakeholder panel, representing regional research, industry and international governance bodies, will examine how experimentation can coexist with oversight and accountability; what evidence, metrics and reporting practices can support learning from pilots, failures and near misses; and which capabilities should be developed nationally, shared regionally and coordinated globally. Onsite and online participants will contribute examples from their own contexts.
+Onsite and online participants will contribute examples of governance and learning bottlenecks from their own contexts. The session will conclude with a MENA Shared Responsibility Agenda for AI Governance. The goal is not a uniform regional model, but practical cooperation that helps countries govern nationally, learn regionally and shape globally.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. How should responsibility for AI experimentation, oversight, accountability and institutional learning be shared among governments, deploying organizations, technology providers and technical communities when countries are moving at different speeds?
+B. What evidence, metrics and trusted reporting mechanisms could countries share to learn from AI deployment, failures and near misses while preserving security, confidentiality, public accountability and national context?
+C. How can MENA countries and stakeholders ensure that regional evidence and implementation experience meaningfully shape global AI-governance priorities, standards and cooperation mechanisms?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+Building on MBRSG’s regional research, this session will produce a concise MENA Shared Responsibility Agenda for AI Governance, informed by prepared speaker contributions and evidence shared by onsite and online participants.
+**The agenda will identify:** shared-responsibility propositions for governments, deploying organizations, technology providers, international organizations, research institutions and technical communities; practical priorities for regional cooperation, including shared implementation evidence, adaptable indicators, evaluation approaches, incident and near-miss learning, and access to scarce governance expertise; and mechanisms through which experience from MENA countries and stakeholders can contribute more meaningfully to wider AI-governance discussions.
+The outcome will distinguish areas of convergence from unresolved tensions, including transparency versus confidentiality, common baselines versus national adaptation, and shared responsibility versus diffuse accountability. It will not claim regional consensus or prescribe a uniform model. Findings will inform MBRSG’s continuing research and be shared with relevant policymakers and IGF intersessional communities.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Theater
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+Format description: We propose a 90-minute theatre-style session with three segments:
+1. Evidence and Recent Developments (10 minutes): A concise update on the 2025 Bridging the AI Divide research, highlighting accelerated generative and agentic AI deployment, continuing differences in national capabilities, and the need for shared responsibility, regional learning and participation in global AI-governance discussions.
+2. Multistakeholder Panel Discussion (60 minutes): Experts from research, industry, international public administration and the technical community will examine how responsibility for experimentation, oversight and accountability should be shared; what evidence, metrics and trusted reporting practices can support learning from implementation, failures and near misses; and which governance capabilities should be developed nationally, shared regionally or coordinated globally.
+3. Interactive Audience Discussion and Synthesis (20 minutes): Onsite and online participants will contribute governance bottlenecks, implementation lessons and underrepresented perspectives. The moderator will conclude by summarizing shared-responsibility propositions, practical regional cooperation priorities and unresolved policy tensions.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** We will appoint dedicated onsite and online moderators to ensure balanced participation across both audiences. The online moderator will monitor the virtual platform, curate questions and comments, and introduce remote contributions at planned points during the panel and audience discussion.
+A shared Miro board will enable onsite and online participants to contribute examples of governance bottlenecks, implementation lessons and perspectives missing from wider AI-governance discussions. Contributions will be organized under three areas: national responsibility, regional cooperation and global participation. Selected examples will be brought directly into the panel discussion.
+During the interactive segment, questions and experiences will alternate between onsite and online participants. The online panelist will participate throughout the session rather than in a separate remote segment. The rapporteur will capture contributions from both audiences, including areas of agreement and unresolved tensions, for inclusion in the post-session MENA Shared Responsibility Agenda for AI Governance and support transparent post-session documentation.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Salem Fadi, Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government
+**Organizer 2:** Akmaral Orazaly, MBRSG
+**Organizer 3:** Eiman Almarzooqi, Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government
+**Organizer 4:** Saeed Al Amri, Mohammed bin Rashid School of Government
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Gilles Fayad, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 2:** Akmaral Orazaly, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 3:** Salem Fadi, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 4:** Deniz Susar, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+**Speaker 5:** Rasha  El Hallak, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Salem Fadi, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Eiman Almarzooqi, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Saeed Al Amri, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+9.5
+9.b
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+10.2
+10.6
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+16.7
+16.8
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
+17.16
+17.6
+17.9
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #314 Walk the talk: Practicing inclusive AI governance with AIDA
+
+## Description
+
+While inclusive, human-centred AI governance is widely recognised as essential, many stakeholders. particularly civil society organisations, policy practitioners and emerging economies, still lack practical tools to meaningfully participate in governance processes. How can we move from discussing inclusive AI governance to actually practicing it?
+
+This workshop aims to demonstrate how community-built AI tools can strengthen meaningful participation in AI governance and contribute to governing the Internet in the Age of Intelligence as a truly shared responsibility by combining capacity development, collaborative foresight and open knowledge sharing.
+
+The interactive workshop introduces a new open and community-driven AI Governance and Digital Policy Assistant (AIDA) designed to strengthen AI governance capacity. AIDA helps users understand AI governance concepts, explore the technologies behind today's AI systems, examine potential futures, and identify concrete actions they can take to proactively shape trustworthy and inclusive AI governance. Built on an open-source foundation and powered by a carefully curated knowledge base, it enables the community to continuously contribute new resources and expertise, evolving into a shared digital commons rather than a closed knowledge system. Rather than presenting AIDA through demonstrations alone, participants will actively use the tool throughout the session. Together, participants will explore alternative futures, identify governance challenges and opportunities, and co-create practical governance responses using AIDA as a collaborative facilitator. This "walk the talk" approach illustrates how AI itself can support more inclusive, transparent and participatory governance processes.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+- How can open, community-driven AI tools strengthen meaningful participation in AI governance and help bridge capacity gaps among civil society, policymakers and underrepresented stakeholders?
+
+- What governance models and incentives are needed to develop AI assistants as trusted digital commons that promote transparency, openness, accountability and collaborative knowledge creation?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+Participants will gain hands-on experience using AIDA to explore future AI governance scenarios and to co-create concrete, stakeholder-based governance actions, while deepening their shared understanding of AI technologies.
+
+The workshop will produce practical recommendations for improving AIDA and expanding its use, with particular attention to youth, civil society, and small and developing states, including ideas for how the community can contribute resources to its knowledge base.
+
+It will also provide insights on how open, co-created AI tools can be developed, governed, and sustained as a digital commons and inform both AIDA's further development and broader discussions on inclusive AI governance.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** An ideal layout would consist of several round tables spread across the room, each seating 8-10 participants, with enough space between them for breakout group work. A short plenary setup at the front for framing and report-back, then participants disperse to their tables for the co-creation phase. Each table needs at least one device/laptop to access AIDA live, and ideally a flip chart for mapping stakeholders and actions.
+
+**Suggested duration:** 90 minutes, broken roughly into framing and live AIDA demo (15 min), group work exploring futures and co-creating governance actions (45–50 min), and report-back and joint recommendations (20 min).
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The workshop is well suited to a hybrid setup. In addition to the in-person tables, one group will run as an online 'roundtable' on Zoom, where remote participants work through the same tasks with their own online moderator. That moderator reports the online group's findings during the plenary report-back, alongside the in-person groups. Online participants also join the introductory plenary session and the plenary wrap-up, so they are part of the shared framing and closing throughout.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Katarina Andelkovic, 🔒
+**Organizer 2:** Arja Nunn, GIZ
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Ana Toskic Cvetinovic, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
+**Speaker 2:** Cyprian  Nyarige Nyamweno, Government, African Group
+**Speaker 3:** Gevorg Hayrapetyan, Technical Community, Eastern European Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Katarina Andelkovic, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Katarina Andelkovic, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Katarina Andelkovic, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #379 Small Island inclusive Internet Governance: the ccTLD cases
+
+## Description
+
+Small island territories face several specific challenges from infrastructure limitation to dependence on external providers as well as the need to build capacity at the local level but also to foster regional cooperation and integration underscoring the importance of multistakeholder collaboration.
+Country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) are strategic digital assets that support national or regional identity, trust, and Internet resilience. For small island territories, managing ccTLDs presents unique technical, institutional, and policy challenges, including limited human and financial resources and the need to reconcile local interests with global Internet governance.
+This workshop will examine how small island territories can strengthen the technical operation and governance of their ccTLDs while ensuring meaningful participation from local Internet communities. The discussion will highlight multistakeholder approaches that bring together registry operators, governments, technical experts, civil society, academia, the private sector and end users to develop sustainable governance models.
+We will leverage the allocation of public service delegations to the French registry AFNIC to manage the ccTLDs of French small island territoriesand compare this model with others to understand how local Internet communities can benefit from a multistakeholder approach that facilitates the exchange of experiences and good practices
+Participants will explore good practices for resilient registry operations, DNS security, capacity building, community engagement, and public policy frameworks that foster transparency, accountability, and local ownership. Case studies from small island territories across different regions will illustrate successful initiatives and identify common challenges.
+The session will also address how regional and international cooperation - including support from ICANN, regional Internet organizations, and the broader technical community - can enhance local capabilities without undermining community-led governance.
+Through an interactive discussion, participants will identify practical recommendations to improve both the technical resilience and the policy governance of small island ccTLDs, ensuring they remain trusted public resources.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. How can island territories strengthen the technical resilience and security of their ccTLDs while maintaining local control and sustainability?
+B. Which multistakeholder governance models best ensure meaningful participation of local Internet communities in ccTLD policy development and decision-making?
+C. How can regional and international cooperation support island ccTLD operators while preserving local ownership, sovereignty, and community interests?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The workshop will produce a set of practical recommendations for strengthening the governance and technical management of small  island territory ccTLDs through inclusive multistakeholder approaches. Participants will identify key success factors for improving operational resilience, community participation, and policy coordination.
+The session will foster new connections among registry operators, governments, technical organizations, and civil society representatives from small  island territories, encouraging future collaboration and capacity-building initiatives. The recommendations may also contribute to broader discussions within the Internet governance ecosystem on strengthening local Internet infrastructures and promoting community-driven digital development.
+Participants will leave with concrete examples, policy insights, and practical tools that can be adapted to their own local contexts.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** A 90-minute roundtable is the most appropriate format because it promotes equal participation among speakers and maximizes interaction with both onsite and online attendees. Rather than relying on formal presentations, the session will combine brief introductory interventions with moderated discussion, audience questions, and exchanges of practical experiences from different island territories.
+This format encourages cross-regional dialogue, comparison of governance models, and collaborative identification of good practices. Interactive polling and online questions will ensure that remote participants contribute on an equal footing with those attending in person, reinforcing the workshop's multistakeholder and community-driven objectives.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The session will be designed from the outset as a hybrid event. An onsite moderator will facilitate the room discussion while an online moderator will ensure that remote participants can intervene throughout the session. Equal speaking opportunities will be provided regardless of participation mode.
+Interactive polling tools, moderated Q&A, and collaborative note-taking will encourage contributions from all participants. Questions collected online will be integrated into the live discussion rather than addressed separately.
+The rapporteur will summarize key points in real time, allowing participants to validate recommendations before the session concludes. This approach ensures that both onsite and online participants actively contribute to developing practical recommendations for inclusive ccTLD governance in island territories.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Sébastien Bachollet, 🔒ISOC Fr
+**Organizer 2:** Maureen Hilyard, 🔒DC-SIDS, CIIAG
+**Organizer 3:** Claire Popineau, Ministère de la Justice
+**Organizer 4:** Lucien M. CASTEX, 🔒AFNIC
+**Organizer 5:** Nicolas Raft RAZAFINDRAKOTO, 🔒ISOC-MADA
+**Organizer 6:** Olivier Crepin-Leblond, 🔒ISOC UK England
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Sébastien Bachollet, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 2:** Maureen Hilyard, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 3:** Claire Popineau, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Lucien M. CASTEX, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 5:** Nicolas Raft RAZAFINDRAKOTO, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Sébastien Bachollet, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Claire Popineau, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+4. Quality Education
+5. Gender Equality
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+13. Climate Action
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #408 Women's Leadership Pathways in Internet Governance
+
+## Description
+
+Internet governance has invested heavily in fellowships, mentoring and capacity building to broaden participation in digital policy processes. However, one question remains largely unanswered: why do so few women become leaders? The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report (2025) reports that women hold only 28.8% of senior leadership positions globally, despite growing participation across sectors. This highlights a challenge that Internet governance has yet to address systematically, building clear and sustainable pathways from participation to leadership.
+As the Internet Governance Forum community works to implement the Global Digital Compact and respond to increasingly complex digital governance issues, leadership matters. The people who chair working groups, shape agendas and influence policy decisions determine whose perspectives are reflected in global digital governance. For many women, particularly those from the Global South, progression into these roles remains limited.
+This workshop will explore how Internet governance organisations can strengthen leadership pipelines rather than simply expand participation. Through an interactive Leadership Pathways studio, participants will analyse institutional challenges, exchange successful practices and develop practical recommendations to strengthen leadership progression, mentoring, sponsorship and institutional accountability.
+The session will produce a practical resource to help organisations build more transparent, inclusive and sustainable leadership pathways. By focusing on institutional change instead of representation alone, the workshop aims to support stronger multistakeholder governance and ensure that the next generation of Internet governance leaders better reflects the diversity of the global Internet community.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+1. What institutional policies and practices can help transform participation in Internet governance into sustainable leadership opportunities?
+
+2. How can Internet governance organisations strengthen transparent and inclusive pathways to leadership, particularly for women and underrepresented communities from the Global South?
+
+3. What practical measures can governments, the technical community, civil society, academia and the private sector adopt to strengthen leadership development and succession across the Internet governance ecosystem?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will produce a practical resource capturing key recommendations for strengthening leadership progression across multistakeholder institutions. The framework will identify institutional practices that support transparent leadership development, including mentorship, sponsorship, succession planning and inclusive governance processes. WIG will publish and share the framework with the wider Internet governance community to encourage further discussion and adaptation. Participants will gain practical insights into how different organisations approach leadership development, a better understanding of the institutional barriers that limit progression into leadership roles, and examples of effective practices from across stakeholder groups and regions. The session will also provide an opportunity for participants to exchange experiences, challenge assumptions and identify actions that governments, civil society, the technical community, academia and the private sector can take to build stronger, more inclusive leadership pipelines within the Internet governance ecosystem.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** A 90-minute roundtable is the most suitable format because this session seeks to generate practical solutions through dialogue rather than presentations. Leadership progression in Internet governance is a shared challenge that requires perspectives from governments, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and academia. The roundtable format creates an inclusive environment where participants can exchange experiences, examine different institutional approaches and identify practical actions to strengthen leadership pathways.
+
+The session will use a structured facilitation approach to guide participants from identifying barriers to discussing successful practices and agreeing on key recommendations. This ensures that every stakeholder group has an opportunity to contribute while keeping the discussion focused on tangible outcomes. Sixty minutes provides sufficient time to frame the policy challenge, facilitate multistakeholder dialogue and synthesise participants' contributions into the proposed Leadership Pathways Framework for Internet Governance, which will be shared with the wider community.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The session will be facilitated as single conversation across two spaces, rather than separate onsite and online discussions. Each policy question will begin with brief reflections from one onsite and one online participant before opening the floor, ensuring that remote participants help shape the discussion from the outset rather than joining only during Q&A.
+
+A dedicated online facilitator will identify emerging themes, invite virtual interventions at key moments and relay questions directly into the discussion. Rather than collecting comments at the end, recommendations from both audiences will be captured in real time using a shared collaborative document visible to everyone. Participants will also use Mentimeter to prioritise the recommendations they consider most important, allowing the final Leadership Pathways Framework for Internet Governance to reflect the collective views of both onsite and online participants.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Gloria Frimpomaah Amofah-Adjekum , Women in Internet Governance/ Makatob IT IT
+**Organizer 2:** Ines Hfaiedh, 🔒AODIRF
+**Organizer 3:** Betty Fausta, 🔒YONN
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Nwakanma Nnenna, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 2:** Prerna Chhetri, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 3:** Betty Fausta, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 4:** Mary Rose Ofianga, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 5:** June Parris, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 6:** Pari Esfandiari, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Ines Hfaiedh, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Betty Fausta, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Gloria Frimpomaah Amofah-Adjekum , Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+5. Gender Equality
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #412 What digital sovereignty does and doesn't mean: global views
+
+## Description
+
+Whilst this year's IGF celebrates the need for shared responsibility around the topic of digital governance, there is plenty of reason to think that this shared responsibility is being challenged. Policy documents from many parts of the world talk about local control, autonomy, and oversight. Although digital sovereignty is a leitmotif for many, it has been appropriated by different actors to mean different things. Herein lies one of the challenges: sovereignty only became a dominant principle of ordering the world because *it meant the same thing to all actors*. Indeed, sovereignty as one of the cornerstones of the UN charter, implies equality of treatment, and yet states and non-states are claiming the label. Yet the meaning of these digital sovereignty claims are not clear to all stakeholders in this global environment, where histories, contexts, and even language can shape perceptions of the term.
+
+Taken to one extreme, discussions around digital sovereignty foreclose conversations about global cooperation. This obviously does not sit with declarations made during the WSIS+20 Review, or previous IGFs. So what is actually going on? Do the claims of a variety of actors around digital sovereignhood compromise the idea of a global internet? How do we even begin to talk about 'Sovereign AI'? Where are the boundaries of such claims? How do each of the actors frame digital sovereignty, not only from a perspective of 'ownership of production' but also in economic and social terms?
+
+This workshop will bring together a diverse range of stakeholders from around the world to help participants get a deeper understanding of what 'digital sovereignty' means to them. Our contribution is based on a number of years of research in networks such as Giganet, Gig-arts, and participation in UN meetings on the topic.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. What does the digital sovereignty discourse emerging from your region actually mean?
+B. How does this digital sovereignty claim fit with global governance frameworks/institutions, such as WSIS and IGF?
+C. Can we start to think of a boundary, or limit to the claims of sovereignhood in cyberspace?
+D. How do we ensure that the territorialisation of key 'parts' of the internet does not contradict our ambitions for a shared global internet?
+E. Rather than a strict legal definition, should digital sovereignty be considered as a set of 'capabilities' to protect communities?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session should - first and foremost - stimulate interesting debate and conversation amongst participants. The topic of digital sovereignty is bound to be a popular one at this IGF, and yet, many commentators and practitioners to date do not seem to reflect much on the differences in understanding across different stakeholder groups and world regions. Our first outcome is to acknowledge that difference.
+
+Secondly, we hope to start mapping out this difference by helping create an understanding of what features of digital sovereignty are common to all definitions, and what are different. This should help continue discussions throughout the IGF and beyond.
+
+Finally, this will feed into ongoing research in the academic community of the facts of digital sovereignty, resulting in a broader report, based on observations from several years of participation at IGFs.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 60
+**Format description:** A roundtable will enable full engagement between speakers (some online) and the audience. We will ask speakers to provide targeted responses of maximum three minutes per intervention. We aim to use the three minute rule to ensure and encourage speakers from beyond our speaking list. Our speakers are primed to be assertive, and yet stimulate conversation by raising particular perspectives. Our speakers are also brought together with the intention of voicing that difference: we have invited a heterogenous group of individuals to talk to the subject matter.
+
+For an intense conversation about 'difference' (different understandings of digital sovereignty), one hour should suffice for this conversation. We feel that 60 minutes provides a good timeframe to structure a debate of this nature. We hope that the outcomes from this workshop will be shared in other ones as well.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** We will have an onsite moderator and an online moderator who will be based onsite. The two will sit next to each other, and confer regularly, in order to ensure that balance between onsite and online moderation will be fair.  We shall apply a three-miinute rule for interventions, roughly allowing up to 15 interventions during the session, where a participant can intervene more than once if they can help continue the flow of the conversation. As our session is designed with a specific outcome in mind, we will keep a rolling document open (google docs or cryptpad) open, to allow all to contribute notes if they feel uncomfortable in speaking. The moderators will also monitor this document (which will be shared on a big screen when an online participant is not talking), to respond to contributions, potentially asking for more insight from the author of each comment.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Jamal Shahin, University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Brussel
+**Organizer 2:** Dorijn Boogaard, NL IGF
+**Organizer 3:** Everton T Rodrigues, NIC.br
+**Organizer 4:** Stephanie Teeuwen, Brussels School of Governance
+**Organizer 5:** Bitange Ndemo, University of Nairobi
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Qusai Al-Shatti, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 2:** Dorijn Boogaard, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 3:** Everton T Rodrigues, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 4:** Bitange Ndemo, Government, African Group
+**Speaker 5:** Stephanie Teeuwen, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Jamal Shahin, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Stephanie Teeuwen, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Jamal Shahin, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+1.4
+4.7
+8.2
+9.1
+9.5
+9.a
+10.2
+16.10
+16.8
+17.6
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #417 Fragile or Agile? Fixing Internal Governance in the IGFs
+
+## Description
+
+For two decades, Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) at the global, regional, and national levels have relied on the multistakeholder model to foster open dialogue. However, behind this collaborative vision lies a growing institutional challenge: a lack of standardized, transparent, and resilient internal governance mechanisms.
+This session directly confronts the structural vulnerabilities that threaten the credibility, impact, and long-term sustainability of IGFs. Without robust internal frameworks, forums risk becoming procedurally fragile, vulnerable to capture by well-resourced actors, and disconnected from measurable policy outcomes. Participants will critically examine whether the current operational model offers genuine organizational agility or masks systemic fragility.
+
+Designed as a collaborative policy lab, the workshop brings together civil society, technical communities, industry leaders, and policymakers to dissect key governance deficits. The discussion will revolve around three core pillars:
+
+**Accountability and Inclusivity:** Establishing transparent protocols for agenda-setting, speaker selection, and decision-making to balance power dynamics between tech giants, governments, and resource-constrained stakeholders.
+
+**Institutional Sustainability:** Developing durable funding, operational, and organizational models—particularly for National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) in the Global South.
+
+**Impact Tracking:** Building lightweight Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) mechanisms to trace how non-binding discussions translate into tangible regional and national policy initiatives.
+
+Rather than offering passive criticism, this workshop aims to produce a concrete set of a minimum standards of  Internal Governance Model and  Principles. By equipping IGFs organizers with actionable reform blueprints, the session seeks to transform internet governance platforms from passive dialogue venues into resilient, accountable, and impactful institutions built for the digital age.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+How can IGFs implement standardized internal transparency protocols for agenda-setting and funding to prevent capture by well-resourced actors?
+
+What structural mechanisms can National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) adopt to achieve long-term financial and operational sustainability without compromising independence?
+
+How can multistakeholder forums establish lightweight Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) frameworks to track the real-world policy impact of non-binding discussions?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+**Internal Governance Framework:** A practical set of draft principles outlining standards for transparent agenda-setting, conflict-of-interest management, and inclusive decision-making across global, regional, and national IGFs (NRIs).
+
+**NRI Sustainability Blueprint:** Actionable recommendations identifying alternative funding models, operational practices, and capacity-building strategies to secure the long-term institutional independence of forums, particularly in the Global South.
+
+**Impact-Tracking Roadmap:** A lightweight Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) methodology designed to help organizers measure, document, and trace how non-binding multistakeholder dialogues influence real-world national and international tech policies.
+
+Enhanced Network & Knowledge-Sharing: An active community of practice connecting IGF organizers, civil society, and policy experts committed to implementing structural reforms and sharing best practices for governance resilience beyond the annual event.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** Designed as an interactive 90-minute Roundtable, this session prioritizes peer-to-peer dialogue over passive presentations. To kick off, four diverse lead discussants deliver 3-minute lightning triggers outlining key internal governance deficits.
+
+The majority of the session is dedicated to facilitated, non-hierarchical discussion among all onsite and online participants. Utilizing dual-moderation and live digital collaboration tools (Slido and Miro), the roundtable creates a level playing field where attendees actively debate reform proposals, address power imbalances, and co-draft a set of practical Internal Governance Principles for the IGF community.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** To guarantee complete parity between physical and remote participants in our 90-minute Roundtable, we employ a dedicated Dual-Moderation Strategy. An Onsite Moderator manages the physical room while a Remote Moderator manages the Zoom queue, chat, and technical needs, maintaining a live backchannel to alternate speaking queues 1:1. Remote speakers sit "at the table" via main-screen displays and high-definition room audio.
+
+Designed as an interactive Policy Lab, long lectures are replaced by 3-minute lightning triggers, reserving over 70% of the session for open debate. All attendees interact through a single digital hub: Slido for live polling/Q&A upvoting (accommodating non-native speakers or low bandwidth) and Miro for a 20-minute live co-drafting segment. High-contrast, screen-reader-accessible visual sharing ensures an inclusive, high-quality experience for all participants.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** MOHAMED FARAHAT, 🔒African IGF
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** MOHAMED FARAHAT, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 2:** Malek   khachlouf, Government, African Group
+**Speaker 3:** Shifa Sorene Assefa , Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+**Speaker 4:** Amged B Shwehdy, Intergovernmental Organization, African Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+MOHAMED FARAHAT, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+MOHAMED FARAHAT, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+MOHAMED FARAHAT, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+16.6
+16.7
+17.16
+17.17
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #442 Building Stakeholder Expertise into the UN Global Mechanism
+
+## Description
+
+Following two decades of ad hoc formats, the establishment of the UN Global Mechanism on ICT security provides to Cyber Diplomacy a permanent institutional home, and shifts its purpose from negotiating norms on the safety and security of the cyber domain to implementing them.
+
+The Mechanism also comes with a new structure that carries a significant recognition. The establishment of Dedicated Thematic Groups, complementary to the plenary agenda, integrates stakeholders' expertise into delegations' deliberative responsibilities on specific issues. With this shift, Cyber Diplomacy has formalised the acknowledgement that effective cyber governance cannot be sustained without the technical and scientific knowledge that expert communities provide across different regional contexts, and without the diverse sectoral perspectives that different stakeholder communities bring.
+
+Yet questions remain on how this novel structure will function, and on how to ensure its effective support to the plenary. Questions remain too on how to build a common language, shared priorities, and a constructive exchange between delegates and expert stakeholders, where knowledge flows in both directions and regional perspectives from across the globe are treated as indispensable inputs rather than optional additions. These are critical conditions for the effective implementation of the UN Global Mechanism, and questions the broader IGF community is well equipped to address.
+
+Building on the first plenary session held in July 2026, on the Cyber Diplomacy Compass consultations convened alongside it by EU Cyber Direct, and on the first Dedicated Thematic Groups meeting from 7 to 11 December 2026, this session brings together delegations, the technical community, civil society and industry to work through these questions. With the ambition of producing concrete recommendations to be shared with the UN Secretariat and Global Mechanism delegations, the session works towards the further integration of expertise in the consolidation of the Global Mechanism on ICT security.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+**A:** At what points in the Global Mechanism's cycle is stakeholder expertise most useful to delegations, and what would make its contribution visible in the outcomes of the Dedicated Thematic Groups?
+
+**B:** What conditions would allow expertise from all regions to reach the process on equal terms, and where should responsibility for creating those conditions sit between states, stakeholders, and capacity building efforts?
+
+**C:** How can engagement between delegations and expert communities be sustained between sessions, and what forms of continuity would strengthen the implementation of the Mechanism without adding to the burden on smaller delegations?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will produce a short set of practical recommendations on stakeholder support in the Global Mechanism, drafted from the discussion and shared with delegations and stakeholder communities ahead of the 2027 cycle. A session report will be published by EU Cyber Direct and shared with UNODA, the Chair of the UN Global Mechanism, and delegations, feeding into EU Cyber Direct's regular preparatory work on multistakeholder contribution to the Global Mechanism and the broader Cyber Diplomacy domain.
+
+Participants will leave with a clearer picture of how the Mechanism's new structure works in practice, drawn from delegations and expert communities involved in its first sessions. Delegates will gain perspectives from technical, academic, and civil society communities across regions on what expertise can realistically be supplied and what it requires, and the exchange is intended to establish contacts sustained between sessions rather than reassembled at each meeting.
+
+## Reference Document
+
+Reference Document
+
+## Format
+
+Classroom
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The classroom layout accommodates a wider group than a roundtable while keeping participants at a working surface, which suits a session where delegations and expert stakeholders are expected to draft and refine recommendations rather than only listen, working from policy questions circulated in advance. Ninety minutes is the minimum this requires. Short framing interventions take thirty minutes, leaving a full hour of open exchange, which is what a multistakeholder discussion needs once a regionally balanced speaking queue is accounted for. A shorter slot would compress the exchange into a sequence of statements rather than a conversation.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** Speakers will be split across both modalities, with at least one framing intervention delivered remotely. An online moderator will hold an equal role throughout, sharing a single alternating speaking queue with the onsite moderator and taking the floor at fixed announced intervals rather than at the end. Chat questions will be read aloud and attributed. The roundtable format, with policy questions circulated in advance, suits hybrid exchange better than sequential presentations. A collaborative document will carry a live summary and written interventions, with a pre-session form collecting input from regions poorly served by the time slot.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Andrea Calderaro, CyberDirect/European Institute for Security Studies
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Raman Jit Singh Chima, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+**Speaker 2:** Moliehi Makumane, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+**Speaker 3:** Maria Paz Canales, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 4:** Madeline Carr, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Andrea Calderaro, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Adolfo Moreira, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Houwen Marius, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+10. Reduced Inequalities
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+17. Partnerships for the Goals
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #51 Coordinating Digital Governance in the Age of AI
+
+## Description
+
+The implementation of the IGF's permanent mandate offers an opportunity to strengthen coordination across a complex digital governance landscape. As AI reshapes the Internet and digital policy, improving coherence among institutions, stakeholders, and governance processes is essential to addressing shared challenges while preserving the multistakeholder model.
+
+This workshop will introduce the proposed Dynamic Coalition on Global Digital Governance Coordination (DC-GDGC) as a platform for dialogue, collaboration, and knowledge sharing on governance coordination. Bringing together representatives from governments, international organizations, the technical community, civil society, academia, and the private sector, the session will examine practical approaches, lessons learned, and successful coordination practices that can reduce fragmentation, strengthen policy coherence, and improve collaboration across global, regional, and national digital governance processes.
+
+Moving beyond a traditional panel, the workshop will operate as a Coordination Challenge Lab. Following brief framing remarks and an opening poll, onsite and online participants will work through practical digital and AI governance scenarios to identify which institutions and stakeholders need to coordinate, where gaps or overlaps exist, and what mechanisms could improve cooperation. Participants will build a Digital Governance Coordination Map in real time, while invited experts from different stakeholder groups will act as challengers and resource persons. The session will conclude with participants prioritizing the three coordination gaps most urgently requiring action and identifying practical next steps. This participatory process will ensure that the session's recommendations are generated by the wider room.
+
+The resulting map, priorities, and recommendations will be captured in a concise session report to inform DC-GDGC's  work and contribute to broader efforts to strengthen cooperation and coherence across the digital governance ecosystem.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. How can digital and AI governance be better coordinated without creating new layers of bureaucracy or weakening the multistakeholder model?
+B. Where are the most consequential gaps and overlaps across Internet, digital, and AI governance, and what coordination mechanisms could address them?
+C. What practical role can the proposed DC-GDGC play in connecting governance processes, sharing effective practices, and turning multistakeholder dialogue into coordinated action?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will produce a participant-generated Digital Governance Coordination Map, identifying relevant actors, existing coordination mechanisms, gaps, overlaps, and missing connections across selected digital and AI governance challenges.
+
+Through the Coordination Challenge Lab, participants will test coordination approaches against practical scenarios, exchange examples of successful practices, and identify where additional coordination would add value—and where it could create unnecessary complexity or bureaucracy.
+
+Participants will collectively prioritize three coordination gaps for action and identify potential responses, including stronger connections between existing processes, knowledge sharing, further research, or new coordination mechanisms where justified.
+
+The map, priority gaps, examples of effective practice, and recommendations will be captured in a concise session report. These outputs will inform discussion on the future work and priorities of the proposed DC-GDGC and provide participants with a practical framework for assessing governance coordination challenges.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The 90-minute roundtable enables the session to operate as a participatory Coordination Challenge Lab rather than a traditional panel. Brief framing remarks will be followed by an opening poll and practical governance scenarios. Onsite participants will work at tables while online participants engage with the same questions through shared digital tools.
+
+Participants will collaboratively build a Digital Governance Coordination Map, identifying actors, existing mechanisms, gaps, overlaps and missing connections. Invited experts will serve primarily as challengers and resource persons, responding to participants' findings rather than delivering sequential presentations.
+
+The final phase will bring onsite and online participants together to prioritize the three most urgent coordination gaps and identify practical next steps. The roundtable layout supports collaborative work and equitable participation, while 90 minutes provides sufficient time to move from problem identification through analysis to concrete, participant-generated outcomes.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The Coordination Challenge Lab will treat onsite and online participants as one working group rather than separate audiences. Both will respond to the same live polls, scenarios and prioritization exercises. A shared digital workspace will capture contributions from both groups in real time as participants jointly build the Digital Governance Coordination Map.
+
+The onsite moderator will facilitate the overall Lab, while the dedicated online moderator will actively bring virtual contributions, questions and challenges into each stage of the discussion. Invited experts will respond to findings generated by participants rather than deliver lengthy presentations.
+
+Following scenario work, all participants will vote on the three most urgent coordination gaps and potential responses. Results will be displayed live and used for the closing synthesis. The experienced moderation and rapporteur team will ensure balanced participation, capture divergent perspectives, and integrate onsite and online contributions into the session outputs.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Pari Esfandiari, 🔒Global TechnoPolitics Forum
+**Organizer 2:** Yik Chan Chin, Beijing Normal University/UNU Macau
+**Organizer 3:** Olga Cavalli, Argentina Ministy of Defense
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Olga Cavalli, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+**Speaker 2:** Anriette Esterhuysen, Civil Society, African Group
+**Speaker 3:** Yik Chan Chin, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Moderator
+
+Pari Esfandiari, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Olga Cavalli, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+Yik Chan Chin, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+16.6
+16.7
+16.8
+17.14
+17.16
+17.17
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+# IGF 2026 WS #97  Operationalizing WSIS+20: EU–Africa Dialogue through NRIs
+
+## Description
+
+The adoption of the WSIS+20 Outcome Document marks a new phase in global digital cooperation, shifting the focus from policy development to implementation. As preparations begin for the 2027 review of the GDC, National and Regional Internet Governance Forum Initiatives (NRIs) are increasingly recognised as key platforms for translating global commitments into national, regional, and local action through inclusive, multistakeholder processes.
+
+Throughout 2026, the African Internet Governance Forum (AfIGF) community has advanced this agenda through the “Road to Ghana” Community Engagement Series, culminating in the 15th AfIGF in Accra, Ghana. These consultations have brought together governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia, and youth to identify Africa’s priorities and recommendations for implementing the WSIS+20 Outcomes and the Global Digital Compact. In parallel, EuroDIG 2026 has provided a platform for European stakeholders to exchange experiences, shape regional priorities, and develop recommendations on digital cooperation.
+
+Building on these complementary regional processes and the longstanding Africa–Europe dialogue on digital governance, including the 2023 EuroDIG Opening Plenary on “Digital Cooperation between African and European Parliamentarians” and EuroSIG, this workshop will bring together stakeholders from both regions to reflect on the key messages emerging from EuroDIG 2026 and AfIGF 2026. Participants will explore how the evolving digital governance landscape and the WSIS+20 Outcomes can strengthen Africa–Europe cooperation.
+
+The dialogue will examine how recommendations from both regional IGF processes can inform global digital governance discussions and the 2027 GDC review. Particular attention will be given to the role of NRIs in advancing implementation through peer learning, knowledge exchange, collaborative initiatives, and policy innovation while preserving the bottom-up multistakeholder model. The workshop will identify practical opportunities for Africa–Europe collaboration and develop actionable recommendations to strengthen NRIs' contribution to implementing the WSIS+20 Outcomes and to advancing an open, inclusive, secure, resilient, and people-centred digital future.
+
+## Policy Question(s)
+
+A. How can the key messages, priorities, and recommendations emerging from EuroDIG 2026 and the 15th Africa IGF 2026 translate the WSIS+20 Outcomes into concrete action at the national, regional, and global levels?
+B. How can National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) strengthen their role in implementing the WSIS+20 Outcomes, contribute to the 2027 review of the Global Digital Compact, and identify concrete opportunities for EU–Africa cooperation on digital governance?
+C. What practical EU–Africa initiatives can be developed through the NRI ecosystem to pilot, exchange, and scale innovative approaches to emerging digital governance challenges while preserving the bottom-up, multistakeholder model?
+
+## Expected Outcomes
+
+The session will:
+1.  Identify areas of convergence between the Africa IGF 2026 Outcome Message and EuroDIG 2026 Messages, highlighting shared priorities and opportunities for strengthened EU–Africa cooperation on digital governance.
+2.  Develop actionable recommendations on how National and Regional Internet Governance Forum Initiatives (NRIs) can contribute to the implementation of the WSIS+20 Outcomes, including through:
+2.1. Peer learning and exchange of national and regional experiences;
+2.2. Innovative forms of collaboration and policy experimentation; and
+2.3.  Stronger multistakeholder engagement while preserving the bottom-up model.
+
+3. Identify practical opportunities for EU–Africa collaboration, including joint learning, knowledge exchange, cross-regional partnerships, and cooperative approaches to emerging digital governance challenges.
+4. Strengthen collaboration among African and European NRIs by sharing practical experiences and approaches to implementing global digital governance commitments at national and regional levels.
+5. Produce an EU–Africa Dialogue Outcome Note summarising key messages, areas of convergence, and recommendations.
+
+## Format
+
+Roundtable
+**Duration (minutes):** 90
+**Format description:** The session will be conducted as a 90-minute facilitated roundtable discussion rather than a traditional panel, creating an inclusive environment where African and European stakeholders participate on an equal footing. This format encourages open dialogue, peer-to-peer learning, and active participation from all attendees, fostering meaningful exchanges on shared priorities and experiences.
+
+Following a brief introduction, participants will engage in an interactive discussion guided by a facilitator, with ample opportunities for interventions from both onsite and online participants. The dialogue will focus on identifying practical recommendations, strengthening cooperation between the African and European IGF communities, and exploring how National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) can support implementation of the WSIS+20 Outcomes and contribute to the 2027 Global Digital Compact review.
+
+The roundtable setting reinforces the multistakeholder model by removing barriers between speakers and participants, promoting collaboration, mutual understanding, and the co-creation of actionable outcomes for enhanced EU–Africa digital cooperation.
+
+## Hybrid Format
+
+**Hybrid Format:** The session will have dedicated onsite and online facilitators working together to ensure balanced participation. The facilitators will actively bring online participants into the discussion, alternating between onsite and virtual contributions and ensuring that questions and comments from both groups are reflected in the dialogue.
+
+The facilitated roundtable will be designed to give onsite and online participants equal opportunities to engage. The facilitators will monitor both channels throughout the session and ensure that neither group becomes a passive audience.
+
+We will use the Global IGF online participation platform, including its chat and Q&A functions, with additional tools such as Mentimeter where useful for real-time input and interaction.
+
+## Organizers
+
+**Organizer 1:** Shifa Sorene Assefa , UNECA
+**Organizer 2:** Sandra Hoferichter, 🔒
+
+## Speakers
+
+**Speaker 1:** Shifa Sorene Assefa , Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+**Speaker 2:** Sandra Hoferichter, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+**Speaker 3:** Hon Alhagie Mbow, Government, African Group
+**Speaker 4:** Philip Thigo Thigo, Government, African Group
+**Speaker 5:** Lucien M. CASTEX, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Moderator
+
+Sandra Hoferichter, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
+
+## Online Moderator
+
+Shifa Sorene Assefa , Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
+
+## Rapporteur
+
+WINNIE KAMAU, Civil Society, African Group
+
+## Participant Benefits
+
+What will participants gain from attending this session?
+
+## SDGs
+
+9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
+16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
+17. Partnerships for the Goals