WSIS+20 Will Decide the IGF’s Fate—Are We Ready?

As the global Internet governance community prepares to meet in Lillestrøm, Norway, next week, the setting has a certain symmetry. Nearly two decades after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) gave rise to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the UN-mandated platform for multistakeholder dialogue is again under review—its future to be decided later this year as part of the broader WSIS+20 process.

This year’s IGF will be the last to take place before that decision is finalised. The next time stakeholders convene, they may be doing so under a renewed mandate, an altered institutional configuration, and a rebranded format —or not at all.

In the lead-up to Lillestrøm, a wave of newly publicly available statements—including some shared as formal interventions during the WSIS+20 consultations, others published as position papers independently—has added valuable insight into the current state of play. Drawn largely from stakeholders already closely engaged in the IGF ecosystem—civil society organisations, technical and academic bodies, and a number of governments—these documents reflect both a broad consensus on the Forum’s importance as well as some divergence and lack of clarity over its future shape.

Some proposals remain evolutionary: the EU has called for clearer outputs and better integration with the Sustainable Development Goals; ICANN and ISOC emphasise stability and continuity. Others suggest more structural shifts: Switzerland has proposed a permanent helpdesk and stronger UN integration mechanisms, while Australia has floated a rebranding of the IGF as a “Digital Governance Forum” alongside a significantly expanded Secretariat.

These documents don’t reflect the full spectrum of global positions, and the picture may shift as more perspectives emerge or become publicly available. But even within this partial set, the direction of travel is clear: the IGF’s role is under active negotiation—and by the time its mandate is reviewed in New York later this year, the terms of that role may look very different.

Even within this partial picture, some contours are becoming clear. There is broad agreement that the IGF should continue beyond 2025, ideally with a permanent mandate and more predictable funding. There is also widespread interest in strengthening its connection to other global processes—particularly the Global Digital Compact—and in improving its outputs without compromising its open, non-negotiating character.

Disagreement centres more on how much reform is needed and what kind. Some see the IGF as needing only evolutionary adjustments: a more responsive Secretariat, better documentation, deeper integration with national and regional IGFs. Others envision more structural change—rebranding it, expanding its remit, or embedding it more fully within the UN’s digital cooperation machinery.

Still others argue for a shift in orientation altogether—towards a space more explicitly focused on questions of justice, power, and digital equity.

But there are also areas where thinking is still in flux. Key questions—such as how to track the IGF’s impact, what kind of outputs it should produce, or how to ensure broader global buy-in—remain underdeveloped or unevenly addressed across the stakeholder landscape. These unresolved questions may yet prove more decisive than the areas of formal alignment.

Among long-standing participants, the IGF is valued for its convening power, its trust-building function, and its ability to hold open space for dialogue when other venues are closed or contested. But beyond these circles, the IGF’s continued relevance is less assured. For some governments and institutions, it remains peripheral to more immediate political or developmental goals. Others are more actively sceptical—viewing the Forum as either too diffuse to matter, or insufficiently aligned with their preferred governance models. This divergence is not new. But it becomes more consequential when the Forum’s mandate is up for renegotiation.

The challenge, then, is not only to decide whether the IGF continues—but to clarify what kind of instrument it is meant to be. The IGF in Lillestrøm offers a critical moment—not to settle these debates, but to prepare. It is a chance to consolidate areas of emerging consensus, clarify the nature of disagreements, and begin to fill in the gaps in strategy and design. As the WSIS+20 negotiations move into their final stretch, how stakeholders use this final pre-review gathering could shape what’s politically possible in New York later this year.