You are here

IGF 2021 Suggestions (2020 Stocktaking)

Number of contributions by:

 

Stakeholder Group


Government: 4
Intergovernmental Organization: 2
Civil Society: 23
Technical Community: 7
Private Sector: 7

Regional Group

African Group: 15
Asia-Pacific Group: 6
Eastern European Group: 4
Latin American and Caribbean Group: 4
Western European and Others Group: 11
Intergovernmental Organizations: 3

From Organizations:

Action Aides Aux Familles Demunies United Nations ECOSOC


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: I would like to participate in the MAG meetings or workshop selection
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: IGF FOUR ,THEMATIC Environnment,data

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
Every year I participate in IGF Forum and this year my organisation is interested in the activities and the programme for many activities of digital technology information and communication
Dynamic Coalitions: More interesting and important
National, Regional and Youth IGFs: I would suggest to have more francophone youth among the participants

Programme Content
Workshops: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Main Sessions: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Open Forums: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
High-level leaders track: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Best Practice Forums: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Parliamentary session: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Dynamic Coalitions: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Pre-events: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Networking sessions: the speakers were of good quality and the discussions were very delightful
Gender Perspective:
IGF 2020 PPROGRAMME CONTENT FOR GENDER PERPECTIVE is interesting because we need equality for decisions governmental,and many women need to learn the programme of digital technology.

Participants:
Everything went quite well.all the partcipants behaved right as well as the discussions were well conducted
Village:
Everything went quite well.all the partcipants behaved right as well as the discussions were well conducted
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
Everything went quite well.all the partcipants behaved right as well as the discussions were well conducted
Logistics: everything was in the right order
Any other comments: everything was in the right order

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: all needs improvement
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: all need improvement
Overall programme structure and flow: all need improvement
Programme content: all need improvement
Participants: all need improvement
Any other comments: I would suggest to have more francophone youth among the participants


Brazilian Internet Steering Committee Advisory Team


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
COVID-19 presented challenges to the IGF community by the time that IGF 2020 processes were ongoing, considering an in-person meeting. We strongly acknowledge the efforts conducted by all the IGF related structures to convert the 2020 event to a virtual mode on mid-June.

Community Intersessional Activities
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
We were glad to be part of NRIs activities. Faced with the challenge to organize sessions with such different initiatives, IGF Secretariat was able to build a rich space and experience for the NRIs community.
Regarding specifically to Youth activities, we were well impressed by its organization, themes and interesting debates. We support youth dedicated space in the programme because we believe that their commitment and energy are a presence that benefits all IGF programme and experience.

Programme Content
Workshops:
In an overall view about workshops discussions we can say that was
positive, with considerable variation of topics, different stakeholders group participants with different perspectives and approaches.
Main Sessions:
Main sessions topics and discussions were good. However, the time for interaction with the audience (more Q&A time for example) could be extended.
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives:
The significant number of initiatives participants enriched the activity. In addition to the existing articulation of the NRI community, we cherish the opportunity to discuss themes common to all the community in the context of the IGF.
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: Well-organized and publicized, interesting topics and rich debates.
Networking sessions:
Although the networking sessions were good, we believe that the use of tools other than Zoom could provide a more profitable interactivity between the participants, such as Spatial Chat (https://spatial.chat/).
Gender Perspective: There was a good gender balance in general.

Communications, Outreach and Outputs: Communication was assertive and efficient.
Logistics:
As a participant, the experience in the event was in general good. The sessions were punctual, the live broadcast cast carried out well, the programme was released with sufficient time for the participants organize their personal schedule. Although, we think that the process of reaching Zoom link (with a few steps that migh be a little confused) eventually could be simplified (at least regarding active participants in the session).
Any other comments:
We encourage actions in order to increase participations of non-white and also global south speakers.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
As the decision to hold the 2020 event virtually was welcome and proved to be safe and correct, and given the ongoing global health situation, it should be convenient to decide as early as possible if the event will be held in that mode in 2021 as well.
Overall programme structure and flow:
We suggest to consider in the programme the possibility of adjustments in the schedule considering the presence of speakers from very different time zones.
Any other comments:
To maintain and encourage diversity of speakers and participants in all sessions, but also think about some way to encourage groups that do not usually have a considerable presence in IGF (such as native people from different cultures).


Bridge


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
The challenging migration from in-person event to the online was overall a success and supported increased diversity of participants. Supporting resources were impressive: e.g., the live stream and daily readouts from Geneva Internet Platform/DIG. However, there were some difficulties - registration to panels was difficult and not user friendly, it was hard to find previously selected panels.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
Programme (3 weeks) was too long. Many overlapping subjects across the sessions, which led to repetition. There was an imbalance between the tracks (e.g., environment) with a reduced number of sessions. Engagement was challenging online as it was challenging to manage virtual attendance around normal working day. Sessions were akin to webinars, and no opportunities to interact with speakers afterwards. More time needed for Q&A and discussion.

Regarding content of panels:
- Large variation in session quality.
-Sessions sought to cover too much, so scratched the surface or didn’t cover the full scope of what was on the agenda.
-Many events felt like webinars, with almost all of the time dedicated to opening remarks rather than substantive discussion.
-The purpose of many of the sessions was not always clear.

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content
Main Sessions:
We had an impression that there were many more topics strictly related to specific technologies, some of them were very in-depth, understandable only to specialists in a given field. The panels tended to focus on philosophical disputes, with few presentations on new research or reports on policy implementation.
High-level leaders track: Not many UE officials attended.

Participants: A very large diversity of participants from 170 countries.
Logistics:
Registration to panels was not user friendly. The schedule itself also needed improvement, it was hard to log in to panels. The event was very long (3 weeks) and with a large number of panels it was difficult to avoid overlaps in the discussion. Panels that were not available on YouTube could not be watched after the zoom online session.
Any other comments:
IGF needs to improve its exposure outside the internet governance bubble. Media engagement may improve with a well-supported high-level leaders’ event, and if there is a more targeted programme, with evidence-based contributions to the discussion and clearer outputs.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
Due to the coronavirus pandemic we would suggest to host an event online or in a hybrid formula.
There are many advantages to the online formula, including that it is more inclusive and accessible, but it presents engagement challenges, including ‘Zoom fatigue’ and that it lacks the human elements that are vital to the overall objectives of the conference.
Overall programme structure and flow:
We would suggest shortening the programme in 2021, 3 weeks was too long to keep the high interest of participants. Session formats should include more time for Q&A and discussion, to allow more engagement from participants who are not on the panel. All sessions should be available on YouTube post-event.
Programme content:
IGF 2021 programme should focus on evidence to support policy discussions and reporting on policy approaches, and continue to promote high-level leaders’ participation. This would make more theoretical and philosophical discussions more focused and grounded. We would recommend strengthening the role of reports and data, as well as countries representatives' experience. The whole programme is too long. It would be better to have fever events but higher quality, more time for Q&A, and more focused discussion.


CENTR


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
The event was stretched out for a very long time, which did not allow to dive into the IGF atmosphere. The thematic tracks made sense but the number of sessions and workshops was too high. Such proliferation of sessions to choose from did not allow participants to focus on highlights. In an online environment and especially when there are too many events and webinars to attend simultaneously, the ones that are most focused, sharp and to the point are the most valuable and desirable.

Community Intersessional Activities
Dynamic Coalitions: DCs should remain the integral part of the IGF programme.

Programme Content
High-level leaders track:
The session on Security was well-organised and moderated. Good selection of speakers.
Parliamentary session:
While recognising the great job of the session organisers in gathering so many parliamentary representatives, it ended up being a series of losely connected statements and speeches. The questions from the audience were not really integrated into the session, making it rather a one-way download, than a multistakeholder discussion. As a mere suggestion, it could have been good to divide sessions by topics and connect speeches and interventions with each other, allowing for a joint Q&A with the audience before moving to another block of speakers.

Participants:
Online space should make the diversity criteria more easily achievable, as such obstacles like the need to travel are eliminated. While the IGF 2020 was a good start into including more diverse speakers, there is space for improvement in including more speakers from the private sector and governments from the Global South, Eastern-Europe.
Logistics:
The security measures, access and use of the platform, the availability of a personal schedule - worked well.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Overall programme structure and flow:
When online: shorter, more focused agenda. Not more than 4 key speakers on the panels. Better integration of the audience and the speakers by making sure that there are online moderators who monitor the chat and feed back the questions to speakers. Prioritise newcomers and their voices to be heard in the agenda.
Programme content:
More focus on practical topics of digital inclusion/divide; resilience of digital infrastructure during crises (not only pandemic-related); the increased role of cybersecurity; environmental issues.
Participants:
Continuous outreach to underrepresented groups; diversifying the agenda that includes topics interesting to newcomers, including policymakers.


CyberSecurity Association of China


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
The overall arrangement was reasonable, allowing sufficient time for declaration and feedback.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
The contents of four topics and the entire agenda were substantial and comprehensive. In some activities, the guests had a heated discussion and gave wonderful opinions. This conference guaranteed the remote connection through which all guests successfully completed the speech.

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content
Workshops:
(1) The organizers came from many companies, universities, research institutions, international organizations, government agencies of different countries and regions, which perfectly reflected the diversity of participants and therefore promoted in-depth discussion from various angles;
(2) The topics of the IGF workshop covered a wide range and depth, some of which were closely connected with current affairs, showing the timeliness and social value of IGF;
(3) The selected workshop were of high quality in terms of conference design, use of remote equipment, topic presentation, speech, discussion and communication links. All provided a large amount of effective and substantial information to the audience efficiently.
Open Forums:
With a diverse and impactful topics and a large pool of participants, the forums were successful.
Gender Perspective: The 2020 IGF guaranteed and balanced the gender diversity of participants.

Participants:
The organizations, guests and speakers of the conference were diverse in terms of region, nationality and gender.
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
The report design after the IGF meeting provided the organizers with clear structure, clear themes, and prominent questions and outlines, which made the overall content of the report after the meeting enriched. And we can learn and understand a lot of information from workshop other than our own. The report can also provide organizers and participants with an opportunity to organize and review the meeting itself, so as to accumulate experience and provide support for future IGF related activities.
Logistics:
The official website was updated in a timely manner and the required information can be easily found. The online meeting was successful. It is recommended that the registration procedures can be simplified appropriately, for some non-English speakers may encounter difficulties in the process. In addition, zoom users in China’s mainland met some obstacles such as the inability to register an account. This situation could also be taken into consideration in the future.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
(1)It is recommended to start the call for workshop proposals as early as possible, and if there is a case of combining workshop that involve cross-regional or cross-country, it is recommended to reserve sufficient time for both parties to negotiate and communicate.
(2)It is also suggested to strengthen publicity both before and after the events, including information promotion of social media, search engines and mainstream media, which can help to enhance participation.
Overall programme structure and flow:
Depending on the COVID-19 pandemic situation, it is preferable to hold the offline meeting if it is allowed.concentrated in the same region.
Programme content:
(1) It is recommended to pay continuous attention to data security, personal information protection, cross-border data flow, and other related topics.
(2) It is suggested to include more representatives from more civil society groups in mainland China to further participate in MAG-related work.
(3) It is recommended to promote more cross-regional exchange and cooperation, as most of the conference participants and organizers are currently concentrated in the same region.
Participants:
It is recommended to give more attention and support to the Asia Pacific region in terms of topic setting, organization, and registration of participants, so as to increase the participation of the Asia Pacific, which accounted for 17% of the total number of participants this year, only half of that of the European region.
Any other comments:
It is recommended to put forward interaction between IGF and other international Internet events holding by various countries and regions (especially in the Asia-Pacific region) to exchange experiences and promote mutual relations.


Disease Management Association of India


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
We should have an annual calendar of activities and timelines announced during the IGF for the proceeding year. This is the best way to disseminate the future plan
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: Fine but not good enough to address the new world order post-COVID-19

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
Rather than having a dedicated session for inter-sessional work, it might be good to split and spread it too for the entire duration of the conference.
Dynamic Coalitions:
Fine for now, but it might be good to split and spread it too for the entire duration of the conference
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
it might be good to split and spread it too for the entire duration of the conference

Programme Content
Workshops:
Since it was an online event, i would consider it inappropriate to comment but overall, IGF sessions have quality speakers
Main Sessions:
Since it was an online event, i would consider it inappropriate to comment but overall, IGF sessions have quality speakers
Open Forums:
Since it was an online event, i would consider it inappropriate to comment but overall, IGF sessions have quality speakers
High-level leaders track: Good
Best Practice Forums: Good
Parliamentary session: Good.
Dynamic Coalitions: Good.
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: Good.
Pre-events: Good.
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: Good.
Networking sessions:
Since it was an online event, I would consider it inappropriate to comment but overall, IGF sessions are good
Gender Perspective: Neutral.

Participants: Good
Village: Good.
Communications, Outreach and Outputs: Needs a separate call to discuss and happy contribute.
Logistics: Good.
Any other comments:
I think 2021 would be face to face and that should address all the opportunities.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: Start it now.
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: Start hosting regional workshops to galvanize all stakeholders.
Overall programme structure and flow:
Address new opportunities arising out of COVID-19 with a solution-centric approach
Programme content: Lineup separate calls to close on this
Participants:
Start allocating a specific number of speakers to represent all regions, stakeholders in every forum
Any other comments:
I would suggest a call for :

1. Topics for IGF 2021
2. Format for both an online and hybrid IGF 2021 as we don't know if COVID-19 is going to leave us completely
3. Speakers
4. Utilizing the various DCs, MAGS etc in building up the IGF 2021.
I am happy to work / volunteer for any of these

Wish you a Merry Christmas and a Great Year ahead

Prof. Rajendra Pratap Gupta
Chair- DC on Internet & Jos


ENASTIC


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


EUROPEAN UNION FRIENDS


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: call for workshop proposals

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content

Logistics: ALL GOOD
Any other comments: EXCELLENT

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: GOOD TIMING
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: MAKING RELATIONS BETWEEN ASSOCIATIONS
Overall programme structure and flow: GOOD
Programme content: workshops, main sessions, high level sessions, open forums
Participants: YES


GROUPE ONUSIEN SCIENTIFIQUE,ECONOMIQUE,ENVIRONNEMENTAL,ENERGETIQUE,SOCIAL: AIPEA/ AIPIA/ ACAEPB/ AIRGPAIRDAM


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
JE SOUHAITE BEAUCOUP PLUS DES CONFÉRENCES, ATELIERS, SÉMINAIRES EN LA PRÉSENCE PHYSIQUE QUE DES WEBINAIRES, MALGRÉ LA PANDÉMIE COVID 19, PLEASE, ET BEAUCOUP PLUS DE SOUMISSION A PRÉSENTER EN 2021 POUR LA DÉCENNIE 2021 - 2030 DE L'ONU.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
JE SOUHAITE QUE NOUS ABORDIONS EN GRANDE PARTIE DURANT L’ANNÉE 2021, LA DURABILITÉ, LA BIODIVERSITÉ, ET LA GOUVERNANCE DE TOUS CES THÈME CITES CI DESSUS, PLEASE.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
POUR NOUS, UN SEU MOT: CONTINUEZ, EN ASSOCIANT ET EN SOUHAITANT QUE NOUS ABORDIONS EN GRANDE PARTIE DURANT L’ANNÉE 2021, LA DURABILITÉ, LA BIODIVERSITÉ, ET LA GOUVERNANCE DE TOUS CES THÈME CITES CI DESSUS, PLEASE.
Dynamic Coalitions:
D'UNE FAÇON EXCELLENTE DONT, RIEN A DIRE, MAIS, PLUS DE RIGUEUR POUR 2021, PLEASE.
National, Regional and Youth IGFs: AVEC MOIS DE PROFESSIONNALISME, MAIS AVEC BEAUCOUP DE PANACHE.

Programme Content
Workshops:
D'UNE FAÇON EXCELLENTE DONT, RIEN A DIRE, MAIS, PLUS DE RIGUEUR POUR 2021, PLEASE.
Main Sessions: LA GOUVERNANCE, LA DURABILITÉ ET LA BIODIVERSITÉ.
Open Forums: OUI.
High-level leaders track: OUI
Best Practice Forums: OUI
Parliamentary session: OUI
Dynamic Coalitions: OUI
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: OUI, MAIS PLUS DE RIGUEUR
Pre-events: OUI, EN PRÉSENCE DES CONFÉRENCIERS ET INVITES
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: OUI, EN PRÉSENCE DES CONFÉRENCIERS ET INVITES
Networking sessions: OUI, EN PRÉSENCE DES CONFÉRENCIERS ET INVITES
Gender Perspective: A AMÉLIORER PROFONDÉMENT, PLEASE.

Participants: A 100%
Village:
SANS OUBLIER LA MOBILISATION AUTOUR DES COMMUNAUTES SCIENTIFIQUE, ECONOMIQUE, MANAGEMENT/MARKETING
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
SANS OUBLIER LA MOBILISATION AUTOUR DES COMMUNAUTES SCIENTIFIQUE, ECONOMIQUE, MANAGEMENT/MARKETING
Logistics: EXCELLENCES OUTILS DE COMMUNICATIONS MODERNES, A CONSERVER.
Any other comments: UN SEUL MOT: CONTINUEZ

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
JE SOUHAITE QUE NOUS ABORDIONS EN GRANDE PARTIE DURANT L’ANNÉE 2021, LA DURABILITÉ, LA BIODIVERSITÉ, ET LA GOUVERNANCE, NUMÉRIQUE DE TOUS CES THÈME CITES CI DESSUS, PLEASE.
Overall programme structure and flow:
JE SOUHAITE QUE NOUS ABORDIONS EN GRANDE PARTIE DURANT L’ANNÉE 2021, LA DURABILITÉ, LA BIODIVERSITÉ, ET LA GOUVERNANCE, NUMÉRIQUE AVEC DE NOMBREUSES ORGANISATIONS DE PREMIER RANG MONDIAL, PLEASE.
Programme content: PROGRAMME DE LA DÉCENNIE DES NATIONS UNIES.
Participants: 100%
Any other comments: RIEN A SIGNALER, PLEASE.


ICC BASIS


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
Thanks to a timely announcement of the host country and MAG composition, sufficient time was allocated to the preparatory process, which started in good time in early January and set out a comprehensive workplan. Unfortunately, due to the outbreak of the global COVID-19 pandemic, plans had to be redrawn half-way through the process and at short notice. These unprecedented circumstances posed significant challenges to the organization of IGF 2020, which were to a large extent surmounted by the hard work and dedication of the IGF Secretariat and consultants, the MAG and MAG Chair and supporters from the IGF community.

The professionalism and support of the staff working at the IGF Secretariat was greatly appreciated both during as well as in the run-up to IGF 2020.

However, taking and communicating a decision on the changed format and dates of IGF 2020 was slower than expected, significantly shortening the time for preparation of the event. Therefore, some crucial elements of the programme, especially some of those that required a more novel approach this year due to the digital format, were left to the last minute (opening and closing sessions for the tracks, newcomers’ session, networking sessions, booth organization) which fuelled some uncertainty at times and diminished effectiveness. Communication and outreach efforts throughout the year and in the immediate lead-up to the event were also negatively impacted.
 Efforts should be made to communicate the planning process ahead of time with a clear timeline and guidelines so that prospective participants are aware of the topics, the planning process and engagement opportunities, and are well informed about the various opportunities to contribute.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
The overarching theme of IGF 2020 (Internet for human resilience and solidarity), while pertinent for the current context and broad enough to include dialogue on major global Internet governance issues, was chosen with little community input.

Having a second motto, as adopted by the MAG for IGF 2020 (Virtually together), while expressing a welcome sentiment, seemed redundant and remained largely unused by the community.

The MAG and the Secretariat worked well together in defining tracks and sub-themes. Going forward, the MAG’s process to define and select sub-themes should be formalized and communicated in advance, so that the community can accurately be informed on process and be ensured the programme reflects their responses to the call for issues.

Concentrating the IGF programme into thematic tracks remained a very welcome idea and translated well into the final programme of the IGF, making it more digestible and navigable for participants. Retaining the three tracks from IGF 2019 helped link the two events and created an opportunity to continue thematic discussions. The addition of “Environment” as a fourth track was largely welcomed by participants and created an opportunity for synergies between the IGF and the work of other UN entities and institutions.

These four tracks should be considered for continuation for IGF 2021, but attention must be paid to adding further themes and topics in order not to overcrowd the programme and maintaining a lean and manageable agenda. Likewise, attention must be paid to the duration of the event, if another virtual or hybrid meeting will be considered since it has proven challenging for many to thoroughly follow a programme over more than two weeks.

Aligning workshop proposals under the four thematic tracks worked well and was helpful to the MAG in choosing workshops and defining sub-themes under each track. It would be a welcome addition if the programme schedule featured those sub-themes in tags.

Efforts should be continued to align other sessions that are part of the official IGF programme (Open Forums, DCs, BPFs, NRI collaborative sessions, etc.) under the thematic tracks, from the start of the submission and evaluation process.

The "Guide to IGF 2020 Issues and Themes" was very welcome and useful for participants, especially newcomers, to gather all necessary information in one place and prepare for the discussions. This practice should be retained in 2021, while paying attention for the document to be produced well ahead of the annual event, to allow for community input and enough time for dissemination. Some type of “living document” could also be envisioned that evolves together with the MAG’s planning process, first including information on the outcome of the calls for issues, then track narratives, then the analysis of policy questions.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
The intersessional work of the BPFs on Cybersecurity, Local Content, Gender and Access, and on Internet of Things, Big Data & Artificial Intelligence, are strong examples of how the IGF can gather, catalogue, and share valuable tangible outputs without being prescriptive.

Efforts to archive the outputs of the intersessional work streams and BPF documents and publish them on the IGF website are appreciated. They should continue to be promoted in a manner that is accessible and searchable to the lay user who may not be familiar with the IGF and its structure (or indeed with the terminology of “BPFs”).

Continued efforts should be made to better target communication and promotion efforts of these outputs.
Dynamic Coalitions: N/A
National, Regional and Youth IGFs: N/A

Programme Content
Workshops:
The workshop proposal and selection process was well organized. However, many IGF attendees noted they were unaware of the possibility of organizing workshops or the speaking opportunities this provides.

The thematic approach helped to somewhat reduce the number of workshops on the same topics, albeit some overlap between workshops could still be observed, especially among those that tackled COVID-19.

Some sessions worked well because they combined people able to give global, policy perspectives with others able to share more operational perspectives as they are deployed on the ground.

A number of workshops and other sessions were lacking in balance and diversity in terms of speakers, with one or more stakeholder groups not represented at all in the discussion.
Main Sessions:
The Main Sessions play a useful role in the programme of providing a space for a potentially different and broader level of discussion and bringing in more high-level speakers. In this way, they help extend appeal beyond participants who regularly attend IGF meetings, and in particular among government and business constituencies who have historically had lower attendance levels. It worked well that Main Sessions were oriented to meaningful exchanges on topics of broad interest, especially those that focused on practical examples of applying policy or practices to address challenges and allow for capacity building across the range of discussants and participants, thereby reinforcing the commitment to the multistakeholder approach.

It was welcomed that the Main Sessions allowed for discussions on all four thematic tracks, as well as on digital cooperation, thus demonstrating the IGF’s role and commitment to the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation.

Two hours / session seemed to be the right amount of time to allow for a deeper dive into discussions and allow for audience input, while still maintaining the interest of participants throughout the session. It was particularly welcome that no other sessions were running in parallel with Main Sessions, thus allowing for wider participation as well as elevating the status of these sessions on the IGF program.

Providing synergies between main sessions and the IGF intersessional work, as well as the wok of NRIs gives an extra opportunity to raise the visibility and impact of their work. This opportunity should be further explored in upcoming IGFs.
Open Forums: N/A
High-level leaders track:
The efforts of the IGF Secretariat and UN DESA to attract government officials, legislators and business participants, especially for the high-level sessions was well received by the community. Efforts could be made to communicate the participation of HL attendees ahead of time to drive the interest and participation of both IGF attendees and the media.
Best Practice Forums: N/A
Parliamentary session:
Continuing the tradition of the Parliamentary track started in Berlin was welcomed. Efforts should be made to better integrate this track with the other IGF activities and ensure the participation of parliamentarians in other IGF sessions and interaction with IGF participants from all stakeholder groups.
Dynamic Coalitions: N/A
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: N/A
Pre-events:
Traditionally Day 0 is a valuable part of the IGF, with its different status and nature, and the ability it provides for groups to propose formats and sessions which do not necessarily need to conform to the structure of the rest of the IGF week. It also offers an opportunity for networking and stocktaking to prepare for the week ahead. The IGF Secretariat and MAG successfully managed to convert the nature of Day 0 into the first phase of the IGF.

Efforts should be made to integrate pre-events under the thematic tracks of the IGF and feature them on the agenda accordingly. Outcomes from pre-events could also be featured in the IGF take-aways, at least as community reports.
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: N/A
Networking sessions:
Networking sessions at the IGF 2020 were a welcome effort to help transform some of the informal elements of a face-to-face meeting to a virtual setting. Unfortunately these meetings were featured late on the IGF programme and their agenda was communicated at the last minute. This way many participants remained unaware of the meetings, or were given insufficient prior notice to fit them intro their IGF planning.

If a fully online or hybrid event is considered for 2021 more advance planning is needed to help reimagine and retain some of the networking dimension of a live event.
Gender Perspective:
Many sessions on the IGF programme have reported to have addressed gender issues as part of their discussion. Most, although unfortunately not all, session organizers have demonstrated efforts to strive for gender balance on their panels. Efforts must be sustained in this regard to ensure there are no sessions on the IGF agenda with a disproportionate underrepresentation of women.

Participants:
At over 6000 registered participants, the attendance of this year’s event reached a new record high, with remote participation allowing for many who could not have attended an in-person event to follow IGF sessions.

It would be interesting to know whether this increased level of registration also brought increased level of active participation from new groups of attendees. Therefore, further statistics would be useful to help analyse not only registrations, but the participation of connected attendees to individual sessions.

While participation of government and business representatives has improved slightly, efforts need to continue to attract these stakeholders groups to future editions of the IGF.
Village:
The IGF village is an integral part of the in-person IGF experience, providing opportunities for networking, information sharing and discovery. Unfortunately the virtual event format chosen for IGF 2020 did not provide opportunities for the impromptu and interactive nature of the booths. While efforts were made to provide a space for booth organizers to showcase their work, little was done to promote the virtual booths or add some of their activities on the agenda.

Looking ahead to 2021, if another online or hybrid event is considered the concept of the IGF village must be reviewed to allow for meaningful and interactive participation of attendees.
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
Showcasing the various IGF outputs in quasi real-time on the IGF website was very welcome and useful to demonstrate the value IGF discussions bring to the community. Capturing and promoting them successfully helps increase the reach of these conversations beyond the IGF session participants.

Commendable efforts to attract journalists were made, especially with hosting a press conference and publishing press releases about the event. These efforts could be amplified through a systematic outreach and media strategy to identify relevant news outlets ahead of time and sharing information on topics expected to be covered at the IGF, as well as high-level participants in attendance.

The IGF messages report has an important role in bridging consecutive IGF cycles and highlighting the various IGF outputs, and ensure consistency between them, therefore credibility of the IGF for the future. Efforts should be made to better inform participants on the process of drafting of the messages and how their session summaries contribute to the final IGF messages. Sharing such information with session participants helps improve the balance in participation, which in turn increases the legitimacy of messages.
Logistics:
The dedicated IGF 2020 website was launched little ahead of the event. While it contained comprehensive information and was presented in a user-friendly and creative manner, the registration for and access to the sessions was still hosted on the main IGF website. This created confusion and duplication, and possibly diminished traffic to the event’s site.

Communication activities between the IGF Secretariat, past and future host countries and the UN DESA Secretariat require better coordination, especially on social media, so that individual efforts can be reinforced and a wider audience be reached.

Registration to the individual sessions seemed laborious and confusing to many, at least in the initial stages of the event. Many did not realize that after registering to the overall event, individual registrations for individual sessions were also required by adding sessions to one’s personal schedule. It was also confusing to many how to find the participation link, once the session was added to a participant’s calendar. While it is very commendable that the highest level of precaution was taken to ensure only registered participants have access to the individual sessions, the process should be simplified and considered from a first-time participant’s perspective.

Once registered and connected to the session, the remote-participation tools worked smoothly and session organizers and moderators were successful in including both planned and ad-hoc participants in their sessions. The work of the technical support staff was excellent in supporting this. It is important that the IGF continues to encourage and support remote participation to improve inclusivity and diversity, also when returning to in-person or “hybrid” events.

The ability to follow sessions live-streamed on the IGF’s YouTube channel helped in increasing access and flexibility for participants to follow discussions. Streaming main and high-level sessions on UN Web TV also helped expand the event’s audience.

It was very welcome that recordings of individual sessions were made available immediately following the session. This practice should be maintained for upcoming IGFs as well, whether held in-person or remotely.
Any other comments: N/A

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
Format of the IGF 2021:
Given the benefits of the virtual format for accessibility, and the likelihood that the COVID-19 crisis will continue to affect travel in December 2021, organizers should consider an event that is hybrid or primarily hosted online. Indeed, even once full in-person events return, session organisers should be encouraged to include remote participants where that helps provide a geographic or policy perspective not necessarily possible because some relevant experts do not have the time and / or money to travel to an overseas meeting. Before COVID-19, remote participants were largely secondary in practice, even if organisers were encouraged to make time and use tools to provide space for questions from remote participants. Benefitting from the experiences running virtual events foist upon us by COVID-19, we should increasingly think in terms of hybrid events that will allow for a broader range of people to participate.

To support the profile of the IGF and to recognise the considerable investment by host countries, a high-level leaders’ event (or similar) in Poland should also be considered.


Agenda:
Should the 2021 edition of the IGF be held solely online, then a shorter programme is preferred – it has proven challenging to follow the entirety of the programme over three weeks in 2020. Similarly, a more focused set of topics and policy questions would be preferred to support a more streamlined agenda, with session formats that allow for greater participation from non-panel members.


Planning process:
There is an increasing need for a clear and easily understandable process, through which the community can contribute to the IGF agenda in a bottom-up fashion. A calendar and a visual representation of the process, such as an updated version of the IGF Programme Framework (https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/community-feedback-questionnaire-on-the-draft-igf-programme-framework-chart-form), would be welcome to outline the planning cycle for the IGF in a simple, yet comprehensive format, to illustrate the agenda and programme-setting process and mark deadlines and engagement points for the community.

Such a framework could also form the back-bone of a communication and outreach strategy, creating a year-long calendar for outreach messages and social media content where relevant updates can be shared on the preparatory process and track narratives and input from the community can be invited at each milestone.

The IGF Programme framework, including improvements made in 2019 and 2020, should be used as a base for the preparatory process in 2021 and should be further strengthened through clear measures of success, standards of work, and a critical number of people committed to lead/support the activity across all stakeholder groups. This would require an analysis of required resources and responsibilities, including of the Secretariat and any consultants, to ensure that any initiated work (traditionally part of the IGF or newly proposed) will be successful. There should also be clear mandates of authorization for each intersessional work stream.


Communication
There is an increasing need to raise wider awareness of existing IGF outputs and support their better dissemination.

Further discussion should be encouraged on what defines success for the IGF, what is meant by tangible outputs and what problem the outputs are intended to address. The IGF Secretariat should develop a work plan to identify, gather and better market existing outputs of the IGF. This would roughly follow the steps below:
- Identify existing outputs and outcomes, both written products and success stories of collaboration / impact
- Organize and cross-reference these by topic, and possibly with tags, so that these can be easily searched
- Identify potential audiences
- Targeted outreach and communication to better market the outputs

This work plan should be supported by a timeline, an analysis of required resources and responsibilities, and indicators and measures of success. The Secretariat should be equipped with resources to be able to execute this plan.

To improve the marketing of IGF outputs, the following should be considered:
- Pare down intersessional work streams to allow for more concentrated effort and better support for selected work.
- Task the IGF Secretariat (not a recurring MAG Working Group on Outreach and Communication) with outreach efforts and dissemination of existing outputs (policy material, reports, and case studies of successful cooperation/projects that rooted in IGF meetings and discussions). Guest blogs or interviews about IGF success stories.
- Equip IGF participants with a communications / social media toolbox or guidance on how they can help disseminate messages. This would help increase outreach and enable participants to act as multipliers to official IGF communication.
- Ensure close coordination on communication activities between the IGF Secretariat, the UN DESA communications team and the host country communications team to avoid duplication of efforts and mutually reinforce messages.

The legitimacy, accountability and balance of IGF outputs must be held to the highest standards:
- The balance of stakeholders needs to be maintained in every work stream of the IGF in order not to undermine their legitimacy, and to implement the multistakeholder approach which is intrinsic to the IGF
- Outputs of any intersessional work must ensure accurate reflection of all opinions
- The MAG should consider ways to raise profile of the IGF and strengthen the participation of underrepresented groups and regions and enhance the credibility of IGF work streams by addressing their balance and ensuring representation of regions and stakeholders. Capacity building programs aimed at underrepresented groups can help ensure meaningful participation.
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
The increasing number of IGF-related activities throughout the year is creating confusion and can lead to fragmentation. If new initiatives are proposed, without building on past or reaching out to concurrent work on the same or related topics (where available and relevant), then there is a risk that the community could become increasingly fragmented.

IGF resources are not as unlimited as the appetite for groups to come together to work on new issues. The MAG should discuss and consider a mechanism to anticipate how to deal with the increased interest in DCs, BPFs, NRIs as well as MAG working groups. These activities all compete for the same limited IGF staff support, and at times stakeholder representatives’ support, all of which only stretch so thin.

A turnover policy should be considered, activities that have reached their goals or have lost the support of the community should be sunsetted to allow resources for new ones. There is value in exploring new and innovative ideas, but this should be about quality over quantity – there needs to be a clear focus on the quality and strategic goals of such activities. In addition, efforts should be made to ensure that any new activity has not just the interest, but the active support and foreseeable engagement of a critical mass of people from the wider IGF community, and particular attention is paid to stakeholder, regional and gender balance.

The work of the BPF on BPFs in 2020 resulted in welcome guidelines in this regard to help the work of the MAG in retaining and selecting topics for BPFs. A similar exercise on Dynamic Coalitions would also be welcome.
Overall programme structure and flow:
Concentrating the IGF programme into three thematic tracks was a very welcome idea and translated well into the final programme of the IGF. The idea of three-four (but not more) thematic tracks should be maintained going forward to help streamline the agenda.

It is important to consult the broader IGF community on issues to be discussed at the IGF (through a call for issues, for example). This input should inform the MAG’s decision on the topics for thematic tracks.

Aligning workshop proposals under the three thematic tracks worked well. Efforts should be continued to align other sessions that are part of the official IGF programme (Open Forums, DCs, BPFs, NRI collaborative sessions, etc.) under the thematic tracks, from the start of the submission and evaluation process.

To ensure that Phase I / Day 0 as well as the high-level portion of the IGF programme continue to fulfil their potential going forward, there needs to be discussion on the goal, structure and composition of Phase I / Day 0 as the high-level segment with input from the MAG, and also transparency on the events, at least to all MAG members, as part of the IGF programme discussion. With the host government responsible for organizing Phase I / Day 0 and the high-level track, such a discussion within the MAG could also provide helpful guidance to the host government.

An exchange between past and future host countries and MAG members on potential improvements and ideas for both Phase I / Day 0 and the overall IGF programme would be welcome.
Programme content:
IGF communities and intersessional work should continue to be included and featured as appropriate in topical main sessions on topics of interest and relevance to them, to contribute to a more cohesive and thematic agenda, as well as overall a more collegial atmosphere.

Clearer guidelines are needed both for the proposers and evaluators of the timeline and the process of how session proposals finally make it onto the programme of the annual meeting (tracks, sub-themes, etc.). Clearer guidelines are also needed on how other sessions (open forums, DC and NRI sessions) fit into the thematic programme, as well as on their evaluation.

A reinforced communication campaign would be helpful ahead of the workshop proposal process to ensure those new to the IGF are aware of the various possibilities to be actively involved in the upcoming IGF well in advance of the annual meeting. Such a communication campaign should be supported by a rigorous timetable, guidelines and toolkits and build on the network of NRIs as well as that of MAG members to act as multipliers.
Participants:
Efforts need to continue to attract government and business stakeholders to the IGF. Participation of high-level policymakers drives interest from their counterparts from other regions and stakeholder groups. Efforts should be made to continue the trend for the involvement of top-level actors.
Any other comments: N/A


Mauritius IGF


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
The preparatory process worked well.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
The programme structure was well adhered to.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:

Intersessional activities were well disciplined since preparatory meetings with leaders and partners had already been sorted out prior to the event.
Dynamic Coalitions:

The multi stakeholder approach was a dynamic one which enabled everybody to integrate the activities.
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:

Mauritius IGF 2020 also included inputs from the Africa-Indian Ocean island States.

Programme Content
Workshops:
Excellent
Main Sessions:
Enriching with new ideas
Open Forums:
Speakers were really experts
High-level leaders track:
Good
Best Practice Forums:
Good
Parliamentary session:
N/A
Dynamic Coalitions:
Very good
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives:
Good
Pre-events:
Well monitored
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions:
Good
Networking sessions:
Excellent
Gender Perspective:
Both males and females were present and interactive

Participants:
Good and positive feedback
Village:
-
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
Well monitored
Logistics:
Good
Any other comments:
Well planned

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: -
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: -
Overall programme structure and flow: -
Programme content: -
Participants: -
Any other comments: -



Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
The preparatory process worked well.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
The programme structure was well adhered to.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:

Intersessional activities were well disciplined since preparatory meetings with leaders and partners had already been sorted out prior to the event.
Dynamic Coalitions:

The multi stakeholder approach was a dynamic one which enabled everybody to integrate the activities.
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:

Mauritius IGF 2020 also included inputs from the Africa-Indian Ocean island States.

Programme Content
Workshops:
Excellent
Main Sessions:
Enriching with new ideas
Open Forums:
Speakers were really experts
High-level leaders track:
Good
Best Practice Forums:
Good
Parliamentary session:
N/A
Dynamic Coalitions:
Very good
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives:
Good
Pre-events:
Well monitored
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions:
Good
Networking sessions:
Excellent
Gender Perspective:
Both males and females were present and interactive

Participants:
Good and positive feedback
Village:
-
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
Well monitored
Logistics:
Good
Any other comments:
Well planned

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: -
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: -
Overall programme structure and flow: -
Programme content: -
Participants: -
Any other comments: -


Ministry for Foreign Affairs (on behalf of Finnish multi-stakeholder WSIS coordination group)


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
We were glad to note the growing number of high-level panelists from outside of the IGF community. A fully virtual IGF makes participation equally possible for everyone whether working with Internet Governance or in another field. Having panelists inexperienced in the topic of internet governance brings new thinking to the table but can also have downsides.

IGF 2020 spanned over three weeks which made participation challenging.
In a virtual event, pre-events should be more clearly marked as events not gone through the MAG review process and that they do not necessarily follow the multistakeholder principles of expected of an IGF discussion.

Should fully virtual events be held in the future, the IGF should aim at a ‘traditional’ 1+4 day format.

The IGF is an important convening point for stakeholders involved in internet governance. Much of value the IGFs adds to the IG field comes from its convening power, not from its potential or capacity to take decisions.

Community Intersessional Activities
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
We appreciate the work done by the IGF secretariat. Close cooperation and information sharing through regular coordination meetings necessary to promote the principles of a bottom-up, neutral and multi-stakeholder process.

While doing the above, we welcome the space to operate as an independent NRI without any top-down mechanisms. NRIs are all different which is a richness we should cherish.

Programme Content
Networking sessions:
We welcome the introduction of a virtual ‘meet the MAG’; the preparatory process and MAG work should further be de-mystified.
Gender Perspective:
In our view this wasn’t an issue. On the contrary, discussions were positively balanced in terms of gender.

Participants:
The participation numbers reported were impressive, including the distribution of participation between stakeholder groups.

We’d like to reiterate our comment about the challenge to participate in an event spanning this long. Due to the length of the event and remote participation, many participants followed the IGF on the side of their day jobs. Therefore, we consider minutes watched or interventions/comments made to be a more relevant measure of participation than registration data.
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
The IGF should pay more attention to how the event content is used after the event and how this material could be better promoted.
Logistics:
Registration process was burdensome, especially the need to register for each session separately. Viewing through Youtube was so much easier that the sessions probably lost active participants because of this.

It was positive that (unlike planned), the registration did not close before the IGF started. There’s a need to improve communicating the information regarding registration and participation.

We’d also encourage to provide alternative participation platforms (due to security concerns, Zoom is currently banned by a number of governments and companies).

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
In general we’d support building a more focused agenda. An IGF over ten days long seems to be a bit of a mission creep.

The IGF has for some time already struggled with its ability to react to emerging/acute issues fast enough. We would suggest to consider a part of the agenda to be left open until closer to the event or that the MAG could maintain certain authority to call for relevant items to be discussed or invite certain speakers in the run-up to the event.

The IGF Secretariat should also have sufficient resources to be able to ensure efficient and timely reporting of IGF discussion outcomes to other venues and IG discussion platforms.
Any other comments:
(a) Creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums:

It remains unclear to us whether this would add another layer into the preparatory process or replace the existing MAG. It is also unclear what is meant with empowered in this context. We should rather strengthen and improve the existing preparatory process, further de-mystify the mandate and operations of the MAG than to create new layers to the top of the preparatory process.

While improving the IGF to cater for the needs of today, we should also bear in mind and respect its origins. The IGF was a carefully crafted balance with a bottom-up preparatory process. Adding an empowered layer to the top would go against this.

While we endorse the idea of strengthening the preparatory process to identify emerging issues as outlined in paragraph 72g of the WSIS outcome documents and enhanced follow-up of outcomes, the IGF process must remain bottom-up and multi-stakeholder. The IGF is a unique structure in the UN system and we should treat it as such.

We suggest follow-up actions to be coordinated by dedicated resources in the IGF Secretariat.

(b) Having a more focused agenda for the Forum based on a limited number of strategic policy issues:

We fully support sticking to paragraph 72a of WSIS outcome documents: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet.

(c) Establishing a high-level segment and ministerial or parliamentarian tracks, ensuring more actionable outcomes:

We recognize the interest for political level engagement and tracks, but again wish to reiterate our appreciation for the unique nature that has enabled all stakeholders to mix and engage in exchange of views regardless of their status. Creating separate tracks would jeopardize this IGF feature.

In all development of the IGF, we should bear in mind the carefully crafted balance at WSIS. The unique nature of the IGF must be preserved and it must not be turned into a forum negotiating outcomes.

(d) Forging stronger links among the global Forum and its regional, national, sub-regional and youth initiatives:

It is unclear what is meant by this. In our view, the IGF secretariat is already sufficiently engaged with the NRIs and the exchanges are useful. While there is need to share best practices and ensure that principles of a multistakeholder discussion are followed, the richness and variety of ways to organize an event must be maintained.

Agenda setting for NRIs must be continue to be done in a bottom-up manner. On European level, comparison of agendas has shown that NRIs do in fact discuss similar topics without formal coordination. Possibly certain themes could be – on a voluntary basis – discussed at regional level as a first step of discussing them at the global IGF.

In terms of funding, the UN should respect NRI independence and not create formal links or provide funding even if the IGF trust fund balance would so allow.

(f) Addressing the long-term sustainability of the Forum and the resources necessary for increased participation, through an innovative and viable fundraising strategy, as promoted by the round table:

We welcome increased efforts to develop fundraising and note the increased interest to support the IGF both financially and in-kind.

However, as a long-term committed donor, Finland would like to point out that the trust fund has lacked transparency as required and requested by donor governments. Our concerns and reporting requirements have simply been neglected by the IGF Trust Fund management. The focus has regrettably been in looking for new sources of funding.

Further, increased funding cannot be an end in itself. It should only be looked for if necessary. To our knowledge, the IGF secretariat functions have not been jeopardized by lack of funding. However, better long-term resourcing would allow for long-term contracting of staff. We support keeping the secretariat light on leadership as agreed by the donors and the IGF community during the course of time.

(g) Enhancing the visibility of the Forum, including through a stronger corporate identity and improved reporting to other United Nations entities:

This work should go beyond the UN. The IGF secretariat should have dedicated resources to liaise with relevant organizations both within the UN system and relevant non-UN bodies.

We do not believe the visibility can be increased by increasing senior staff. Current secretariat format where the preparatory process is led by a recognized figure in the IG community (the MAG chair) has proven to work and we support continuing this way.

Relevance builds corporate identity best so we suggest we focus on improving the substance.


MTFP


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


RIPE NCC


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Any other comments:
We preface this input by noting that the MAG and the IGF Secretariat have facilitated a number of opportunities for feedback on the IGF 2020 event, and that the RIPE NCC has already provided much of its input via those channels. We strongly commend the MAG and Secretariat for their proactive approach to seeking input and feedback.

The COVID-19-related constraints which necessitated a virtual-only IGF in 2020 will likely ease, if not completely in 2021, then in 2022 and going forward. However, this has been an important opportunity for the IGF (and many other Internet governance venues) to more fully commit to providing a remote participation experience that places virtual attendees on an equal footing with those who can travel to a physical event. That the IGF in 2020 was able to adapt so quickly and completely to the situation, and ensure that planning, preparation and execution of the event was able to happen with relatively few hitches is a testament to the work done by the MAG, the Secretariat, and the session organisers.

All Internet governance communities, including the RIPE community, have learned a great deal in the past year about how best to facilitate virtual discussions. It is clear that it is vital to find ways to maintain interactivity, and that this should not only extend to planned speakers, or even to those who decide to take a virtual microphone during the session, but to all participants. An open chat channel is a commonly employed means of facilitating active participation, but it cannot be regarded in isolation - details like allowing participants to see who else is in the “room” are key to realising the potential of this kind of interaction.

For the 2020 events, many sessions used the “webinar” mode in Zoom, which intentionally creates a more one-way interaction (speakers can interact, but most participants were not able to easily take the microphone or see the full list of participants). While using the more fully interactive option on Zoom (or other remote meeting platforms) often creates additional risk in terms of security and privacy, trading off general participation for a more secure meeting space does not achieve the aims of remote participation. While it may be necessary to hold some sessions in a “webinar” format, we would strongly encourage that most sessions be held in a more open manner. Those sessions held in “webinar” format should be prepared in a way that recognises the different engagement requirements of a “broadcast”-style format (tighter agenda management, strong speakers, etc.).

We would also strongly encourage the MAG and Secretariat to further investigate options for virtual social activities and venues during the event - the RIPE NCC has received very positive feedback about the use of SpatialChat (https://spatial.chat) during RIPE Meetings in 2020, while ICANN have also experimented with “fika" (coffee) sessions during their meetings. There is no perfect solution to this challenge, but going some way to recreating the social aspect of IGF meetings should be made a priority.

We feel these points of consideration are especially important given the exceptionally full agenda of the virtual IGF in 2020. Nearly two full weeks of sessions, while offering a wealth of opportunity to cover a broad range of topics and to be as accessible as possible across different time zones, was somewhat overwhelming — even for those familiar with the IGF.

Finally, as we move toward an eventual relaxation of travel restrictions and a return to physical events, we would like to reiterate that this should not detract from the need to place remote participants on an equal footing with physical attendees. There is important work to do in thinking about how to ensure that a return to physical events (or “hybrid” meetings) is not simply a return to privileging those who are able to attend physically. Again, this is a dilemma that many Internet governance venues are wrestling with, and maintaining open communication to learn from the experiences of others will be key. The RIPE NCC (and members of the RIPE community) look forward to sharing our experience and contributing to the IGF discussions around this topic in the coming months and years.


SEMANTIS


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
Excellent preparation with adequate interaction and inputs
Excellent management of the websites and of the reply to questions if any
During the event sessions and working groups went well and the youtube channel was operative.
Nevertheless some sessions were clearly overpopulated with speakers therefore no sufficient space and time for questions and answers from the panel.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
Programme was OK and the 4 tracks operational for understanding the overall context.
Somewhat lack of innovative perspectives as regards next steps for architecture of networks and future platform for access and inclusive usage of the the Internet. The matter was partially covered but not with sufficient foresight views including at the level the voice of independent ICT experts, auditors and advanced users.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
Interesting but not sufficiently put forward and absence of recommandations coming from partners.
Dynamic Coalitions: Could be improved in reaching wider audience including less favored population
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
Excellent organisation and follow up for the projet "wetheinternet" during which we had the opportunity to express our needs ans concern (Belgian process managed in Liege).

Programme Content
Workshops: see above
Main Sessions: OK
Open Forums: OK
High-level leaders track: OK
Best Practice Forums: see above
Parliamentary session: OK
Dynamic Coalitions: see remarks above
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: see remarks above
Pre-events: OK
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: OK
Networking sessions: Could be improved
Gender Perspective: OK

Participants:
Could be improved as regards less favored population, diasporas, migrations, plurilinguism
Village: OK
Communications, Outreach and Outputs: OK
Logistics: Excellent
Any other comments: see above

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
Keep sufficient space and timeline for inputs from a wider audience of IT experts and users communities through namely UN organisations and agencies which could be better mobilized and coordinated
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: could be improved through UN networks at large
Overall programme structure and flow:
more of less OK as 2020 but taking into account remarks made for more openness through in particular UN channels coming from org & agencies
Programme content:
As mentioned above more foresight views on technical IT architecture and norms
A session on the certification process of new standards would be useful
Participants:
More open to a variety of IT experts and for the less favored population of users, an expanded dimension for multilinguism and for the creation and diffusion of local content
Any other comments:
Semantis and its associations partners would favor, in addition to booths and stands, to explore the possibility of having on request a limited space for demonstration and explanation of Internet pilots and testbeds, not in the format of a commercial tradeshow.
It would be also useful to have an open space of non commercial documentation and books at disposal for consultation by the public with a pluriligual dimension.


Silambam Asia


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
The timeline of the session needs more systematic arranged, to create stop-time (timer) rules for each participant/speaker to allow the dissemination of information within the given timeline. Furthermore, workshop selection in the IGF platform needs to be improvised to ensure participants restrict the selection of only 1 event within each time segment (to avoid the clash/conflict of 2 event choices within the same hours).
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: All the programs well arranged with color coding, easy to track.

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content
Main Sessions:
Well-prepared and professionally organized in the past events expect to maintain the high standards in the upcoming events.
High-level leaders track:
Non-Governmental Organizations should be given equal opprtunity to participate with Government bodies - to get the equal sharing and getting vast ideas/knowledge from different perspectives (to cover from all the aspects of nature, community until government level).

Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
BEST PRACTICE (PRIOR TO ANY MEETINGS) - Microsoft Teams or similar communication platforms required for outputs or preparation within stakeholders - the workforce/teamwork should begin months before the agenda. Email alerts for such work should be coordinated and delivered to each stakeholder or committee via email. This will help to collaborate workforce, more share, and corrections made efficiently for the necessary documents.
Logistics:
IGF logistics have some room for improvement. We do realize some organizations working towards community and rural development not reachable due to financial issues. The IGF platform, technology usage, and website creation need usability and visibility concerning a lower technological group or software group. For example, some community/society groups in rural areas still using Window 95 or 2000 and traditional handphone (mobile) with the non-touchscreen because of poor signals. IGF, Intergovernmental, and Government should work hand to hand with the Non-Governmental Organization / Civil Society to tackle this lack of technology areas (for better improvements).

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
IGF requires a smooth & professional "learning platform" with a specific type of certification been offered for the given workshop. Additionally, some grants/sponsorship should be provided for the needy group (as the priority for education to reach everyone without leaving anyone) for such a workshop. The "live workshop" held in some countries should be provided with a kind of travel assistance and accommodation to ease the lower-income group participants or organizations.
Any other comments:
"FEMINIST OR MASCULINIST"

If UN-IGF supports the "Equal-Gender" concept, why bring the gender terminology ("Feminist" or "Masculinist")?

Why using gender in every area?

In the World Silambam Association (WSA), we have all combined of men-women boys-girls in our organization, as we believe men-women are the oneness of humans (harmony). I'm teaching this to all our students, members, and associates in the world for almost 30-years - the opposite from westerners' belief/concept to rage in the battle of sexes/genders.


Tripla Difesa Onlus Global Internazional No Violence


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
the site is not very well structured, we are not able to understand the sections and how to register for the various meetings

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


World Silambam Association (WSA)


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
Well prepared. Some participants did not get the opportunity to speak out their opinions or suggestions during the session because of a single event. Should split into two or three sessions for certain topics.

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content
Workshops: On track. No additional changes are required.
Networking sessions:
Several innovative ideas and technological advancements have been shared during the session.

Participants: Great participation in IGF 2020.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
On track. No additional changes are required. Good overall but additional of the "education platform" may be required therein for stakeholders learning and improvement. It will help to enhance their knowledge in certain segments of IGF.
Programme content:
Some contents of either sessions or workshops to be prepared in the form of leaflets or notes (link in .pdf format). Thus, to ease the attendees to get the glance and understand of every individual session/program (in scheduled with time structured) before the events. This helps everyone to keep pace and track the speaker's contents in the session.
Any other comments:
We are non-governmental (non-profit) organizations. Some of our delegates did not get the opportunity to travel for the past workshops/events because of limited financial support from IGF or the local government.


World Yoga Association


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content

Logistics: Well prepared and coordinated.
Any other comments: The IGF 2020 well-organised. Well done.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: Request to start early by first quarter 2021.
Participants:
IGF should play the reverse strategy in certain ways - rather than finding which country involved, try "at least" detecting the absence of any region or countries during IGF events/sessions and to ensure those countries being connected during/in the future session.

Do not leave any countries or their community left behind or unattended if considering technology to reach worldwide. Allocate every State body (the governments) to get involved equally with other IGF stakeholders if possible. To get connectivity results between all stakeholders, enhance the productivity of technological advancement/knowledge and sustainability.
Any other comments:
To allow participation of the person with a disability, IGF shall give room for sign language / ASL - for live sessions & online sessions. IF SUBSTITUTE THE SIGN LANGUAGE, then the "SUBTITLE" should be presented along with video wherever or whenever possible.

Some background sound or audio glitch was detected during speech (corrected quickly and on time) during past Virtual IGF 2020. Well done to everyone.

Learning from Pandemic, IGF should take the precaution of future events (effects) by simultaneously being prepared for BOTH EVENTS - "either" online & virtual on the same date (in case if any issues arise approaching the Poland event date).


YCIG (Youth Coalition on Internet Governance)


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
Overall, the time for preparing the event was suitable. However, in respect of workshop proposals we would have preferred if a focus on diversity in speakers and organisers was placed at the forefront of the instructions for proposing workshops, and not as a mere criteria. For example, it should be more prominent that the participation of young people should be prioritised in workshop proposals. Additionally, while the workshop selection was adequate, it should have taken into greater consideration the shorter program of the IGF2020.
Besides, we also appreciate the efforts of both host country and IGF secretariat in organizing the youth engagement webinars
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
The program was too long for an online event, and we would suggest reducing it into 2 weeks at least. In addition, while in principle we believe the four thematic tracks were appropriate for the IGF 2020, we would suggest also allowing for an indication of youth-led sessions. The idea of having a “youth” track for some sessions it makes harder to foster the participation of youth and non-youth participants (i.e youth only attend youth sessions so non-youth aren’t aware of the discussions within the youth community. ) In this way, it would be appropriate to have the 4 thematic tracks from which you can participate at youth and non-youth based sessions not only focused on “youth topics”.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
The BPF content and process was suitable, however we would suggest the IGF invest in promoting the BPF process so that more people can become involved.

Dynamic Coalitions:
In a similar manner to the Best Practice Forums, more work needs to be done to ensure Dynamic Coalition sessions are given the pride of place during the IGF. For example, we would recommend not running parallel sessions during DC sessions, and a greater push for involvement of DC members in the panels of thematic track sessions.
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
We would encourage a greater emphasis on involvement of youth and young people in the NRI main sessions either as organisers or speakers. Additionally, an issue at the IGF 2020 was NRI members joining as speakers for NRI main sessions without prior consultation to speak on behalf of their specific NRI. In order to avoid this issue in the future, it could be implemented a "transparency observatory" of NRIs.

Moreover, the Youth NRI should have got their own NRI main session, separate from the IGF Youth Summit. In this way, it would have been more useful that young individuals could participate in the IGF Youth Summit session (which they don’t have to be necessarily Youth NRI Coordinators, but relevant young leaders from around the world).

Programme Content
Workshops:
The workshops were in general terms very interesting, however it would have been better to make sure that they were participatory enough. Panels should be avoided as they are not very interactive. Several sessions were set as they were “face-to-face”, meaning they didn’t give much room for online participants to have Q & A sections. Some workshops had too many speakers, therefore they rushed their speeches and ignored the audience. Better solution would be to put a limit on the number of speakers and provide different formats during sessions proposal process (see RightsCon etc.).
Main Sessions:
We encountered several issues regarding online participation, besides it kept the essentials of panels instead of giving some room for Q&A. In some of the main sessions, there wasn’t any moderation of participants' comments on the chat (i.e some participants made comments not allowed by the IGF CoC).
Open Forums:
The organization was fine, they could have been more publicized on social media

Parliamentary session:
The session was very interesting and opened new doors for on-ground and local opportunities and meaningful activism. We recommend to establish a parliamentarians union within the IGF as part of the intersessional work and collaborate with the BPFs, DCs, and NRIs.
Dynamic Coalitions:
The main session of the dynamic coalitions could be improved by having less speakers though finding a way of having more time for exchange of questions and comments with online participants. Also, they could have been more widely publicized.
We encourage more collaboration between the DCs for more concrete output.
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions:
Seems like Youth IGF Initiatives are isolated from other youth initiatives and they should invest more time into collaboration with others on session proposals. Also, most participants at Youth Summit were young people which again puts young people in the position of talking only among each other. Youth Flash Sessions are a good way of providing interactions between youth and non-youth, and enabling knowledge transfer.
Panels/Speaking at the Youth IGF Summit should not be exclusive for Youth IGFs representatives but rather should be open for representatives from Youth Organizations and networks.
The duration of the Youth IGF summit was very limited for a significant discussion among young peers.
Networking sessions:
The dynamic was nice by having meeting mode at Zoom, however it could have been offered that organisers of the sessions could have 24 hours if they wished to download the session. The networking sessions often had very low attendance, therefore the more innovative way of organising these sessions should be found. Participants should have the opportunity to ‘bump into each other’ and not to wait for a pre -organised environment to chat.
Gender Perspective: The participation this year was effective from gender perspective

Village:
There should be increased efforts to share on social media so people can attend the village booths. It could be implemented live YouTube sessions where organizations/institutions have short introductions and invite people to meet them later at the IGF Village
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
IGF has many outputs however not many people know about them because they are published in formats which are not appealing to a wider audience. IGF communication strategy should focus on other channels besides website and mailing lists, especially when it comes to young participants. All messages should be communicated by using simple language that is easy for everyone to understand.
Logistics:
Based on our experience, the logistics was good and the technical team was quick to react if there was any issue. We recommend giving participants more options while selecting gender pronouns than only having the “Mr.” and “Ms” in registration form.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Overall programme structure and flow:
The overall programme of IGF 2020 was too long for an online event. Many sessions were organised in a panel format without or with very limited interactions with the audience. Schedule of the sessions was not adapted to all time zones and some sessions related to specific regions overlapped. On the other hand, the schedule presented at the IGF website was clear and easy to follow.
Programme content:
Content of the sessions was interesting, informative and relevant. When it comes to speakers, it is necessary to have diversity and inclusion taken into account during the selection process.
Participants:
Implement a solid hybrid model (online and onsite) and prioritize other session setups rather than panels to make the IGF more interactive



In Personal Capacity:

Alexey Trepykhalin


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: The event worked well. The workshop selection was excellent.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: No critical suggestions.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
All best practices forums were useful, the process, content and their inclusion into the were flawless.
Dynamic Coalitions: n/a
National, Regional and Youth IGFs: n/a

Programme Content
Workshops:
great workshops and content, the speakers were a bit repetitive, the quality of the discussions lacked face-to-face interaction
Main Sessions: excellent
Open Forums: excellent
High-level leaders track: excellent
Best Practice Forums: good
Parliamentary session: good
Dynamic Coalitions: n/a
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: excellent
Pre-events: good
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: n/a
Networking sessions: n/a
Gender Perspective: good

Participants:
The growing importance of the African region and the discussion of issues of standardization should go hand-in-hand with the legal discourse.
Village: n/a
Communications, Outreach and Outputs: excellent
Logistics: excellent -- no need to change
Any other comments: n/a

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: n/a
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: n/a
Overall programme structure and flow: n/a
Programme content: n/a
Participants: n/a
Any other comments: n/a


Amali De Silva-Mitchell


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
DC DDHT appreciated the opportunity facilitated by the Secretariat so as to provide a DDHT inaugural workshop for public engagement and education ... thank you
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: Diversity of topics which included interesting niche topics

Community Intersessional Activities
Dynamic Coalitions:
These sessions could be extended in time to 120 and 180 minute options to allow for extended audience participation through sessional direct participation not limited to Q and A..

Programme Content

Logistics:
Congratulations on the first fully virtual event put together within a few months by the IGF Secretariat ! This really was a great leap forward to connect the unconnected, making it affordable for many of the global public to attend....Conferenence website is lovely and good archives should always be retained for public access, perhaps with email registration. The infrastructure worked well and hopefully can be built upon with enhanced social interactive capabilities for 2021.
Any other comments:
Thank you for the Secretariats effort. This was really appreciated and paves the way for very inclusive international collaboration !!

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


André Le Doux Wamba


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


CAROL ROACH


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: Not applicable to me
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
The overall programme was great and the information obtained is very useful. However, because the offering was so vast, it made for a cluttered personal calendar and ended up being overwhelming at times.

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content
Workshops:
I found have the presentations available in downloadable form was very useful, this was you could concentrate on the presenters and not get left behind trying to take notes.
Gender Perspective: Appreciated the number of options for women.

Participants: Excellent.
Logistics:
Overall very user friendly. Loved the schedule application. Registration was not complicated. The online platform worked well.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


Charles Mayanja


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
The preparation of IGF2020 the virtual community was able to be more effective and operate with increased cohesion.Too many higher priority tasks during the months leading to the event especially for the IGF Staff. This continued improving in relation to the previous IGFs and despite in crisis periods -social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Main session discussions should be based on pre-prepared and published documents, developed by the IGF Secretariat and the MAG on the basis of community’s input.

The timeline was appropriate except for some regions. The selection of workshops could still improve. It should be even more clear to the proponents, what the MAG is looking for.
participants would attend a longer online version of the IGF and then meet face-to-face to discuss.online IGF it could be exhausting and lacking in human elements that are vital to the overall objectives of the conference.

Increase the time for questions and answers;The policy questions were very helpful, that's something that should be done again and if the questions are even more specific, much better
Local participants often have a privileged position over online participants, and so for a hybrid IGF to work, a stronger moderation by both onsite and online moderators would be required.

The requirement to bridge the gap between the Forum and the more mainstream press, so that many of its outcomes could reach a wider audience.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
Maintaining the practice of thematic tracks.
The thematic tracks have been a significant improvement of IGF. The themes chosen could be even more focused. That would contribute very much to the objective to produce valuable outcomes.On whatever themes different communities find relevant, regardless of whether they fit IGF should be able take on those themes.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
Aligning all intersessional work sessions (BPF, DCs; and NRIs) into thematic tracks.
Relevant sessions were carried out as normal, but still lacked a higher degree of integrity; for instance IGF should encourage more discussions on pleasure and consent as well, as women and gender-diverse people’s experiences online are not and should not be limited to harm and violence issues.

Programme Content
Workshops:
Workshops should feed into the discussion of the main sessions.

Having an introductory session with high-level key speakers,Translators,sign language personnel is proving to be a good idea, stimulating the community towards meaningful debate, acting as a call to action, both to those in favor and those who are against what is said. This should continue into the future.
Main Sessions:
Equitable access to content, particularly at a times of crisis
Focus on engaging with intersessional groups, to provide them with a bigger stage to discuss their outcomes and projects should be continued.
High-level leaders track:
The gathering and participation of high-level leaders through high level session formats should be continued.
Best Practice Forums:
The return of Day Zero was a good move, enabling the community to get more preparation in comparison to the previous edition. It has become clear at this point that this is an important a feature of the IGF that should be maintained as a fixture.
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions:
Ensuring sustainable and meaningful youth participation as newcomers may find the space not so intuitive and hard to stick around.
Gender Perspective:
Featured discussions on gender-based violence and harm, this has not so much been the case when it comes to pleasure and consent. It seems there is a tendency to focus more on problems and negative issues and not emphasise what still needs to be done to promote the Internet as a space for self-expression and pleasure

Participants:
This was the first online IGF Forum to remain relevant, it needs to continue finding strategies to engage and bolster its community despite Covid 19 Pandemic Crisis and the edition stands as an example of how many people can be mobilized under the challenging conditions.
Village: Virtual booth was handled well
Logistics: More importantly compromised the quality of the videos.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: Increased number of Youth should be embedded into overall IGF work.
Programme content:
Main session discussions should be based on pre-prepared and published documents, developed by the IGF Secretariat and the MAG on the basis of community’s input.
Participants:
Resource person get more exposure on the website.
Increase participation of private sector, governments, start-ups and SMEs.
Any other comments:
Promote dynamic, interactive session formats with limited number of panellists/speakers to allow for broader interaction.


Debora Barletta


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Overall programme structure and flow:
If the meeting is going to happen online again I would suggest the more consistent use of interactive tools and platforms to associate with zoom, to raise the engagement and help participants to stay engaged with the different sessions, despite the fatigue of staying in front of teh screens for many hours without real breaks neither the confort of real chats with fellow participants.
Programme content:
Involve in the session planning expert facilitators and people trained with non-formal techniques, especially for online events, that could help design more interactive and engaging sessions.


Eleanor Afful


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: All the items in the preparatory process worked well
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: All programme structure and flow worked well

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
The process and content of the activities and NRIs, highlighted the experiences of the stakeholders involvement from various countries. Thus , some best practices were indicated to improve IGF engagement projects in the future
Dynamic Coalitions:
The process and content of the activities and Dynamic coalitions brought up interesting scenarios projecting into future opportunities and chanllenges
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
NRIs made recommendations on how National, regional youth IGFs, stating categorically how to remain autonomous in the process of execution of various tasks and still be under one umbrella

Programme Content
Workshops: Very Great presentations and discussions
Main Sessions: Insightful suggestions made to enable progress in IGF activities
Open Forums:
Very interesting scenarios shared for stakeholders to identify some trend in IGF progress in various regions
High-level leaders track: Great & insightful presentations
Best Practice Forums: Great & insightful presentations
Parliamentary session: Great & insightful presentations
Dynamic Coalitions: Great & insightful presentations
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: Great & insightful presentations
Pre-events: Well organized tutorials and introductory activities for awareness creation
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions:
Very insightful collaborations to improve youth IGF engagements involving diversity and inclusion
Networking sessions: Very Great exposure to insightful ideas suggested to implement
Gender Perspective:
Female presentation needs to be encourage, Kudos to the female presenters with elaborated sessions

Participants:
Online sessions of IGF 2020, was well organized and very well appreciated , Kudos to organizing team
Village: Worked well
Communications, Outreach and Outputs: Worked well
Logistics: Worked well
Any other comments: Hosting programs may be considered some honorarium at least for data bundling

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Any other comments: other channel of communications such as whatsapps should be encouraged


Emilia Zalewska


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: Adding environmental track was a great idea that is worth being continued.

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions:
This year the Youth Summit was organised very well. Also, Youth Flash Sessions were amazing and I hope that this format will be continued.


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
A good practice might be adding "youth" as a criterium for workshop selection to assure that there is an equal representation of youth and non-youth voices. Moreover, it will encourage other stakeholders to invite young people to be panellists at their workshops.
Overall programme structure and flow:
In my opinion, a good option would be including a separate "youth" track. It could help to follow youth sessions and workshops for those, who are specifically interested in them.


Hassan Isah


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: Call for workshop proposals.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: It was time limited due to covld19

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Dynamic Coalitions:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.

Programme Content
Workshops:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Main Sessions:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Open Forums:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
High-level leaders track:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Best Practice Forums:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Parliamentary session:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Dynamic Coalitions:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Pre-events: Introduction of self and the top members.
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Networking sessions: Wonderful
Gender Perspective: Great and helpful.

Participants:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Village:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation and the village.
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Logistics:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Any other comments:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Overall programme structure and flow:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Programme content:
It was included purposely to developed community participation and the economic arising of the nation.
Participants: This is a well-done job.


Hussain Hamzah


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: So educative and interactive
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: I learnt alot from it

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums: So educative and it was interested
Dynamic Coalitions: So Amazing and educative
National, Regional and Youth IGFs: Well organised

Programme Content
Workshops: So educative, insightful and I learnt alot from the discussion
Main Sessions: So Amazing
Open Forums: I learnt alot from it
High-level leaders track: Well deserved
Best Practice Forums: So educative
Parliamentary session: Well organised and educative
Dynamic Coalitions: So Amazing
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: Well interactive discussion
Pre-events: Learnt alot
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: I really enjoyed all the session
Networking sessions: Well informative and educative
Gender Perspective: Well educative and informative

Participants:
I was highly skilled and impressed about been among the participants because I learnt alot from all the discussion and it makes me to add to my skills and knowledge towards making positive change in society and community through my self development and self confidence
Communications, Outreach and Outputs: Well organised and educative
Logistics: Well organised and simple
Any other comments: Well okay

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: Noting much
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: Noting much
Overall programme structure and flow: Noting much
Programme content: Noting much
Participants: Noting much
Any other comments: Noting much


Joseph Utibe Joseph


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: Call for workshop proposals

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


Juan Pajaro Velasquez


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
The dates of MAG meetings should be published and shared more time in advance than is actually being shared.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
I think inclusion should be divided into two tracks: Inclusion and Accessibility. Mainly because this year a lot of the panels that supposed to be about inclusion were more related to accessibility, and one kind of accessibility, the one to get connected to the internet and we know that accessibility also makes the internet easy for people with disabilities, just for name an example.

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
I think these were good during the IGF 2020. I assisted in the information session of the Gender and Accessibility and the information was even more than I was expecting, which is great
Dynamic Coalitions: N/A
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
With the exception of some national events in which the participation wasn't open to all of their members; I must say that living in a year when we have to do it all online, the result was better than I expected, especially with the YouthLACIGF in 4 languages. One thing to improve is the time and place in the Official Schedule of the IGF

Programme Content
Workshops:
In general, they were good, maybe the management of time was an issue but I think we can improve that aspect in 2021
Main Sessions: N/A
Open Forums: N/A
High-level leaders track: N/A
Best Practice Forums: I think they work pretty well in 2020.
Parliamentary session: N/A
Dynamic Coalitions: N/A
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives:
Most of them were good and event great, we have this year more national and regional than ever, with so many insights about their countries and regions.
Pre-events: N/A
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: Excellent, hope for 2021 more space in the main schedule for young people
Networking sessions:
Was a really interesting way of getting to know different people from all over the world.
Gender Perspective:
I think is time to start to think beyond the binary and include sessions that specifically talk about gender diverse people and Internet or LGBTQI+ people and Artificial Intelligence, and not only have these topics also trans, non-binary, and gender diverse people on the session, top panel, in all the spaces of IGF.

Participants:
My experience this year was that we had a really diverse year mainly because it was an online IGF.
Village: N/A
Communications, Outreach and Outputs: N/A
Logistics:
Well, the registration process could be easier for next time and the access to the online platforms too, because was so hard to know exactly what session I wanted it and the rest. So an improvement in the way of making the schedule will be also good, for example in Germany they use sched and it was so easy.
Any other comments: N/A

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: Start early and give more time for the call.
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
I think at the start of the year we should have like main track topics for everyone to follow that year.
Overall programme structure and flow:
Young sessions and the gender-related sessions shouldn't be at the said time of any top panel, this affects the participation on these.
Programme content: More diversity in the speakers
Participants: Maybe more fellowship programs


Judith Hellerstein


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: The flow was good as was the selection of the four thematic areas

Community Intersessional Activities
Dynamic Coalitions:
Thought this was done well. Like the idea of all BPFs and DCs to be included in the first week
National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
Thought this was done well. There was good integration of the NRI into the schedule.

Programme Content
Workshops:
I recognize that there was an effort to keep the speakers down to a minimum as when you have more than 4-5 speakers in a panel it is too many and the speakers cannot have to time to make a point
Main Sessions:
Very much liked the idea of main sessions being cut to 2 hours. 3 hours is really too long for a session.
Open Forums:
Enjoyed the ones I attended but think that all meetings and workshops in the first week had captioning and not just reserve captioning of the actual week of the sessions
Pre-events:
The events were very good but should be treated the same as others and all sessions should be captioned as they are part of the IGF
Networking sessions:
Need to find a better way to do these. some were good others not so. Need to figure out how to make them more interactive if we have another virtual event

Village: This really did not work in a virtual environment
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
Loved the idea of outputs in each of the sessions. Think it was a great addition. We should have more outreach and more communications over all
Logistics:
Volunteers for hosting the zoom meetings need to be better trained. During the DCAD meeting our meeting was cut short since a volunteer mistakenly started a new session in our room and this ended our meeting for everyone about 1/2 way through. Many people did not come back and were lost. Showed a real problem with training but then they were able to get it back but still we lost 1/2 the audience

Website was very difficult to use and the security measures to prevent zoom bombing were a real hassle and think we might be able to get a better process. Not sure also how accessible it was for people with screen readers as was difficult for people even without screen readers.
Any other comments:
The sessions that had more interactive features to them were more interesting to watch

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


Loveday Onyeanula


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: Very Appropriate
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: Ok

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content
Workshops: Workshops were timely and very engaging
Gender Perspective:
I think there's a gender balance in this case, as I continue to support more opportunities for females than males to continuously balance equality model

Participants:
Virtual participation has given rise to equitable participation, where there's no constrain of mobility - right in my country home I can partake in IGF2020

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


Maria Kolesnikova


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
To improve the form for uploading workshop description: there should be clearly stated what fields are non-changeble and can be filled in only once; what fields will be reflected as description of a session in the programme where participants look through and choose interesting for them sessions.
Overall programme structure and flow:
To make the process of registering and getting links to attend sessions more clear and simple. Many participants get used to recieve the link in the last minute and connect to a meeting at once.

There should be a short description of each session published in the overall programme, as sometimes name of a session can be not clear to well understand its content.

There might be published infromation about how many participants have attended each session and from what groups of stakeholders, how many views on youtube. For example, on the workshop page after the meeeting.

The link to recordings of a session can be shared with the registered participants via email.
Programme content:
The programme on the website can be more visible, with diffirent colours, priority marks what to attend or some other signs that can help to follow a choosen topic through the programme or vis a verse to split them and see what is importnat else.

Some sessions were at the same time, so people could visit only one. The programme must be more flexible.
Participants:
There were very few participants at some sessions, around 20 people. It seems the announcements of sessions can be made better, with more reminders for registered participants and publications (like daily newsletters or reminders, etc).

Any other comments: My suggestions are more appropriate for the virtual format of IGF21.


Megan RICHARDS


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: worked well so far as I was concerned
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
very good - glad that environment was included and suggest that it continue in future (or as climate/energy or sustainability) as one of the most important issues to be addressed by the global community

Community Intersessional Activities
Dynamic Coalitions: fine for me
National, Regional and Youth IGFs: fine for me

Programme Content

Participants:
difficult to know without having a full overview of all sessions but in some of those in which I participated it seemed to me that the speakers could have been more diverse (from different sectors of the economy and regional/global representation)
Logistics:
all very well done even if procedures took a bit of time (perhaps for security reasons) - would be useful to be able to join sessions directly without having to make a request and then receive link at last minute

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Participants:
broader and more diverse representation from more different economic sectors and from different regions on panels and as speakers


Mohammad Hanif Gharanai


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: Average
Pre-events: Good
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: We should empower this part as possible.
Networking sessions: Due to COVID-19, that was not good than last year in Berlin.
Gender Perspective: Very Good.

Participants: Great diversity!
Village: That was great.
Any other comments: NA

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: MAG and Open Consultations meetings and action plan
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: Every two months an open meeting
Overall programme structure and flow:
Giving time for young people to present ideas and chances for low-income countries to be motivated and find possible solution for their countries.
Programme content: workshops and open forums
Participants:
Participants as previously seems great. However, I do encourage to support participants from poor countries in terms of financially or giving big number to participate.
Any other comments:
I do recommend a certificate of participation for participants. Also, making a volunteer group from different countries to work together with IGF 2021 for better coordination. During this time, volunteers would learn and understand the work and can draw on experiences in the future events.


Raymond Mamattah


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content

Participants:
I was privileged to be one of those who were selected to provide virtual IT support during the 2020 IGF. It was a great experience and exposure. The topics handled at the various sessions I covered were very well planned and very structured.

However, I will suggest people should be allowed to chat among participants during the sessions. This will enhance the community engagement and knowing one another during the session.
Logistics:
The scheduling was done perfectly and it was easy to choose a session to attend. However, it was a bit difficult to register for a session, since there were no direct link to register for a session one wants to attend. I had to ask friends to show me how to register. This should be looked at for future sessions.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Any other comments: Overall, the 2020 IGF was perfectly organised. Well done!


Raymond Nuwagaba


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


Sandra Hoferichter


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process:
Much has improved over the last years in particular on the process.
Workshop selection is a field for further improvement in order to detect the most relevant topics.
Stakeholder, gender and geographical balance is important but cannot be achieved in every single session. Sometimes it would be wise to waive one or more of these criteria’s in the interest of actuality, quality or in order to involve a group that is otherwise not so well represented in the overall programme.
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
Keep the tracks! If possible, even focus the respective tracks on a specific day allowing participants to select certain days for attendance.

Community Intersessional Activities
National, Regional and Youth IGFs: Excellent process and leadership from the IGF Secretariat

Programme Content
Workshops:
Focus on the real burning issues. This year the agenda is a bit overwhelmed from the
Covid-19 pandemic, this is understandable. We should not miss all other topics but at the same time be a bit more selective and balance the programme. Also, I found too many topics are still repetitive.
Main Sessions:
Often too many speakers were invited ending up saying the same. Less speaker and better coordination / preparation among them would be good. Selecting speakers with controversial opinions would also be of benefit to the session flow.
Open Forums: Are a good format to keep
High-level leaders track: Could help the IGF to become more visibility
Best Practice Forums: Will hopefully play a role in the development of the IGF plus model
Parliamentary session:
It was great to see a continuation of parliamentary activities. These should be enhanced and improved.
Dynamic Coalitions:
It is good to see that key players of the IG environment are initiating new DC’s.
They will hopefully play a role in the development of the IGF plus model.
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives:
The tremendous growth of national and regional IGFs can be considered as one of the most significant outcomes of the IGF Mandate. This proves there is a desire for multistakeholder discussion in all parts of the world.
Pre-events: Must be kept!
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions:
Youth activities are always on the agenda and many youngsters that started in the IG community became experts by now. Youth involvement works!
Networking sessions:
I appreciate the efforts undertaken to make these happen. It helped a bit to connect us.
Gender Perspective: Well balanced

Village:
It was a good move to set up the virtual village, but I have doubts on the effectivity of it and would not invest further into a virtual village. However, we realised how much we missed the real IGF village for good talks, new contacts and outreach.
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
I believe one of the most (funding) lacking areas of the IGF Secretariat is on communications. It should be aimed to get to equal media outlets as the WEF. Efforts needs to be invested that the messages are widely spread and understood. This also involves lobby work.
Logistics:
While there are good reasons to have a host country website (or event website) switching between the two was this year not well organised. In particular with regard to integrating the Sched App.
The Sched app as such is useful. I was constantly searching for the right page.

The webinar format was not the best choice, meeting format would have served us better.
Any other comments:
This community could switch from physical meetings to virtual meetings just in time. We had all the tools and skills at hand – we knew how to do it and we had the enthusiasm to fight the pandemic by not giving up on our mission.
Friends asked me how could I still continue my work that involved so much travel in the past? I don’t consider this an implicitness when I look into other industries that are really suffering from the pandemic. And in many respects, we are early adapters and can share our practises with them. This all happened with very little resources and often on a voluntary basis.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Participants: Help the parliamentarian’s group to evolve.
Any other comments:
The IGF must be put high on the agenda withing the UN System. It needs solid resources. This year has shown once more how important a societal debate on the governance of the Internet is.
We should stop complaining about missing outcomes. As an organiser of a regional forum, I am advocating that we have already quite a number of good outcomes and I would rather like to see them become more influential by better communication.


Sonam Sonam Qaumi


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: Workshops selections
Overall Programme Structure and Flow: data Enivernment

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums: it was the best.
Dynamic Coalitions: we will regain something to improve in the next years.

Programme Content


Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021


Vincent Ouma Mwando


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020
Preparatory Process: Everything went on smoothly.

MAG meeting was a success
Overall Programme Structure and Flow:
The thematic areas were well dealt with and the NRI's really made an impact.

Community Intersessional Activities
National, Regional and Youth IGFs: This was the best part and it went on smoothly. Thanks to Anja.

Programme Content
Main Sessions: Attendance was low. We can do more and better.
Open Forums: Was a great success
High-level leaders track: Successful to a rating on 4/5.
Best Practice Forums: N/A
Parliamentary session: N/A
Dynamic Coalitions: Went on well
National, Regional and Sub-regional IGF Initiatives: This was a success.
Pre-events: Was not well marketed.
Youth IGF Initiatives, Youth Summit and Youth Flash Sessions: Was a great success. 9/10.

We need to draw more youths on board.
Networking sessions: Nice idea. more time.
Gender Perspective: It was well balanced. Great involvement.

Participants: Moderate attendance. We can do better.
Village:
A great idea. We can have more improvements on the need for the members or attendees to visit the venue.
Communications, Outreach and Outputs: rating of 8/10. More outreach.
Logistics: Favorable interface.

Easy to register.
Any other comments: Was part of the volunteers and Luis Bobo did great work.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process: Moving between rooms and sessions.
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs: 9/10
Overall programme structure and flow: Perfect
Programme content: Accessible to everyone and more diverse opinions.
Participants: We can improve and have a huge number of participants.
Any other comments: preparations and marketing in a time.


Wout de Natris


Taking Stock of the IGF 2020

Community Intersessional Activities
Best Practice Forums:
Best Practice Fora are one of the main outputs of the IGF. They work a year long to be able to present their outcomes. In my opinion they deserve a far more prominent place in the programme. For several reasons: showing the importance of the work; to attract more experts as a result; to present the outcomes in a more prestigious way; to show that this is the tangible outcome of the IGF, etc.
Dynamic Coalitions:
What goes for BPFs should go for DCs that have output to share. Outcomes ought to be presented far more prominent in the program as they are tangible outcomes of the IGF process. For several reasons: showing the importance of the work; to attract more experts as a result; to present the outcomes in a more prestigious way; to show that this is the tangible outcome of the IGF, etc.

Programme Content
Workshops:
No matter how workshops are scored, in many cases the actual workshop does not reflect the rules the MAG scores on. Gender balance or regional balance at the IGF does not equal the original call.

Too many workshops have too many experts not allowing for any form of interactions or at best as an afterthought. (Some were excellent of course.)
Parliamentary session:
Continue this track, but try to tie individual parliamentarians to the rest of the programme. E.g. by requesting for personal interest or expertise. This will allow for (steering towards) more interaction between the IGF programme and parliamentarians.
Networking sessions:
A main question here is, how can a (partly) virtual IGF allow for meetings like would be possible at a real IGF? What sort of connections during sessions could be made, allowing for privacy and direct outreach to go to a chatroom e.g. after the session?

Participants:
The online activity that I witnessed in both EuroDIG and IGF 2020 is something that needs capturing in the future. In some workshops parallel universes emerged: the formal programme and the chat function. Because of tight programmes within workshops there was hardly time to integrate the two universes. This needs to change in the future. The participation needs to become more equal and sessions more open or, allow for two sessions per topic, where in the second session the two are brought together and conclusions drawn, recommendations agreed upon, solutions suggested/provided, etc.
Communications, Outreach and Outputs:
Marketing of the IGF needs to be improved. Outputs to become unavoidable. When the IGF takes place online as well and on equal footing, outreach to specific experts becomes easier as they can join for only one session online, without having to travel the globe. The Internet has impact on all stakeholders, including those not involved in Internet governance. By way of targeted outreach they can become a part of the community for a very specific topic.
Logistics: In all session I participated in, it was admirable.
Any other comments:
It was surprisingly interactive in the chat, often rigid in the session themselves. By working with two moderators, on fully equal footing, both parts of the workshop can be brought together.

Suggestion for Improvements for IGF 2021
Preparatory Process:
For the IGF to become more output driven, the questions put to workshop organisers, BPF suggestions, etc., have to contain questions towards desired outcomes as well. What challenge needs to be solved? What question answered? What fault mended?, etc. How do you expect to contribute to the answers? This way anyone wanting to organise a session will have to think upfront about outcomes in some form and can work towards a tangible outcome in the form of an answer, recommendation, guideline, best practice, etc.
Community intersessional activities (Best Practice Forums, Dynamic Coalitions) and National, Regional and Youth IGFs:
Through organising sessions during the year where all who desire to be informed can be informed. By asking questions to each other, disseminate questionnaires, outcomes, recommendations, etc. All pro-actively.
Overall programme structure and flow:
Make sessions more diverse. Emerging topics can be presented on. Workshops could actually mean working together towards recommendations/solutions. Debates could include the chat function very actively. Allow for two sessions for topics in search of a solution / outcome. One that sets the scene and one that provides answers following the first session and seeks consensus on the answers that become a part of the IGF tangible outcomes.
Programme content:
In general, use the expertise in the room better. There are many people in the room with ideas, solutions, etc., who are all not heard when the session closes. This is a waste of options that the IGF has on offer. Of course, this would change with a session's intentions.
Participants:
When the IGF is 50% online, stakeholders can be reached out to that would never come to an IGF but could be seriously interested in one or two sessions. E.g. Trade organisations, healthcare, education, experts, civil servants from content ministries, automotive, etc.
Any other comments: I think I've said enough already. All the above could be repeated here.


Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411