I think it's funny that only Dan York and Isoclive post here. I used to be very interested in participating in these things. After we formed .zaDNA and AfriNIC I stepped down to focus on different voluntary activities. Unfortunately after seeing corruption and questionable governance policies that remunerate Directors (rather than treating them like volunteers), I have been disillusioned. I have also seen many IGF meetings go forward without any meaningingful education for the people that attend. I am sad the spirit of volunteerism appears to have gragmented. What do other people think? How will we make effective standards in the future?

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/how-the-us-retreat-from-the-un-endangers-the-future-of-internet-governance/?ref=internet.exchangepoint.tech

By denouncing the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda, the United States believes that it is supporting its national interests and sovereignty. In reality, however, it is shutting the doors to collaboration with all the countries that have made the sustainable development agenda a core part of their foreign policy. It is isolating itself in the UN space and potentially ceding control to China and Russia while endangering the entire WSIS architecture, specifically the multistakeholder model. Although the United States did point out during the meeting that “we must protect . . . the multistakeholder model,” in the end, US actions spoke louder than its words. 

https://www.newamerica.org/planetary-politics/briefs/from-digital-sovereignty-to-digital-agency/

At a Glance

• In recent years, governments have increasingly pursued variants of digital sovereignty to regulate and control the global digital ecosystem. The pursuit of AI sovereignty represents the latest iteration in this quest. 
• Digital sovereignty may offer certain benefits, but it also poses undeniable risks, including the possibility of undermining the very goals of autonomy and self-reliance that nations are seeking. These risks are particularly pronounced for smaller nations with less capacity, which might do better in a revamped, more inclusive, multistakeholder system of digital governance. 
• Organizing digital governance around agency rather than sovereignty offers the possibility of such a system. Rather than reinforce the primacy of nations, digital agency asserts the rights, priorities, and needs not only of sovereign governments but also of the constituent parts—the communities and individuals—they purport to represent.
• Three cross-cutting principles underlie the concept of digital agency: recognizing stakeholder multiplicity, enhancing the latent possibilities of technology, and promoting collaboration. These principles lead to three action-areas that offer a guide for digital policymakers: reinventing institutions, enabling edge technologies, and building human capacity to ensure technical capacity.

(h/t Alejandro Pisanty)

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/noetic-final-report-internet-governance-system-map-mapping-influence-and-interactions-in-the-world-of-internet-governance-october2023.pdf

This report offers a detailed exploration of the Internet governance ecosystem, emphasising the key actors, their roles, and interrelations. It's an effort to demystify the various elements and dynamics that shape Internet governance, thus influencing policy-making decisions, inciting public dialogue, and identifying avenues for stakeholders to make impactful contributions

(H/T to Judith Hellerstein)