This is now a legacy site and could be not up to date. Please move to the new IGF Website at

You are here

Community Feedback questionnaire on the draft IGF Programme Framework chart


Since its inception in 2006, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has increasingly gained global visibility and success as the premier multistakeholder venue for cross-cutting discussions on Internet governance issues.  As a result of this success, participation in the IGF annual meeting, as well as its organizational processes and intersessional work programmes, has grown and continues to grow, thus generating the need for scalable, easy-to-follow, and more efficient processes.  In keeping with the IGF’s core principles, and guided by its mandate in the Tunis Agenda, as reaffirmed in the WSIS+10 Outcome Document (Resolution A/70/125), these processes must be open and transparent, and developed in a bottom-up manner by the IGF community.

In recognition of the above, and to serve as a helpful reference for the expected output of the IGF Multi-year Strategic Work Programme Working Group (WG-MWP), the draft IGF Programme Framework Chart below (Draft Chart) outlines the planning cycle for the annual IGF in a simple, yet comprehensive, format.1

The above Draft Chart aims to illustrate the agenda and programme-setting process from a “bird’s eye” point of view by capturing the main points and junctures of the current process.  It incorporates descriptions from a document drafted by the IGF Secretariat, which describes the different components of the IGF programme​.2 A downloadable version of this Draft Chart is also available.

The Draft Chart is conceptualized on 3 concentric levels. The first level represents the basic IGF planning cycle: 1) Inputs to the planning cycle; 2) the first MAG meeting and Open Consultations (Meeting No. 1); 3) Virtual Work; 4) the second MAG meeting and Open Consultations (Meeting No. 2, also followed by Virtual Work); 5) the IGF Meeting; and 6) Outputs.

The second level outlines the activities led by the MAG and IGF Secretariat to set the IGF agenda and define the programme.  The third level illustrates the various avenues for engagement with the broader IGF community.

The purpose of this feedback questionnaire is to draw upon the IGF community’s expertise in, and familiarity with, the IGF planning process in order to create a clear picture of the current IGF planning cycle.

Deadline for submissions was 30 November 2018.

All submissions are published to support transparency.  To ensure a robust and diverse process, stakeholder information is requested to determine if further outreach to underrepresented stakeholder groups is needed. Please note that we only make publicly available your name and your country (for Governments) or organization (for all other stakeholder groups).

Please find below the structure of the questionnaire:


Part 1: Please assess whether the Draft Chart accurately represents the current process of a one-year cycle of the IGF by identifying and describing inaccuracies or gaps, or contributing further detail.
Part 2: Please share initial ideas to improve the efficiency, scalability, and transparency of the current process, based upon the Draft Chart.

Part 1 – Current Framework

1.    INPUTS
Following the previous IGF annual meeting (IGF-1), but before the 1st IGF MAG Meeting & Open Consultations for the next IGF cycle, the Secretariat and the newly-appointed MAG begin their work by analyzing INPUTS, including Community Suggestions and OUTPUTS from IGF-1.3 

The 1st IGF MAG meeting & Open Consultations (Meeting No. 1) is an open, in-person meeting with remote participation that traditionally takes place in Geneva over the course of three days.4 The first day is a continuation of the written public consultation (see INPUTS, Community Suggestions), during which the public can intervene from the floor with comments.  MAG members are asked to refrain from taking the floor during the Open Consultations.
The second and third day of Meeting No. 1 is for the MAG meeting. Non-MAG members may attend as observers.  New MAG members are introduced.  The agenda usually begins with stocktaking discussion from IGF-1 and then focuses on outlining the overall IGF preparatory process, including a timetable for the selection of themes, workshops and other sessions, as well as the work of intersessional activities. During Meeting No. 1, the MAG, based upon community input, has traditionally sought to constitute Working Groups for the planning cycle, select the Best Practice Forum topics, decide upon the Main Intersessional Policy Programme and select the Main Theme (together with the Host Country and the IGF Secretariat/UNDESA).  In 2018, the MAG decided to announce a “Call for IGF issues” after Meeting No. 1 to help shape the IGF2018 programme.

In between Meeting No. 1 and Meeting No. 2, the IGF Secretariat and the MAG works through email lists and virtual meetings to issue calls for workshop proposals, open forums, and IGF Village booth requests. Individual MAG members are asked to score workshop proposals submitted by the community.5

During the 2nd MAG meeting & Open Consultations (Meeting No. 2), the MAG evaluates and selects IGF workshops, topics for main sessions, reviews requests for various community sessions, and discusses overall programme shaping.

Following Meeting No. 2, the MAG and the Secretariat work to finalize the IGF programme and facilitate intersessional work.

Each IGF cycle produces various outputs including reports, summaries, best practice documents, policy options, and key messages in addition to the Chair’s Summary and contributions to WSIS follow-up reporting.6 Various collaborative partnerships and community initiatives have sprung from engagement at IGF meetings.

Does the Draft Chart accurately represent the current process of a one-year cycle of the IGF? Why? Why not?

Part 2 – Process Suggestions

With reference to specific areas of the Draft Chart, please submit any ideas that you may have for making the IGF process more efficient, scalable, and transparent. The WG-MWP seeks responses that include, but are not limited to, the questions below.

1.    INPUTS
a. Are inputs used effectively to ensure that the work of the previous cycle is either continued or concluded?

b. Have you seen your suggestions as part of the input process reflected in the IGF annual meeting?

c. Are there any other inputs aside from those listed on the Draft Chart that you think should be considered?

a. Are there other agenda items the MAG should consider, or goals to achieve, during Meeting No. 1?

b. Are the criteria and procedures clear for choosing BPF topics and other intersessional work streams? If not, what are recommendations for improvement?

c. Should the Call for Issues take place before or after Meeting No. 1?

a. What improvements can be made to the process and selection criteria for workshop, open forum, and village booth proposals?

a. Is the process of contributing to the IGF agenda clear and accessible? Why? Why not?

b. Is the process of featuring various types of sessions on the IGF agenda clear, transparent, and predictable? Why? Why not?

a. Is the process for selection of main session topics and organization of sessions sufficiently clear and transparent?

b. Is the current IGF programme setting process well equipped to discuss new and emerging issues?

a. Are these the right existing IGF outputs? Can you give any examples from your community? Can you identify others?

b. Do you and/or your community use these outputs? If so, how? If not, why not?

c. Do you think existing IGF outputs are widely known or accessible enough? What can be improved?

d. Do you think there is a need for further/other outputs?

e. How can the current IGF cycle best build on outputs of past years through a more systematic and inclusive process?

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

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