[IGFmaglist] Progressing our work on strengthening MAG working modalities

[Amado Espinosa L.]

Dear colleagues,

I only add to the afore mentioned arguments, that such a fora to open discuss about, among others, new technologies governance (mainly AI), cybersecurity, integrated internet, sustainable energy solutions, is needed more than ever for all the stakeholders.

Best 

Amado Espinosa

 

 

From: Juan Alfonso Fernandez Gonzalez <juan.fernandez at mincom.gob.cu>
Date: Tuesday, 23 September 2025 at 10:23 a.m.
To: Chris Buckridge <chrisbuckridge at gmail.com>, <igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Progressing our work on strengthening MAG working modalities

 

Dear Colleagues:

I want to thank Chris for getting the ball rolling with these documents and the other colleagues who have sent valuable feedback.

As I stated in the last Strategy Group call, I believe we are at a critical moment for the future of the IGF. 

Therefore, let me share with you some ideas that I believe should be taken into account in this MAG endeavor through these proposed documents or other actions we may agree upon.

It is very likely that at the WSIS+20 the IGF mandate will be renewed, or even become permanent. There is considerable consensus for this.

On the other hand, it is unlikely that anything more will be decided about the IGF, whether its financing by the United Nations, or the strengthening of its Secretariat, due to the critical economic situation that the UN is going through.

Now then, once the permanence of the IGF is guaranteed, the challenge for the MAG and the rest of the IGF community is to work towards increasing its relevance. Because, as it appears so far, in the WSIS+20 draft resolution the IGF is described as a specialized forum for internet governance and nothing more.

Therefore, our challenge is to argue and convince that the IGF is a forum to discuss all aspects of the digital world and not just "internet governance" understood in its narrow concept. The fact that this discussion of many aspects of the digital world has been happening in the IGF in recent years is a good argument as a starting point for this endeavor.

But the task is not easy. For example: how to convince that the IGF is a space to discuss artificial intelligence when a few months later there will be an AI Summit? Or: how can we get government representatives to attend the IGF when events like the annual CSTD meeting, which is intergovernmental, or the WSIS Forum, organized by a quasi-intergovernmental agency like the ITU, are taking place in the same year?

In our favor, there is an argument about the framework or the architecture for the follow-up of the WSIS and the GDC that enjoys great consensus: that it has to be rational and avoid duplications between the various forums or meetings that make up said framework or architecture.

And I think that call to avoid duplications is the argument we should use to convince that the IGF does not substitute the other forums related to the digital world, but rather complements them based on its unique characteristics. (I am not going to address here the unique characteristics of the IGF that you know well. I outlined them in a document that I circulated in the 1st meeting of the MAG in April, which I am attaching to this email.)

And in my opinion, the unique characteristic of the IGF that most justifies its continued existence as a complement to other forums, is that the IGF is an agenda-setter. I emphasized this quality of the IGF in my intervention during a panel at IGF2025 in Norway. (https://youtu.be/N6M6CDejfrM?si=gdfEHY_kVe2mFsav) By the way, the co-facilitators were present in the audience of this panel.

For all this, my recommendation is that in the documents we prepare, we should focus on these unique characteristics of the IGF, which complement and reinforce each other. For example, the NRIs contribute to the voice of local communities from many parts of the world being heard. And their concerns about the digital world are an essential input for the function of the IGF as an agenda setter.

Best regards

Juan 

P.S. Please, forgive me for such a long message.



On 9/20/25 6:29 PM, Chris Buckridge wrote:

Dear colleagues,  

 

This is intended to follow up on some of the points discussed on our MAG call last week, specifically about moving forward with the 2025 MAG’s remaining work to "provide guidance on strengthening the future MAG’s long-term working modalities” (as per the original 2025 MAG call for nominations). 

 

On the call, we referred to this Google Doc, which lays out five areas where we could consider gaps, opportunities, and recommendations: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/130UAIyOMR-l0YqcDmersnAdxs9y-rHb-ssD6TXMJ66o/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.y988d04b9h54

 

Thanks to those who’ve made some comments already, and please keep input coming here! As discussed on the call, the scope here may be a little broad, but elements of each of these issues will likely inform even a more tightly scoped effort on MAG working modalities. 

 

We also have the document that Lito shared, ‘A guide for new MAG members’ (which I’ve taken the liberty of uploading to Google Docs): 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R9FKLnNsuZNXAK88kS1as7k_NsjEMp_XO59TMlPMTFA/edit?usp=sharing 

 

And finally, Hossam has shared an AI analysis that may have some useful ideas for how we proceed (see below).  

 

———

 

On the call, Chengetai and others stressed the need for concrete outputs from this work. Keeping this in mind, some thoughts from my side: 

 

- The MAG Terms of Reference needs to be our starting point; however, in reading that ToR, I think that there are some small, but important edits that should be made, which I’ve noted here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ggPPJKVP05RL6Hz1O8ybL-j7HOBLNCO7YCtlSO3aGo/edit?usp=sharing

 

- From my experience over the past years, I believe there has generally been some misalignment of expectations between the MAG, the Secretariat, the Host Country organisation, and the IGF-going public - ensuring that the MAG understands its role, that the Secretariat has laid out clear timelines and planning, and that the general public (especially those who are developing session proposals) understands the logic and constraints behind the annual meeting programme would be a significant improvement. 

 

A key outcome of our work could be an Expectations Document… I’ve created the (very) beginnings of a draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ggPPJKVP05RL6Hz1O8ybL-j7HOBLNCO7YCtlSO3aGo/edit?usp=sharing 

 

...and would welcome any feedback and help, if the MAG feels this would be useful. I note that this document will need to be developed in close coordination with the Secretariat - at this point it’s just my ideas, some of which may be way off base! 

 

- This Expectations Document could also serve as platform to include specific suggestions for practical improvement, and as such, it could be a first iteration that a future, community-wide review of IGF processes could build on. 

 

Below is the document that Hossam shared, and my reactions to a few of the specific suggestions for improvement - I think this is a useful starting point for some further discussions, and would encourage people to come back with any feedback on these ideas (or any other inspiration!). 

 

That’s all I have for now, and apologies for the deluge of document links! Looking forward to hearing from everyone! 

 

Best, 

Chris



Begin forwarded message:

 

From: Chris Buckridge <chrisbuckridge at gmail.com>

Subject: Re: improvement suggestions to the IGF MAG modalities - Hossam+AI draft

Date: 20 September 2025 at 19:36:09 GMT+2

To: "Hossam (Personal)" <hossam at elgamal.com>

 

Hi Hossam,  

 

Thank you for sharing this - I think there’s some nuggets of gold to be gleaned from this. In particular, I think the following suggestions would be worth following up with the group: 

 

1. After [workshop] selection, release a summary explaining why certain themes were prioritized…

 

I think this is what we missed last year (and that meant that others filled in the vacuum with theories on why certain choices were made). 


2. Schedule bi-monthly, informal online sessions with the MAG Chair and a rotating group of MAG members, promoted widely across IGF channels.

 

Whether every two months or a different cadence, this kind of ongoing update would be useful.  



3. Pair each new MAG member with an experienced member for the first year of their term for guidance on processes, norms, and effective participation strategies.

 

Something like this (and building on the document that Lito has already done work on) could be very valuable. 



4. Partner with National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) to host dedicated online consultations focused on feeding regional priorities into the global IGF agenda.

 

This is the kind of discussion I think we should have when I referenced MAG “expectations” from NRIs - when (and how) would it be most useful to receive NRI input in the timeline, to ensure that the perspectives coming from NRI communities are well integrated in the IGF annual meeting programme? 



5. Implement a two-stage evaluation process: an initial review against clear eligibility criteria, followed by a qualitative assessment by a diverse group of MAG members. Provide templated, constructive feedback to all unsuccessful proposals.

 

I’m not sure this is quite what I’d suggest, but agree it’s worth looking at how we might develop the assessment process… 



6. Introduce a new session format, "Outcome-Oriented Roundtables," with a clear mandate to produce a short document, such as a set of best practices or policy considerations.

 

I don’t love the name, but looking at a new format, specifically aimed at producing a documented outcome (perhaps developed in collaboration with the host country organisation?) would be a useful step, I believe. 

 

 

Are you planning to share this with the full MAG list? If so, please feel free to include my comments (or I can send them as a reply to your mail to the list). 

 

Thanks for helping get us moving! 

 

Chris

 



On 18 Sep 2025, at 17:21, Hossam (Personal) <hossam at elgamal.com> wrote:

 

Dear Chris please see here after my input and using AI support for the IGF MAG modalities improvement, please feel free to review and include what is relevant into the strategy WG document. 

 
Report on IGF MAG Modalities: Analysis and Suggestions for Improvement
1. Introduction
The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) is a cornerstone of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), tasked with advising the UN Secretary-General on the program and schedule of the annual IGF meeting. The effectiveness of the IGF as a global platform for dialogue on internet governance issues is therefore intrinsically linked to the efficacy of the MAG's working methods, or "modalities."

This report provides a brief analysis of the current MAG modalities and offers a set of actionable suggestions for their improvement. The goal of these recommendations is to enhance the transparency, inclusivity, effectiveness, and overall impact of the MAG's work, thereby strengthening the IGF as a whole.
2. Overview of Current MAG Modalities
The MAG is comprised of members from various stakeholder groups, including civil society, the private sector, governments, and the technical community. Its primary responsibilities include:
Developing the program for the annual IGF meeting.
Identifying key themes and sub-themes for discussion.
Selecting workshop proposals and other session formats.
Facilitating open and inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders.
The MAG operates through a combination of virtual meetings, mailing lists, and face-to-face meetings held in conjunction with open consultations. The process is intended to be bottom-up, with input from the broader IGF community informing the MAG's decisions.
3. Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
Multistakeholder Representation: The MAG's structure ensures that diverse perspectives are, in principle, included in the planning process.
Open Consultations: The practice of holding open consultations allows for broader community input and feedback.
Commitment to Inclusivity: There is a recognized and ongoing effort to ensure geographic and stakeholder diversity in both MAG membership and IGF programming.
Weaknesses:
Transparency Concerns: The decision-making process for workshop selection and agenda-setting can appear opaque to the wider community.
Inclusivity Challenges: Despite best efforts, barriers to participation remain, particularly for stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented groups. These can include language barriers, time zone differences for virtual meetings, and the resources required for in-person attendance.
Efficiency Issues: The consensus-based decision-making process, while valuable, can be slow and cumbersome, potentially hindering the MAG's ability to be agile and responsive.
Impact and Relevance: There is ongoing debate about how to make the IGF's outputs more tangible and influential in other internet governance and policy-making forums.
4. Suggestions for Improvement with Detailed Objectives
To address the identified weaknesses, the following improvements to the MAG's modalities are suggested:
4.1. Enhancing Transparency and Openness
Publicly Document Decision-Making:
Objective: To demystify the MAG's internal processes for selecting themes and workshops.
Specific Actions: Publish clear, pre-defined criteria for workshop evaluation. After selection, release a summary explaining why certain themes were prioritized and provide anonymized statistics on proposal evaluations.
Desired Outcome: Increased trust from the IGF community. Higher quality and more relevant workshop proposals in future cycles as proposers better understand the selection criteria.
Improve Communication Channels:
Objective: To ensure information about MAG activities reaches a wider, more diverse audience beyond those already deeply involved in the IGF ecosystem.
Specific Actions: Create a monthly newsletter summarizing MAG activities, decisions, and upcoming deadlines. Utilize social media for real-time updates and host quarterly webinars to present the state of the planning process.
Desired Outcome: Broader and more diverse community engagement in open consultations and calls for proposals. A more informed stakeholder base providing higher quality input.
"Ask Me Anything" Sessions:
Objective: To create a direct, informal channel for communication between the MAG and the community, allowing for real-time clarification and feedback.
Specific Actions: Schedule bi-monthly, informal online sessions with the MAG Chair and a rotating group of MAG members, promoted widely across IGF channels.
Desired Outcome: Reduced misinformation about MAG processes. A stronger sense of community ownership over the IGF program and direct accountability of MAG members to stakeholders.
4.2. Strengthening Inclusivity and Diversity
Mentorship Program:
Objective: To accelerate the integration of new MAG members, particularly those from the Global South or underrepresented communities, and empower them to contribute meaningfully from the start.
Specific Actions: Pair each new MAG member with an experienced member for the first year of their term for guidance on processes, norms, and effective participation strategies.
Desired Outcome: A more effective and cohesive MAG with a reduced learning curve for new members, leading to more substantive and diverse contributions earlier in their tenure.
Regional Open Consultations:
Objective: To capture nuanced, region-specific internet governance issues and priorities that might be overlooked in global consultations.
Specific Actions: Partner with National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) to host dedicated online consultations focused on feeding regional priorities into the global IGF agenda.
Desired Outcome: A more globally relevant IGF program that addresses specific regional needs. Stronger engagement from NRIs in the global IGF process.
Language Diversity:
Objective: To remove language as a significant barrier to participation in MAG meetings and consultations.
Specific Actions: Trial the use of AI-powered real-time transcription and translation services for virtual MAG meetings. Ensure all key documents are available in all six official UN languages.
Desired Outcome: More diverse and substantive contributions from non-native English speakers, leading to a richer and more globally representative dialogue.
4.3. Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness
Streamlined Workshop Evaluation:
Objective: To make the workshop selection process quicker, fairer, and more constructive for all applicants.
Specific Actions: Implement a two-stage evaluation process: an initial review against clear eligibility criteria, followed by a qualitative assessment by a diverse group of MAG members. Provide templated, constructive feedback to all unsuccessful proposals.
Desired Outcome: Reduced administrative burden on MAG members. Faster notification for workshop proposers. An improved proposal ecosystem as organizers learn and adapt based on feedback.
Thematic Working Groups:
Objective: To enable deeper dives into complex topics and to distribute the workload more effectively among MAG members based on their expertise.
Specific Actions: Form small, dedicated working groups for each of the IGF's main thematic tracks. Empower these groups to conduct initial proposal evaluations and develop coherent session narratives for their track.
Desired Outcome: Higher quality and more coherent thematic tracks within the IGF program. More efficient use of MAG members' time and specialized knowledge.
4.4. Increasing Impact and Relevance
Focus on Actionable Outcomes:
Objective: To shift the focus of some IGF sessions from pure discussion to the creation of concrete, useful outputs.
Specific Actions: Introduce a new session format, "Outcome-Oriented Roundtables," with a clear mandate to produce a short document, such as a set of best practices or policy considerations.
Desired Outcome: A repository of practical, tangible resources that increase the IGF's value proposition for policymakers, regulators, and other stakeholders.
Strengthen Links with Other Forums:
Objective: To ensure the discussions and messages from the IGF are fed into formal decision-making processes.
Specific Actions: Task specific MAG members to act as liaisons to other key internet governance bodies (e.g., ITU, ICANN). Mandate the production of a concise "Key Messages" document from the IGF to be formally submitted to relevant UN processes and other organizations.
Desired Outcome: Increased influence of the IGF's multistakeholder dialogue on global digital policy, bridging the gap between discussion and decision-making.
5. Conclusion
The IGF's Multistakeholder Advisory Group plays a vital role in shaping the global conversation on internet governance. By implementing the suggestions outlined in this report, the MAG can enhance its modalities to be more transparent, inclusive, efficient, and impactful. These improvements will not only strengthen the MAG itself but will also contribute to a more effective and relevant Internet Governance Forum that is better equipped to address the challenges and opportunities of the digital age.

 

 



_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
_______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250923/49e5c775/attachment-0001.htm>