TL;DR

  • Following its 2026 relaunch, IGF-USA is exploring how it can evolve beyond an annual conference into a sustainable, year-round organization.
  • Building institutional memory and separating administrative operations from substantive programming could help IGF-USA maintain continuity while bringing new participants into the organization.
  • A decentralized national model could expand Internet governance discussions beyond Washington and involve universities, state and local governments, Tribal nations, businesses and communities.
  • Youth and academic engagement could bring the next generation directly into Internet governance through student programming, curriculum integration and active participation.
  • Digital infrastructure issues including land use, energy, community engagement and infrastructure development are increasingly part of Internet governance and demonstrate the need for broader participation.

# # #

By Ilissa Miller, CEO of iMiller Public Relations

One of the most interesting parts of IGF-USA 2026 happened after our data center discussion. The final session turned the governance conversation inward.

The question became, after relaunching IGF-USA following a multi-year hiatus, what should the organization itself become?

It’s a timely question. The global Internet Governance Forum now has a permanent mandate from the United Nations. Meanwhile, AI, cybersecurity, digital infrastructure, privacy and other technology issues are evolving rapidly, and increasingly playing out far beyond Washington.

Learning From the Past

Christian Dawson brought important institutional history to the conversation. Nearly a decade ago, he co-chaired an IGF-USA Sustainability Working Group focused on creating processes and governance structures that could make the organization sustainable.

One of the lessons from that experience was the importance of institutional memory.

Organizations built heavily around volunteers can become dependent upon a relatively small number of people who know how everything works. When those people move on, knowledge can disappear with them.

Christian captured the challenge beautifully: IGF-USA needs “continuity without dependency and renewal without exhaustion.”

That’s not only a useful principle for IGF-USA. It’s a pretty good governance principle for almost any multistakeholder initiative.

Separate Operations From Ideas

Ron da Silva, Chair of the IGF-USA 2026 Steering Committee, discussed another practical idea: separating the administrative responsibilities of running IGF-USA from the substantive programming.

A steering committee can handle the mechanics necessary to keep the organization functioning while a broader programming community focuses on the issues, participants and conversations that matter.

Leadership can rotate. Institutional knowledge can be documented. New people can participate without requiring the organization to reinvent itself every year.

And, I think the bigger idea emerged as the discussion continued.

Don’t Just Move the Conference. Move the Conversation.

If IGF-USA is truly a national Internet Governance Forum, why should its center of gravity remain primarily in Washington? Internet governance is happening everywhere.

It’s happening in state legislatures. Universities. Tribal nations. Planning boards. Utilities. Technology companies. Economic development organizations. And, as our earlier panel demonstrated, communities deciding whether and how digital infrastructure should be developed.

The idea discussed was not simply rotating an annual conference around the country. It was creating a decentralized national network.

Changing geography should change who participates, which institutions become involved and, importantly, which questions get asked.

That could mean universities helping shape programming. Local businesses bringing regional technology issues forward. State and local officials participating directly. Civil society organizations introducing concerns that might never surface in Washington.

Bring the Next Generation With Us

Chelsea Horn of Lehigh University added another critical component: youth and academic engagement.

Her ideas included academic affiliates, student scholars, youth-led programming, curriculum integration and involving students directly as moderators, rapporteurs and participants.

If we’re discussing how the Internet and AI should evolve over the next several decades, the people who will inherit those systems shouldn’t simply be invited to watch the conversation.

The Data Center Panel Proved the Point

What I found particularly interesting was that the data center session I was part of earlier in the day became something of a proof point for this proposed model.

During the final discussion, organizers specifically noted that the panel brought people and perspectives into the IGF conversation that aren’t normally part of the traditional Washington Internet-policy world: Local planning; Tribal sovereignty; Community engagement; Land use. Energy; and  Infrastructure development.

Those aren’t separate from Internet governance anymore. They are Internet governance.

And that’s why I left Philadelphia convinced that IGF-USA shouldn’t simply be an annual event.

It has an opportunity to become a decentralized, year-round ecosystem where industry, government, academia, technical experts and communities continually work through the difficult questions accompanying our digital future.

The Internet itself is decentralized.

Perhaps the conversation about how we govern it should be too.

And for those of us working across digital infrastructure, there is every reason to participate. Because the next generation of Internet governance isn’t only about what happens online. Increasingly, it’s about what happens in our communities.

Curious about what you missed? Not to worry, you can still view the live stream online here: isoc.live/21744.

Stay tuned for IGF-USA upcoming events: igfusa.us.