[WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation

[sahmed at africa-digital.org]

Dear Colleagues,

Please find further information on the Policy Network on AI (PNAI). [9]
I look forward to your actionable strategies to advance established 
global multistakeholder efforts within IGF secretariat at the 
climate-science-digital nexus, such as the existing PNAI Environment 
Working Group.
Particularly, mitigating duplication of efforts, your much needed 
support, and co-creation with new stakeholders that have subject matter 
expertise, as part of the WG-strategy discussion.

Kind regards,
Shamira

On 2025-07-25 08:30, sahmed at africa-digital.org wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Kindly note there are already existing efforts within the UN that the
> Data Economy Policy Hub [12 [1]] and many other organisations have been
> working on "Just and Sustainable Digitalisation" (JSD)  that reference
> and mirror the CSTD.
> In terms of IGF secretariat, I am the co-lead on the Environmental
> working group as part of the PNAI.
> As opposed to duplication of efforts, how will the WG champion
> existing work within the IGF secretariat on JSD and frankly new civil
> society expertise as part of the process?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Shamira
> 
> On 2025-07-23 22:42, Ana Neves via WG-Strategy wrote:
> 
> Hi Anriette,
> 
> During my tenure as Chair of the CSTD, I had the opportunity to test
> this idea of updating the CSTD mandate in both New York and Geneva.
> Interestingly, there was no opposition from different stakeholders,
> including the Chair ant that time of ECOSOC --only from within the
> "system" itself. I find the Report particularly valuable, and I
> believe it's time we begin leveraging such reports to drive the
> implementation of concrete, actionable proposals.
> 
> Ana
> 
> On 23 Jul 2025, at 19:37, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
> I just revisited the report. Here is what they say about this
> 'Commission':
> 
> A climate movement would be inconceivable
> without the reliable, timely, and objective
> information provided through IPCC reports.
> No similar effort exists to map the potential and
> measure the harms of data and digital advances.
> Without a clear understanding of the challenges,
> risks, and opportunities -- regularly revisited
> and updated -- the international community will
> struggle to build a governance architecture fit for
> the digital age.
> 
> This Commission must heed calls for new
> forms of cooperation that go beyond traditional
> interstate cooperation; that is, it must innovate
> beyond traditional State-only membership. The
> Commission on Just and Sustainable Digitalization
> will bring together multiple endeavours in the
> digital realm in a multi-stakeholder deliberative
> forum for States, civil society, and the private
> sector, building on and possibly integrating the
> activities of the Internet Governance Forum. It
> will address the shortcomings of some of these
> forums, where civil society collaborates on a
> rights agenda but does not have the authority
> to implement it, or where States lag behind
> developments at the cutting edge of digital rights.
> It will consolidate and build on the work and
> expertise of entities such as the International
> Telecommunication Union, the United Nations
> Development Programme, the United Nations
> Conference on Trade and Development, and the
> Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
> The process of designing such a Commission
> should draw on best practices in recent years.
> Several initiatives offer useful insight into the
> effectiveness of multi-stakeholder coalitions in
> supporting inclusive institutional design.
> 
> We call on Member States to support,
> through the Global Digital Compact
> and with the support and participation
> of the UN Envoy for Technology, the
> establishment of a multi-stakeholder task
> force that will be responsible for developing
> terms of reference of a global Commission
> on Just and Sustainable Digitalization by
> the meeting of the World Summit on the
> Information Society Forum in 2025, which
> clearly sets out the roles of decision-making
> responsibilities of its constituent groups.
> 
> <lmjBGRajuXIh3uvi.png>
> 
> Anriette
> 
> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
> 
> On 2025/07/23 20:30, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> 
> Dear Ana
> 
> Thanks a lot for the reference to the Johnson Sirleaf and Lofven
> report.
> 
> Do you think it is realistic to propose that the CSTD's mandate be
> expanded to play the role of their proposed "Global Commission on
> Just and Sustainable Digitalization"?
> 
> I like this idea a lot.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> Anriette Esterhuysen - anriette at apc.org//anriette at gmail.com
> 
> On 2025/07/23 18:36, Ana Neves via WG-Strategy wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Paul, for bringing up how the CSTD could be more
> effectively
> leveraged. With that in mind, let me share a few reflections on
> its
> role in the context of the WSIS+20 review:
> 
> 4. The CSTD and the need for a modernized mandate
> 
> The central role of the Commission on Science and Technology for
> Development (CSTD) in the UN system should continue to be
> reinforced. In light of rapidly evolving digital ecosystems and
> geopolitical shifts, it is now timely and necessary to advocate
> for
> a modernized and future-facing mandate for the CSTD. Such an
> updated
> mandate should more effectively interface with new and emerging
> digital policy arenas--specifically around Internet governance,
> AI,
> data ecosystems, and digital development. A refreshed mandate
> would
> not only reinforce the CSTD's legitimacy, but also help anchor a
> 21st-century relevant governance architecture that balances
> science,
> innovation, inclusion, digital international cooperation and
> accountability.
> 
> For reference, I would like to highlight the _Report from the
> High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism - A
> Breakthrough for People and Planet: Effective and Inclusive Global
> Governance for Today and the Future [1 [1]]_, co-chaired by Ellen
> Johnson Sirleaf (former President of Liberia) and Stefan Löfven
> (former Prime Minister of Sweden). This report may offer valuable
> insights for updating the CSTD mandate, particularly regarding the
> proposal for a _Global Commission on Just and Sustainable
> Digitalization_, which could be multistakeholder by nature, under
> the São Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines [2 [2]].
> 
> Ana
> 
> Ana Cristina F. Amoroso das Neves
> 
> _Head, Internet Governance Office_
> 
> _2025 IGF MAG Member___
> 
> _Chair of the DNS.PT Advisory Board_
> 
> FCT- FCCN
> 
> Avenida do Brasil, n.º 101 | 1700-066 Lisboa
> 
> T:   +351 21 392 4498
> 
> M: +351 912 397 371
> 
> www.fccn.pt [2] [3 [3]] [3 [4]]
> 
> www.governacaointernet.pt [4] [5 [5]] [4 [6]]
> 
> https://www.intgovforum.org/en [5 [7]]
> 
> Linkedin [6 [8]]
> 
> I am sending this message at a time that works well for me. I
> respect your choice of when and how to work, and I don't expect a
> response outside of your working hours.  Thank you!
> 
> De: Blaker, Paul (DSIT) via WG-Strategy
> <wg-strategy at intgovforum.org>
> Enviada: 23 de julho de 2025 16:03
> Para: wg-strategy at intgovforum.org
> Assunto: Re: [WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation
> 
> OFFICIAL
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I'm new to this group but I hope it's OK to throw in some
> comments. "Enhanced cooperation" is in the Tunis Agenda, of
> course, but I'd agree with Wolfgang that reopening this old debate
> will really lead us nowhere. After so many fruitless discussions
> in
> the past, I'm sorry to see so much energy being spent on this
> phrase again.
> 
> WSIS+20 needs to develop a more positive, future-focused agenda,
> promoting greater global representation, particularly from
> developing countries, and greater inclusion in policy-making
> processes. We'd also like to see a discussion about more positive
> ways of using the CSTD. But "enhanced cooperation" is not the
> right tool for this - it just risks taking us backwards and
> entrenching old positions.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Paul Blaker
> 
> Head of ITU and Internet Governance
> 
> Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
> 
> United Kingdom
> 
> Tel: +44 (0) 7515 701352
> 
> www.gov.uk/dsit [6] [9 [6]] [7 [9]] | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk
> [8 [10]]
> 
> OFFICIAL
> 
> From: parminder <parminder.js.work at gmail.com>
> Sent: 23 July 2025 14:42
> To: wg-strategy at intgovforum.org
> Subject: Re: [WG-Strategy] [Ext] Re: Text on Enhanced Cooperation
> 
> On 23/07/25 19:02, Veni Markovski wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Raul.
> Since Tunisia there was the WSIS+10 process (with its outcome
> document) and the GDC with the relevant texts about Internet
> governance, and the work of the CSTD, ITU, and others in between.
> 
> We have to remember (be reminded, and sometimes to remind our own
> selves!) that the language from the Tunis Agenda was updated
> (upgraded) in 2015, and again last year. WSIS+20 has the chance to
> to some more upgrades, or if no agreement is reached, keep the old
> language.
> 
> Yes, Veni, that is the default,... Thanks for reminding us of it.
> I
> do not think the language Valeria circulated here was much
> different
> from the default (unless I missed something).... But our purpose
> need not be the default preservation or promotion ... There is
> nothing, digital society wise, that is default, or static, around
> us
> (someone considered as a father of AI resigned his VP position at
> google worried that nothing is default any more!) .... Should we
> not
> be taking account of what people,and notables, and communities,
> and
> (most) governments, actually think -- in fact a lot of CS groups,
> thinktanks, even private sector players, outside this perhaps
> charmed circle that may find the default status quo fine?
> 
> best, parminder
> 
> Best,
> 
> v/
> 
> From: Raúl Echeberría <raul at alai.lat>
> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 at 22:46
> To: wg-strategy <wg-strategy at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: [Ext] Re: [WG-Strategy] Text on Enhanced Cooperation
> 
> Hi.
> 
> I very much agree with Wolfgang. Having been too in the room
> during
> the night session in Tunis the last night before the summit, I can
> ensure that the expression "enhanced cooperation" didn't aim
> to have any other meaning that being a compromise text.
> 
> After several months in which different groups of countries were
> simply trying to strengthen their respective positions, the day
> before the summit we all concluded that the most important thing
> was
> to reach an agreement, which made us change our mindset.
> 
> Uruguay (with me as the spokesperson) and Canada (represented by
> Bill Graham) proposed the crazy idea of setting aside the text we
> had been working on for months and starting from scratch to try to
> find common ground.
> 
> The suggestion was taken up by Ambassador Kahn of Pakistan (chair
> of
> the Internet Governance negotiations), and we got to work hard.
> 
> We reached a point where there were two positions that were
> difficult to reconcile, even with the desire to reach agreements.
> 
> On the one hand, there were those who argued that new governance
> mechanisms had to be "created," and on the other, there were those
> of us who accepted that existing mechanisms could "evolve," but
> based on what already exists. "Create" and "Evolve" were difficult
> verbs to put in the same sentence.
> 
> We spent a long time experimenting with different options until,
> as
> Wolfgang pointed out, David Hendron proposed the novel and
> friendly
> expression "Enhanced cooperation," which neither affirmed nor
> contradicted either of those two visions, which had been difficult
> to reconcile.
> 
> To make the ambiguity even clearer, Enhanced cooperation is not
> described as a single process or series of processes. Rather,
> paragraph 71 itself, in an intentionally contradictory manner, on
> the one hand calls on the UN Secretary-General to initiate a
> process
> toward Enhanced cooperation, and on the other hand assigns the
> same
> responsibility to the (plural) relevant organizations.
> 
> Attempting to assign a meaning to the expression "Enhanced
> cooperation" or to identify, design, or implement an Enhanced
> cooperation process simply distorts the spirit of the Tunis
> Agenda.
> 
> Most of the time, reaching agreements involves concessions and
> sacrifices from all parties involved.
> 
> The ambiguity and intentional lack of clarity in paragraph 71 is
> something we should really highlight and value as an example of
> the
> compromises made by all to achieve the WSIS 2005 Tunis agreement.
> 
> I don't think is a good idea to continue with this discussion
> around Enhanced Cooperation.
> 
> I know that this story can be told in many different ways. This is
> simply one version of somebody who was heavily involved in the
> WSIS
> preparatory work and WSIS negotiations,  as many others in this
> group.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Raúl
> 
> El 22 jul. 2025, a las 5:06 p. m., Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> <wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info> escribió:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> to be frank, I am not happy with the proposal. "Enhanced
> cooperation" is "coded", or better "polluted"  language. In 2005,
> it
> tried to combine "fire and water" in a critical moment of history.
> This was good and helpful. But as we have seen in the last 20
> years,
> the concept did not constitute a basis for progress. Different
> parties continued with their differences (see below). To reopen
> the
> debate is in my eyes a waste of time and ressources and will lead
> to
> nowhere. Furthermore, it has the potential to open another
> Pandora´s Box.
> 
> I understand, that the issue is on the table for WSIS+20 and will
> not disappear (which would be the best solution). I understand
> also,
> that a substantial number of governments from the Global South,
> which are not satisfied with the present mechanisms, have
> developed
> their own understanding of EC in the last 20 years (which often
> has
> little to do with the original problem). For them "enhanced
> cooperation " stands for more equality and fairness in Internet
> related intergovernmental negotiations and for more equal
> participation of non-state actors from the Global South in
> multistakeholder processes.
> 
> This is fair and has to be adressed. Insofar it is good, as
> proposed
> in the new text, the CSTD could be the best  venue to reach
> progress. The CSTD is an intergovernmental body, where all
> governments are on equal footing. Furthermore, the CSTD has
> demonstrated that it can accomodate meaningful participation of
> non-governmental stakeholders, as the various CSTD WGs and also
> the
> Interessional CSTD Meetings have demonstrated.
> 
> The best way forward would be to introduce new language and to get
> rid of the "poisened" EC language from 2005. For some governments,
> EC is just a starting point to create intergovernmental oversight
> mechanism, inter alia, to change ICANN´s GAC into a GOC
> (Governmental Oversight Committee).
> 
> What about "enhanced, fair and equal  collaboration" (EFEC)?
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> PS: Here is my view of the history, which is needed to understand
> the complexity of the problem.  Juan made a very good statement in
> Geneva last week when he explained once again, how the language
> emerged and did find its way into the Tunis Agenda.
> 
> Here is my report from the history books (as a WGIG member, who
> was
> also sitting in the room during the night session in Tunis, where
> the final language was adopted:
> 
> WGIG did have a mandate to make recommendations to the Tunis
> summit.
> WGIG discussed two main areas: The "Oversight Function" (this was
> mainly ICANN) and the "Forum Function" (this were the broader
> Internet related public policy issues). In its Final Report WGIG
> could agree on the "Forum Function" and proposed the IGF. But it
> could not agree on the "oversight function".
> 
> It proposed four models (1. a new UN Internet Organisation/Status
> Quo plus plus, 2. an Intergovernmental Internet Council,  where
> governments will be responsible for decision on the "level of
> principle", but would leave decisions on day-to-day-operations in
> the hands of the Internet community (Status quo plus), 3. Keep the
> system as it s (if it isn´t broken, do not fix it/status quo) and
> 4. remove US oversight of the A root server of ICANN (status quo
> minus).
> 
> In Tunis, governments could not agree on one of the four proposal.
> The EU wanted option 2. This was opposed by the US government,
> which
> supported option 3. Developing countries wanted option 1.
> Non-governmental stakeholders were in favour of option 4.
> 
> It was David Hendon from the UK government (the UK did have the
> rotating EU presidency in fall 2005) who came with compromise
> lanaguage. The compromise was "agree to disagree" and to postpone
> a
> final decision by starting a process with a number of options for
> future arrangements. Within the EU "enhanced cooperation" is used
> as
> a terminologie for processes, where a limited number of member
> states agree to go beyond the existing regulations. The "Schengen
> Agreement" or "the EURO" are two examples for enhanced cooperation
> within EU.
> 
> Within the last 20 years, no group was able to make an arrangement
> for Internet Governance which went beyond the WSIS framework and
> its
> mechanisms (as the IGF). The only thing which we have seen was the
> removal of US oversight over the A-Root Server (2016) and the
> emergence of regional and national arrangements, in particular
> around national and regional IGFs (NRIs). More or les, with regard
> to ICANN we have now "Status Quo Minus".
> 
> But what we did see also was, that the discussion of a number if
> "internet related public policy issues", as cybersecurity, digital
> trade, human rights or new emerging technologies moved out of the
> WSIS process to other institutions, mainly to intergovernmental
> organisations of the UN system.
> 
> Cybersecurity is good example. In Geneva during WSIS 1 - this was
> just a couple of months after the adoption of the Budapest
> Convention (November 2001) - cybersecurity was discussed at
> length.
> The call was for a "new culture of cybersecurity" in the Geneva
> Declaration (2003). And cybersecurity was a corner stone also in
> one
> of the Action Linies in the 2003 "WSIS Plan of Action" (ITU as the
> facilitatir).   It is intersting to re-read the text of the WSIS
> Action line. It proposed "cooperation among the governments at the
> UN and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora for enhance
> user confidence, build trust etc....
> 
> 12. Confidence and security are among the main pillars of the
> Information Society.
> 
> * Promote cooperation among the governments at the United Nations
> and with all stakeholders at other appropriate fora to enhance
> user
> confidence, build trust, and protect both data and network
> integrity; consider existing and potential threats to ICTs; and
> address other information security and network security issues.
> 
> * Governments, in cooperation with the private sector, should
> prevent, detect and respond to cyber-crime and misuse of ICTs by:
> developing guidelines that take into account ongoing efforts in
> these areas; considering legislation that allows for effective
> investigation and prosecution of misuse; promoting effective
> mutual
> assistance efforts; strengthening institutional support at the
> international level for preventing, detecting and recovering from
> such incidents; and encouraging education and raising awareness.
> 
> * Governments, and other stakeholders, should actively promote
> user education and awareness about online privacy and the means of
> protecting privacy.
> 
> * Take appropriate action on spam at national and international
> levels.
> 
> * Encourage the domestic assessment of national law with a view to
> overcoming any obstacles to the effective use of electronic
> documents and transactions including electronic means of
> authentication.
> 
> * Further strengthen the trust and security framework with
> complementary and mutually reinforcing initiatives in the fields
> of
> security in the use of ICTs, with initiatives or guidelines with
> respect to rights to privacy, data and consumer protection.
> 
> * Share good practices in the field of information security and
> network security and encourage their use by all parties concerned.
> 
> * Invite interested countries to set up focal points for real-time
> incident handling and response, and develop a cooperative network
> between these focal points for sharing information and
> technologies
> on incident response.
> 
> * Encourage further development of secure and reliable
> applications to facilitate online transactions.
> 
> * Encourage interested countries to contribute actively to the
> ongoing United Nations activities to build confidence and security
> in the use of ICTs.
> 
> At this time cybersecurity was seen more as "cybercrime" and less
> as
> "national security". Inspired by the WSIS discussion, the UNGA
> started in 2004 a cybersecurity debate in the 1st Committee of the
> UNGA and established first a number of GGEs for cybersecurity,
> later
> two OEWGs for national cybersecurity and an AHC for Cybercrime.
> 
> I see both the new UN Cybercrime Convention as well as the new UN
> permanent mechanism with the POC mechanism as a CMB and the round
> table on capacity building as well as the LAWS negotiations as an
> direct outcome from WSIS Geneva/Tunis and an example for "enhanced
> cooperation" for "Internet related public policy issues", as
> called
> for in para.69 of the Tunis Agenda.
> 
> We do have similar outcomes in the HRC, the WTO and other
> organisations, where governments are "on equal footing" and have
> all
> opportunities to exersize their "rights and responsibilities". The
> same in the UNCSTD. Also in ICANN, all governments are now on a
> equal level. Iran and the US have the same vote in ICANN´s
> governmental advisory committee (GAC).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WG-Strategy mailing list
> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> 
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org [9 
> [11]]
> _______________________________________________
> 
> WG-Strategy mailing list
> 
> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
> 
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WG-Strategy mailing list
> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WG-Strategy mailing list
> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WG-Strategy mailing list
> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1 [7]]
  
https://unu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-03/highleveladvisoryboard_breakthrough_fullreport.pdf

> [2 [8]]
  
https://netmundial.br/pdf/NETmundial10-MultistakeholderStatement-2024.pdf

> [3] http://www.fccn.pt/
> [4] http://www.governacaointernet.pt/
> [5] https://www.intgovforum.org/en
> [6] https://www.linkedin.com/in/anacristinaamorosoneves/
> [7] http://www.gov.uk/dsit
> [8] https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk
> [9 [6]]
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
> _______________________________________________
> WG-Strategy mailing list
> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org

-- 
Shamira Ahmed
Executive Director
Data Economy Policy Hub (DepHUB)
W:www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org [10] [13 [10]]
E: sahmed at africa-digital.org
M: +27 78 129 4783

    [14 [11]]   [15 [12]] [16 [13]]

Links:
------
[1] 
https://unu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-03/highleveladvisoryboard_breakthrough_fullreport.pdf
[2] 
https://netmundial.br/pdf/NETmundial10-MultistakeholderStatement-2024.pdf
[3] http://www.fccn.pt
[4] http://www.fccn.pt/
[5] http://www.governacaointernet.pt
[6] http://www.governacaointernet.pt/
[7] https://www.intgovforum.org/en
[8] https://www.linkedin.com/in/anacristinaamorosoneves/
[9] http://www.gov.uk/dsit
[10] https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk
[11] http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
[12] https://www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org/
[13] http://www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org
[14] https://www.linkedin.com/in/mssmahmed/
[15] https://twitter.com/dep_hub
[16] https://shamiraahmed.medium.com/
_______________________________________________
WG-Strategy mailing list
WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to 
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
-- 
Shamira Ahmed
Executive Director
Data Economy Policy Hub (DepHUB)
W:www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org [10]
E: sahmed at africa-digital.org
M: +27 78 129 4783

    [11]   [12] [13]



Links:
------
[1] https://www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org/
[2] http://www.fccn.pt
[3] http://www.fccn.pt/
[4] http://www.governacaointernet.pt
[5] https://www.intgovforum.org/en
[6] http://www.gov.uk/dsit
[7] 
https://unu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-03/highleveladvisoryboard_breakthrough_fullreport.pdf
[8] 
https://netmundial.br/pdf/NETmundial10-MultistakeholderStatement-2024.pdf
[9] https://www.intgovforum.org/en/pnai
[10] http://www.dataeconomypolicyhub.org
[11] https://www.linkedin.com/in/mssmahmed/
[12] https://twitter.com/dep_hub
[13] https://shamiraahmed.medium.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/f0dd35b8/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 30c453b7.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/f0dd35b8/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13ae5c83.png
Type: image/png
Size: 24392 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/f0dd35b8/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: b545741d.png
Type: image/png
Size: 50347 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/f0dd35b8/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8187c2a4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 42273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/f0dd35b8/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 5a73b6c0.png
Type: image/png
Size: 34834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20250725/f0dd35b8/attachment-0009.png>