<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Draft report on IGC Rio workshop on Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
Adam mentioned a few weeks ago that the MAG wants all the Rio workshop organizers that didn’t submit reports on their events to do so. Having moderated and been involved in framing and organizing the IGC’s workshop, I said I’d draft a report. Parminder then suggested I post it to the list before sending it to the secretariat, so voila, here’s a draft. Almost everyone involved as a co-sponsor or speaker is here, so if my contemporaneous notes were inaccurate in some way that matters and should be corrected, please be in touch. Of course, if someone else has comments/suggestions feel free to share, bearing in mind this is just a brief workshop report and not a negotiated position statement meriting extended debate. While I vaguely recall a mention of there being a template for these things I couldn’t find it, so I followed a format used in several of the workshop reports already posted at <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html,">http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html,</a> presumably those are conforming to something.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>Internet Governance Forum 2007<BR>
Workshop Report<BR>
(draft version 09.04.08)<BR>
</I><BR>
<B><U>Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF<BR>
</U></B><BR>
<B>Organizers <BR>
</B><BR>
＊ The Internet Governance Caucus <BR>
＊ The Government of Jamaica<BR>
＊ The Global Telecentre Alliance<BR>
<BR>
<B>Panelists<BR>
</B><BR>
William J. Drake (moderator) <BR>
Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance<BR>
Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva<BR>
<BR>
Karen Banks<BR>
Network Development Manager for the Association for Progressive Communications<BR>
<BR>
Ayesha Hassan<BR>
Senior Policy Manager, E-Business, IT and Telecoms and Executive in charge of ICT policy, the International Chamber of Commerce<BR>
<BR>
Everton Frask Lucero <BR>
Head of the Science and Technology Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Brazil<BR>
<BR>
Matthew Shears <BR>
Director of Public Policy, the Internet Society<BR>
<BR>
Parminder Jeet Singh<BR>
Executive Director, IT for Change<BR>
<BR>
Nicholas Thorne <BR>
United Kingdom’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN and other International Organisations, Geneva<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>Summary of the Discussion<BR>
</B><BR>
The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society gave the IGF a mandate to perform twelve important functions. While the IGF has succeeded in performing some of these, others have proven to be more difficult to carry out within the confines of annual meetings. Accordingly, the civil society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) organized this workshop to foster multistakeholder dialogue on ways to fulfill the mandate in light of two years of experience. Its objectives were to review the thinking behind the mandate’s formulation; identify any mandated functions that would be particularly value-adding but are not being performed sufficiently in the IGF or elsewhere; suggest operationally practical steps that the IGF community could pursue in order to facilitate their performance; and assess related trends and challenges in the IGF.<BR>
<BR>
The workshop began with some discussion of the need for transparent and inclusive debate on the mandate, especially given the stakeholder expectations that had been raised by the Tunis Agenda and the WSIS preparatory process. It was suggested that because some of the specific functions agreed to in Tunis cannot easily be performed solely by annual main sessions, it could make sense to decentralize the effort and pursue them in thematic workshops, dynamic coalitions, and perhaps even working groups. Were this approach to be followed, there would be a need for a transmission path through which ideas and information could percolate from the bottom up and be considered by the broader IGF community, e.g. allowing rapporteurs from these collaborations to participate in main session panels in order to present their key findings and outcomes.<BR>
<BR>
In broad terms, one set of panelists expressed satisfaction with what has been achieved to date but wanted the IGF to expand and deepen its work on the mandated functions, while another set of panelists expressed caution about adopting overly constraining interpretations of the mandate and overly ambitious objectives for its implementation. For example, one panelist stressed that the Tunis Agenda mandate means what it says and embodies a negotiated consensus that cannot be set aside. Nevertheless, he argued, at least six of the mandated functions---such as promoting the WSIS principles and making non-binding recommendations---are not being performed, and there are issues with the preparatory process for meetings that affect the IGF’s ability to redress this situation. Two other panelists expressed related views, averring that the IGF needs the institutional mechanisms and resources to perform the functions and help build consensus on key developmental objectives like promoting access and the Internet’s public goods character. In contrast, another panelist cautioned against a formulaic “check the box” evaluation of the IGF’s performance, particularly absent any clear criteria for what constitutes success in this setting. Insofar as some stakeholders are already tackling the issues, it would be better to enhance their ability to share information on their efforts than to expect the IGF per se to take on demanding responsibilities. In a similar vein, another panelist maintained that it was too early to judge the IGF according to a checklist of functions because participants are still feeling their way with the multistakeholder process, learning to accept different perspectives, and building trust. A final panelist concurred, citing Rio’s nonconfrontational main session on critical Internet resources as evidence of the progress toward mutual understanding that can be achieved with patience and multistakeholder dialogue. Nurturing and building upon that progress will require avoiding intergovernmental-style negotiations of recommendations or other outcome texts.<BR>
<BR>
The subsequent discussion with the large audience in attendance was robust and interactive. Audience members made a variety of interventions on such points as: the adequacy, or inadequacy, of current IGF efforts to implement the mandate; the need to view the mandate’s functions in relation to each IGF activity, rather than as segmented streams of new activity, and to establish working methods on this basis; governmental participants’ desire for recommendations or other conference conclusions that they can take back to their national capitals and use in making the case for continuing participation; the apparent lack of consensus on the mandate’s vision within the current MAG; the importance of engaging a broader range of stakeholders and organizations in the IGF; the insufficiency of uncoordinated stakeholder initiatives as an alternative to concerted mandate implementation within the IGF; and the needs to replace the MAG with a tripartite bureau structure, adopt nonbinding recommendations, set new substantive foci for the main sessions, and establish working groups with competence for specific and pressing issues that cannot be tackled effectively by panel discussions of whatever kind. Despite the diversity of opinions expressed on these and related matters, one point did appear to garner rough consensus and was subsequently reported to the main session on Taking Stock and the Way Forward. This was the abovementioned notion that designated rapporteurs for workshops and coalitions on thematic issues should be included in appropriate main session panels in order to report on their activities. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>Relevant Organizations and ways of communicating with them<BR>
</B><BR>
The workshop was relevant to all the intergovernmental, private sector, and multistakeholder bodies participating in the IGF. Communication with them in the context of the IGF is the best option.<BR>
<BR>
<B>Possible follow-up<BR>
</B><BR>
Most participants expressed interest in further multistakeholder discussions about how the IGF can best fulfill its mandate. Accordingly, the IGC will propose to organize a follow-up workshop in Hyderabad that will delve more deeply into selected aspects of this topic. In addition, per the above, it would be useful if a workshop rapporteur were allowed to participate in the main session on Taking Stock and the Way Forward in order to bring to the wider IGF community the main points arising in the workshop. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
William J. Drake <BR>
Director, Project on the Information<BR>
Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO<BR>
Graduate Institute of International and<BR>
Development Studies<BR>
Geneva, Switzerland<BR>
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<BR>
***********************************************************<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>