<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
We might as well have a new subject line that matches the topic in the event that anyone wants to take up Parminder's suggestion of a list suggestion that feeds into the IGC workshop at Rio <a href="http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=91.">http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=91.</a> [BTW that page needs updating with speaker names etc and a brief description suitable for the program]<BR>
<BR>
On 10/23/07 6:14 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#008000">>> It's long been clear that it's just an annual conference, and this should<BR>
>> indeed be a key point of discussion in the workshop. Moreover, this<BR>
>> condition can't be disembedded from the larger range of ways in which the<BR>
>> IGF has deviated significantly from both the early visions and the Tunis<BR>
>> mandate, without any public discussion or agreement. As the topic is<BR>
>> potentially contentious, it would useful if people who agree with what the<BR>
>> caucus laid out two years ago<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">> <BR>
> <BR>
> Bill, could you send a copy to the list.<BR>
</FONT><BR>
I was referring in the first instance to the Aug. 05 response to the WGIG report, which is on the site you built <a href="http://www.net-gov.org/files/co55.pdf,">http://www.net-gov.org/files/co55.pdf,</a> but also to the thrust of the IGC discussions and prepcom interventions before and after. The relevant bit is below, with a few comments interspersed on some points that may merit consideration in thinking about the Tunis Agenda mandate. Obviously, the text is quite schematic as it was largely a fleshing out of the WGIG's, and was focused more on listing functions than on spelling out the institutional configuration that would be needed to sustain their performance. Arguably, the latter is nevertheless implicit.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>35. The caucus supports the establishment of a new forum to address the broad agenda of Internet governance issues, provided it is truly global, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder in composition. Stakeholders from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as peers.<BR>
<BR>
36. The caucus recommends that Sub-Committee A create a multi-stakeholder working group to address the evolution of the forum, including aspects of scope, structure, membership and modalities, funding and timeline. Initial comments which could feed into such a process are noted below.<BR>
<BR>
37. The forum should not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, but rather should be organized as a legally free-standing entity. If this is impossible, then the forum should be organized directly under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary General.<BR>
</I><BR>
[NB: This was intended to draw a bright line between IGF and ITU in particular, given the sort of statements made during WSIS by Russia etc. I don't think we imagined at the time that free standing would mean largely unfunded with no institutional capacity to do anything other than manage the frenzied and ad hoc assemblage of an annual conference.]<BR>
<BR>
<I>38. The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when the parties all agree that such instruments are needed, there could be a mechanism that allows for their establishment. Normally, the forum should focus on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc.<BR>
</I><BR>
[NB: In retrospect, this seems a bit problematic in several respects. In any event, it implies an entirely different beast from what we have, and a level of commitment to more than talk that just isn’t there. The way the IGF is configured now, with no real institutional apparatus or defined membership and just an annual conference, it’s hard to see how it could devise even recommendations, and how the effort to do so wouldn’t become WSIS PrepCom Redux and eat up the entire conference while blotting out opportunities for dialogue. (Meanwhile, the ITU is planning a World Telecom Policy Forum on Internet issues in 2009 that will adopt recs based on a rather different set of concepts and constituencies.) This has been the position of Nitin et al, the OECD governments, the I-cube (ICANN/ISOC/ICC), etc. Some developing country governments and I guess some of us here (e.g. Parminder) strongly disagree and want the IGF doing recs anyway. It would be interesting to hear how that could actually work now, or whether the proponents are arguing for some sort of broader institutionalization that could make recs conceivable in principle (in practice being a different and higher hurdle due to diverse stakeholder interests and power). I guess we’ll have to address this in the workshop but I’d propose to hold this topic to the last 20 minutes or so or else it will eat up all the bandwidth without getting anywhere and make it impossible to consider other aspects of the mandate on which some consensus might be possible.] <BR>
<BR>
<I>39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:<BR>
<BR>
a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.<BR>
</I><BR>
[NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only. Now even the term, working group, is verboten.]<BR>
<BR>
<I>b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements;<BR>
</I><BR>
<I>c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance,” such as the WSIS principles;<BR>
<BR>
d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture, i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the ambit of any existing body;<BR>
<BR>
e. identification of potential tensions between separately developed mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among them;<BR>
</I><BR>
[NB: These all imply institutional capacity and consensus on looking at how governance is actually conducted in various settings, both of which are absent, related provisions in the Tunis Agenda notwithstanding. It might be worth considering whether any such analysis/monitoring/best practice-identifying is worth doing at the IGF level and how this might be achieved absent institutional capacity, e.g. via dynamic coalitions etc.]<BR>
<BR>
<I>f. promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives, where possible;<BR>
<BR>
g. pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work of other bodies;<BR>
</I><BR>
<I>h. provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization, identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building;<BR>
<BR>
i. promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet governance processes;<BR>
<BR>
j. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on the various Internet governance issues.<BR>
<BR>
40. Participation in the discussions and working groups of the forum should be free and open to all interested individuals from all stakeholder groups. Operations should be designed in such a way that physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organizations, individuals) are proactively supported.<BR>
</I><BR>
[NB: One could argue that some elements of the above are advanced a bit in the current configuration; is more needed?]<BR>
<BR>
<I>41. It is important that the forum has clear organization and decision-making procedures, and responsibilities for its functioning and effectiveness are clearly defined and attributed. It is also important that the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce practical results. A forum for discussion will not be particularly useful if it will not be coupled with the ability to bring all stakeholders to agreement and determine actual<BR>
changes.<BR>
</I><BR>
[NB: Oh well...]<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, that’s just what we agreed on the list two years ago and argued for in PrepComs etc., for information. Clearly some of these points directly parallel or amplify provisions in the WGIG Report and Tunis Agenda, while others go beyond them. In addition, the TA of course includes a number of bits that were consistent with our thrust (e.g. facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies, interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview) and others that were inserted to mollify governments which we didn’t propose, e.g. a bureau. <BR>
<BR>
The workshop will of course focus not on the above, but on the agreed mandate. In the event anyone would like to offer suggestions on points that could be taken up in the workshop, TA 72-78 are below for referencing.<BR>
<BR>
BD<BR>
<BR>
-------<BR>
<BR>
72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:<BR>
<BR>
a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;<BR>
<BR>
b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body;<BR>
<BR>
c) Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview; <BR>
<BR>
d) Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;<BR>
<BR>
e) Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world;<BR>
<BR>
f) Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;<BR>
<BR>
g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;<BR>
<BR>
h) Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;<BR>
<BR>
i) Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;<BR>
<BR>
j) Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources;<BR>
<BR>
k) Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;<BR>
<BR>
l) Publish its proceedings.<BR>
<BR>
73. The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that end, the proposed IGF could:<BR>
<BR>
a) Build on the existing structures of Internet Governance, with special emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process – governments, business entities, civil society and inter-governmental organisations; <BR>
<BR>
b) Have a lightweight and decentralised structure that would be subject to periodic review;<BR>
<BR>
c) Meet periodically, as required. IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, inter alia, to use logistical support. <BR>
<BR>
74. We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum, taking into consideration the proven competencies of all stakeholders in Internet Governance and the need to ensure their full involvement.<BR>
<BR>
75. The UN Secretary-General would report to UN Member States periodically on the operation of the Forum.<BR>
<BR>
76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. <BR>
<BR>
77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.<BR>
<BR>
78. The UN Secretary-General should extend invitations to all stakeholders and relevant parties to participate at the inaugural meeting of the IGF, taking into consideration balanced geographical representation. The UN Secretary-General should also:<BR>
<BR>
a) draw upon any appropriate resources from all interested stakeholders, including the proven expertise of ITU, as demonstrated during the WSIS process; and <BR>
<BR>
b) establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF, ensuring multi-stakeholder participation.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>