APNIC welcomes the publication of the WSIS+20 Revision 1 (PDF) and appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this important review process. As the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for the Asia Pacific, APNIC remains committed to the WSIS vision — supporting inclusive, sustainable digital development through responsible stewardship of Internet number resources, technical capacity building, and active participation in multistakeholder governance.
Key improvements in Revision 1
We recognize that Internet governance must continue to be global and multistakeholder in nature with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, international organisations, and all other relevant stakeholders in accordance with their respective roles and responsibilities.
Paragraph 87, WSIS+20 Review Outcome Document Revision 1.
APNIC agrees that participation is required from governments, the private sector, civil society, technical, and academic communities, international organizations, and all other relevant stakeholders, to maintain and uphold the global and multistakeholder nature of Internet governance.
We take note of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus-building, endorsed in April 2024, as a contribution to strengthening Internet governance through inclusive participation, balanced representation and openness.
Paragraph 93, WSIS+20 Review Outcome Document Revision 1.
APNIC contributed to the development of the NETmundial+10 guidelines, and considers them an excellent resource for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus-building.
We decide that the Internet Governance Forum shall be made a permanent forum of the United Nations.
Paragraph 98, WSIS+20 Review Outcome Document Revision 1.
The IGF is anchored in the WSIS generation and is the platform where the Internet governance agenda was established and has evolved. APNIC is happy that Rev 1 continues to maintain that the IGF should be established on a permanent basis.
We call for the strengthening of the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, to enable it to continue its development, implement further improvements and support the work of National and Regional Internet Governance Forums and intersessional activities, and invite the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding for the Forum.
Paragraph 101, WSIS+20 Review Outcome Document Revision 1.
APNIC is pleased to see the work that happens between meetings being highlighted, and important role of coordination at the regional and national levels.
Special thanks
The WSIS+20 Informal Multistakeholder Sounding Board (IMSB) is an informal, non-governmental body channelling stakeholder perspectives, priorities, and expert insights into the WSIS+20 review, helping ensure the review process remains transparent, inclusive, and responsive to broader public interest concerns.
We would like to recognize the IMSB for their efforts to provide guidance and advice during the review process, and ensure multistakeholder input is heard from all regions, in particular the Asia Pacific region. Thank you to the IMSB members who have spent countless days and nights doing this work voluntarily.
Additionally, the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) should be recognized for their work to shape and evolve the IGF throughout the years. The group comprises 40 members from all regions representing governments, civil society, academia, and the technical community. APNIC staff, including myself, have proudly served on the IGF MAG in previous years.
This year, the MAG was appointed from the MAG and WGIG alumni network to ensure that specific expertise and experience would strategically guide the IGF’s preparations for the 20-year review process. Thank you to the MAG members who gave generously of their time and experience.
If you haven’t yet seen it, we encourage you to read Revision 1 of the WSIS+20 Outcomes Review Document. Embedded below is the response that APNIC gave to the document at the United Nations (UN) Virtual Stakeholders Consultation.
The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of APNIC. Please note a Code of Conduct applies to this blog.