IGF 2021 Suggestions (2020 Stocktaking)

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

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.

Everything went quite well.all the partcipants behaved right as well as the discussions were well conducted

Everything went quite well.all the partcipants behaved right as well as the discussions were well conducted

Everything went quite well.all the partcipants behaved right as well as the discussions were well conducted

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.

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.

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 topics and discussions were good. However, the time for interaction with the audience (more Q&A time for example) could be extended.

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.

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/).

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).

We encourage actions in order to increase participations of non-white and also global south speakers.

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.

We suggest to consider in the programme the possibility of adjustments in the schedule considering the presence of speakers from very different time zones.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The session on Security was well-organised and moderated. Good selection of speakers.

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.

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.

The security measures, access and use of the platform, the availability of a personal schedule - worked well.

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.

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.

Continuous outreach to underrepresented groups; diversifying the agenda that includes topics interesting to newcomers, including policymakers.

The overall arrangement was reasonable, allowing sufficient time for declaration and feedback.

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.

(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.

With a diverse and impactful topics and a large pool of participants, the forums were successful.

The organizations, guests and speakers of the conference were diverse in terms of region, nationality and gender.

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.

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.

(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.

Depending on the COVID-19 pandemic situation, it is preferable to hold the offline meeting if it is allowed.concentrated in the same region.

(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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Fine for now, but it might be good to split and spread it too for the entire duration of the conference

it might be good to split and spread it too for the entire duration of the conference

Since it was an online event, i would consider it inappropriate to comment but overall, IGF sessions have quality speakers

Since it was an online event, i would consider it inappropriate to comment but overall, IGF sessions have quality speakers

Since it was an online event, i would consider it inappropriate to comment but overall, IGF sessions have quality speakers

Since it was an online event, I would consider it inappropriate to comment but overall, IGF sessions are good

I think 2021 would be face to face and that should address all the opportunities.

Address new opportunities arising out of COVID-19 with a solution-centric approach

Start allocating a specific number of speakers to represent all regions, stakeholders in every forum

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

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.

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.

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.

D'UNE FAÇON EXCELLENTE DONT, RIEN A DIRE, MAIS, PLUS DE RIGUEUR POUR 2021, PLEASE.

D'UNE FAÇON EXCELLENTE DONT, RIEN A DIRE, MAIS, PLUS DE RIGUEUR POUR 2021, PLEASE.

SANS OUBLIER LA MOBILISATION AUTOUR DES COMMUNAUTES SCIENTIFIQUE, ECONOMIQUE, MANAGEMENT/MARKETING

SANS OUBLIER LA MOBILISATION AUTOUR DES COMMUNAUTES SCIENTIFIQUE, ECONOMIQUE, MANAGEMENT/MARKETING

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We welcome the introduction of a virtual ‘meet the MAG’; the preparatory process and MAG work should further be de-mystified.

In our view this wasn’t an issue. On the contrary, discussions were positively balanced in terms of gender.

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.

The IGF should pay more attention to how the event content is used after the event and how this material could be better promoted.

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).

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting but not sufficiently put forward and absence of recommandations coming from partners.

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).

Could be improved as regards less favored population, diasporas, migrations, plurilinguism

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

more of less OK as 2020 but taking into account remarks made for more openness through in particular UN channels coming from org & agencies

As mentioned above more foresight views on technical IT architecture and norms
A session on the certification process of new standards would be useful

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

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.

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).

Well-prepared and professionally organized in the past events expect to maintain the high standards in the upcoming events.

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).

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.

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).

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.

"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.

the site is not very well structured, we are not able to understand the sections and how to register for the various meetings

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.

Several innovative ideas and technological advancements have been shared during the session.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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”.

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.

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.

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).

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.).

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).

The organization was fine, they could have been more publicized on social media

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Implement a solid hybrid model (online and onsite) and prioritize other session setups rather than panels to make the IGF more interactive