Missing Link: 20 years of WSIS – and (not) a bit of multi-stakeholder?

Contents

Twenty years ago, the member states of the United Nations (UN) agreed on policy documents for the development of the information society. One of the key points was the realization that governments need to work together with business, civil society, science and the technical community to achieve networking and digitalization. Now it is time to review how far we have come. However, geopolitical tensions, autocratic tendencies and competition within the UN institutions are dampening hopes of real progress.

During the two phases of the first UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 and 2005, the member states agreed on basic principles for an information society. This should focus on the user. Access to the Internet, participation, freedom of expression and human rights in general were included in the Tunis Declaration and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society.

The Internet and information technology were seen as new tools for development and democratization. The hopes for their positive effects were enormous. However, the noble goals formulated in the declaration are still a long way off.

Review conference: heavy baggage

On December 16 and 17, the United Nations in New York will now take stock and negotiate how to proceed with the follow-up processes to the WISIS. The processes run through the UN as a network of eleven lines of action.

Should the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which met in Oslo/Lillestrøm from June 23 to 27, be given a new mandate? Should the WSIS action lines, which link information technology to the UN development goals, be continued unchanged? Is the unclear distribution of tasks within the various UN sub-organizations appropriate? And how can the IGF, which is considered the most innovative product of the World Summit due to its debates between governmental and non-governmental participants, be strengthened and how can the many UN processes on digital policy be coordinated?

"Missing Link"

What's missing: In the fast-paced world of technology, we often don't have time to sort through all the news and background information. At the weekend, we want to take this time to follow the side paths away from the current affairs, try out other perspectives and make nuances audible.

• All our the "Missing Links"

UN gobbledygook and digital policy confusion pose a huge problem for advocates of broader participation by civil society and other non-governmental representatives, explained Joyce Chen, policy expert at the IP address allocation agency APNIC in Oslo: "The mass of baggage that the internet community has accumulated since the discussions started 20 years ago is a barrier to entry". It takes hours to explain the background. Quite daunting for newcomers, Chen said in a roundtable with representatives of national and regional internet governance forums.

The background also includes the fact that the term "Internet governance" originally primarily covered the dispute over the management of domains and IP addresses. At the WSIS, many countries of the Global South were up in arms because the domain administrator ICANN was under contract and supervision of the US government. The first phase of the summit slipped, although the geopolitical omens were better than they are today. With the US government's supervisory role in 2016, which was promoted more by Snowden's revelations than by the WSIS process, this point of contention can at least be considered resolved today.

More regional IGF branches for more publicity

Self-governing organizations, governments and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which was itself interested in managing Internet resources for a time, have now come to an agreement. The "technical community" and the self-governing organizations are now among the largest sponsors of the Global IGF and some regional and national offshoots (NRIs). This agreement can be seen as a success.

As an APNIC policy expert, Chen is also a member of the steering committee of the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF), one of around 180 NRIs. "Storytelling" is one of the most important tasks for the IGF offshoots, she said in Oslo. They offer the opportunity for a global "bottom-up" construct.

The emergence of national and regional IGFs is seen by many as another positive effect of the WSIS process. From the EuroDIG to the WestAfrica IGF, from "old-timers" such as the Bangladesh IGF to the German IGF-D and "newcomers" such as the recently founded Irish IGF, digital policy publics have been created that are knocking on the doors of their governments as "stakeholders". In the run-up, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) wanted to deliver a story of very practical successes.

Digital divide a little smaller, network communication a little more secure

"We have heard time and time again that we cannot fall back on good old tried and tested arguments. Rather, we need to provide evidence that the multi-stakeholder model works and delivers results," said Sally Wentworth, Chair of ISOC, on the occasion of the publication of the report "Traces from 20 years of the WSIS process". In it, ISOC and ICANN list what they believe has been achieved in 20 years. And the list is not that short.

On the one hand, access to the networks has improved. According to figures from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), around 68% of the world's population had access to the internet by the end of 2024. When the WSIS was concluded in 2005, this figure was only around 16%. The biggest increase has been recorded in Africa, where 37% now have Internet access instead of two. However, a third of the world's population has no access.

Community networks from El Cuy to Mount Everest

The "IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (D3C)", supported by ISOC, has ensured low-cost Internet connectivity. As can be read in the "Traces" report, the D3C has significantly supported the development of community networks from El Cuy in Patagonia to Tusheti in Georgia, from Ulukhaktok in the Canadian Arctic to the Mount Everest region.

According to ISOC, the global member organization invested a total of 3.1 million US dollars in 85 local networks, which were implemented in collaboration with partners such as the Association for Progressive Communication (APC).

In addition, new partnerships spanning the globe between 2011 and 2021 have enabled the establishment of a total of 27 Internet Exchanges in Africa alone. The effects for users are noticeable: "The node in Kenya, the KIXP, reduced access time from 200 to 600 milliseconds to two to ten milliseconds and brought savings of around 1.5 million US dollars per year for local Internet service providers."

Initiatives for cyber security

The IGF Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity, the Dynamic Coalition on Cybersecurity and other IGF groups have been working to raise awareness of the security enhancements developed in the technical forums. According to the ICANN/ISOC report, the number of top-level domain zones secured by DNSSEC was 93 percent in April 2025, including national TLDs.

ISOC and ICANN also mention the continued development of non-Latin domains on the plus side. Almost six million Cyrillic, Chinese and German umlaut domains have been allocated. Linguistic diversity was one of the central demands for easier access to the Internet. However, some long-established Internet networkers also saw this as a trend towards fragmentation. The demand for multilingualism continues today in the area of the large, English-only Large Language Models.

False positives: Learning effects, democratization progress

Many expectations remained unfulfilled – both for the Internet, which was once regarded as the "most democratic medium of all time", and for the sophisticated successor processes of the WSIS. When asked what "multi-stakeholder governance" means in concrete terms and how it is implemented in Germany, the new Federal Ministry for Digital and State Modernization (BMDS) refers to the openness and global nature of the internet as the basis for socio-economic development. It advocates an inclusive, human rights-based multi-stakeholder model and rejects state control or fragmentation. But how much of this is actually put into practice?

According to the written and somewhat delayed response from Berlin, there is a strong commitment to "implementing the NETmundial+10 guidelines to encourage inclusive participation, balanced representation and effective cooperation among stakeholders".

The NETmundial –, which was launched by Brazil in the initial anger over the Snowden revelations, was co-organized by Germany – and the NETmundial+10 2024, which followed a decade later, included the genuine participation of all stakeholder groups in their declarations.

Genuine stakeholder participation: An unfulfilled promise

The UN has hardly kept its promise so far. As part of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) initiated by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, sharp criticism was voiced regarding the lack of participation by civil society and the community. Not a steep learning curve.

The spokesperson for the BMDS emphasized that they are working in the political processes of the United Nations "to ensure that multi-stakeholder governance is considered as a central principle for digital governance". The ministry also refers to the models of ICANN and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as well as the Internet Governance Forum Germany (IGF-D), which is supported by the BMDS as an important exchange platform. Information on global processes is continuously shared with all stakeholders via the IGF-D and their contributions are utilized. "We would particularly like to highlight the Youth IGF-D, which is actively involved in various processes, writes statements and carries out educational work with young people to give new generations a voice and a hearing in internet governance."

Contradictory positions on surveillance

The idea of broader participation does not seem to extend to central standards processes in parliament. When it comes to multi-stakeholder debates on the reintroduction of data retention, the softening of encryption or the repeated criticism of intelligence service oversight by the Federal Constitutional Court, multi-stakeholder does not seem to be an issue. With ProtectEU, new editions of chat control and the like, Europe, which has become more conservative and right-wing, is not pursuing a course centered on fundamental rights either.

An event at the IGF in Oslo highlighted just how contradictory European positions are. The British and US governments are in favor of strengthening the IGF and WSIS processes. The panel on softening strong encryption with the participation of the FBI and British government advisors preferred to keep to themselves. The multi-stakeholders in the audience criticize the panel, in which the use of data protection as a weapon is discussed, as completely one-sided and backward-looking.

Discussion about the need for reform

"First and foremost, national governments, primarily those with large markets, can pose a threat to Internet self-governance," warned US scientist Milton Mueller following the IGF in Oslo. Mueller had stirred up the debate on whether the WSIS successor processes at the UN are still necessary with a panel discussion entitled "Should WSIS die?".

For the founder of the Internet Governance Project at the Georgia Institute of Technology, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, the US government's export restrictions and the Chinese government's data localization requirements are a threat to a global, libertarian network. "ICANN should worry less about whether WSIS will be extended and more about the next steps of the government of the country where they have their headquarters." The headquarters are located in the USA.

Mueller's criticism of the UN, although typically US UN-sceptical, is not only met with disapproval. Many observers – from governmental and non-governmental circles– are calling for a clearer distribution of tasks within the UN. Instead of strengthening and further developing existing processes, Guterres has tended to add to them in recent years.

In addition to the new Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies (ODET) with the UN Tech Envoy, the UN's tech envoy at the top, he wants to bring the UN into play when it comes to AI and data governance. A new AI panel with 20 experts and an AI advisory body with 40 members to be elected by the UN General Assembly are to deal with the topic. A new working group of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) also met for the first time in May concerning "Data Governance at all Levels".

Representatives of civil society and the Global South in particular would like to see a consolidation of parallel events, such as the IGF and the WSIS Forum organized by the ITU. The latter is more government-oriented, starts next week in Geneva and has a similar program to the IGF.

Competition within the UN is hardly conducive to the effective further development of global digital policy. "Without reform, the renewal of the mandate makes no sense," Müller wrote in conclusion after Oslo, echoing the opinion of another "old" contributor to the WSIS process, US scientist Avri Doria. Doria had said in Oslo that if WSIS was to be allowed to die, it should simply not be reformed and further developed. Then it would die a more or less quiet death.

Proposals for the next decade

No new IGF and no WSIS mandate overall? None of the 9,000 or so participants at the IGF in Oslo really believe that. Experienced UN diplomats agree that it is not usual for the UN to close down bodies once they have been created.

However, there are plenty of proposals for reform. Strengthening the IGF, a mandate that is as permanent as possible, more solid funding – and not just voluntary donations as has been the case up to now – are apparently on all governments' talking lists.

Germany is also committed to the IGF

The BMDS does not want to stand back either: "The German government is clearly committed to extending the IGF mandate and continuing the WSIS process as the first global framework for digital cooperation," summarizes the spokesperson. The extension and strengthening of the IGF also includes "creating a stable and sustainable financial basis for the IGF."

The role of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in digital issues should be strengthened. It must also be ensured "that transparent and inclusive stakeholder involvement is guaranteed at every step of the review process". Berlin has also stated that it is important to "create a meaningful link between the Global Digital Compact process and the WSIS+20 review process".

The demands include more coordination and greater visibility for considerations and practical results from the WSIS processes and the IGF. The member states negotiating in New York from October under the chairmanship of Annalena Baerbock still have to agree on how far-reaching the reforms for the IGF and the WSIS should be.

In an initial comparison of the positions, the Global Digital Partners organization notes that some member states, such as Australia and Switzerland, are calling for more significant changes. Global Digital Partners provides the inclined, but not full-time committed "netizen" with a whole range of tools to keep track of the ongoing debates. One example is the Internet Governance conference calendar. It is full to bursting for 2025.

In addition, Global Digital Partners and the NRIs are among those who are audibly knocking on the door of governments and the UN and demanding more genuine participation. "More multi-stakeholders" is also at the top of the NRIs' list of desired improvements.

Internet governance or digital policy?

Of the numerous proposals for the coming years of the WSIS processes, one has been the subject of particularly heated debate since the IGF concluded in Oslo: Is it still appropriate to speak of "Internet governance"? The Swiss delegation, for example, has suggested renaming the IGF the "Digital Policy Forum" or "Digital Cooperation Forum". According to the Swiss Federal Office of Communications, this would better express the fact that it is not just about "internet governance" in the narrower sense, but about all aspects of digital policy.

In fact, at the IGF, not only at the annual conferences, but also in the ongoing policy networks and dynamic coalitions, new digital policy issues are often taken up long before they reach parliaments and government floors: from blockchain to platform responsibility to AI. At EuroDIG 2025, debates were recently held on age verification, in which data protection-friendly token solutions were also discussed. However, many people warned in the ongoing debate on one of the many mailing lists that the IGF could cause offense by changing its name.

The attempt to find such a more comprehensive label for the IGF could be a disaster considering the current geopolitical situation, warned one of the observers.

The German Internet governance expert and emeritus international law expert Wolfgang Kleinwächter calls the old WSIS negotiators –, of which he himself was a member – far-sighted. In classic UN diplomatic style, he suggests simply giving the IGF a subtitle. IGF – Global Forum for Digital Policy Making. Will this give the IGF more clout?

(nen)