[governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF

[William Drake]

Hi,

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
http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=91.  [BTW that page needs updating
with speaker names etc and a brief description suitable for the program]

On 10/23/07 6:14 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

>> It's long been clear that it's just an annual conference, and this should
>> indeed be a key point of discussion in the workshop.   Moreover, this
>> condition can't be disembedded from the larger range of ways in which the
>> IGF has deviated significantly from both the early visions and the Tunis
>> mandate, without any public discussion or agreement.  As the topic is
>> potentially contentious, it would useful if people who agree with what the
>> caucus laid out two years ago
> 
> 
> Bill, could you send a copy to the list.

I was referring in the first instance to the Aug. 05 response to the WGIG
report, which is on the site you built
http://www.net-gov.org/files/co55.pdf, 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.


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.

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.

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.

[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.]

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.

[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 isn¹t there. The way the IGF
is configured now, with no real institutional apparatus or defined
membership and just an annual conference, it¹s hard to see how it could
devise even recommendations, and how the effort to do so wouldn¹t 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
we¹ll have to address this in the workshop but I¹d 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.]

39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:

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.

[NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only.  Now even
the term, working group, is verboten.]

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;

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,² such as the WSIS
principles;

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;

e. identification of potential tensions between separately developed
mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among
them;

[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.]

f. promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives,
where possible;

g. pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work of
other bodies;

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;

i. promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet
governance processes;

j. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on
the various Internet governance issues.

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.

[NB: One could argue that some elements of the above are advanced a bit in
the current configuration; is more needed?]

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
changes.

[NB: Oh well...]

Anyway, that¹s 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 didn¹t propose, e.g. a bureau.

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.

BD

-------

 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:

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;

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;

c)    Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other
institutions on matters under their purview;

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;

e)    Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world;

f)    Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
developing countries;

g)    Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

h)    Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

i)    Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet Governance processes;

j)    Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources;

k)    Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;

l)    Publish its proceedings.

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:

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;

b)    Have a lightweight and decentralised structure that would be subject
to periodic review;

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.

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.

75.    The UN Secretary-General would report to UN Member States
periodically on the operation of the Forum.

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.

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.

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:

a)    draw upon any appropriate resources from all interested stakeholders,
including the proven expertise of ITU, as demonstrated during the WSIS
process; and 

b)    establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF,
ensuring multi-stakeholder participation.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071023/b39a6020/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071023/b39a6020/attachment.txt>