[governance] Draft report on IGC Rio workshop on Fulfilling

[Adam Peake]

Bill, thanks.

How about adding a link to the transcript of the 
taking stock session noting the workshop 
organizers were invited to summarize their 
discussion 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-TakingStock-15NOV07.txt>

Adam



>Hi,
>
>Adam mentioned a few weeks ago that the MAG 
>wants all the Rio workshop organizers that 
>didn¹t submit reports on their events to do so. 
> Having moderated and been involved in framing 
>and organizing the IGC¹s workshop, I said I¹d 
>draft a report.  Parminder then suggested I post 
>it to the list before sending it to the 
>secretariat, so voila, here¹s 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 couldn¹t find it, so 
>I followed a format used in several of the 
>workshop reports already posted at 
><http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html,>http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html, 
>presumably those are conforming to something.
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>Internet Governance Forum 2007
>Workshop Report
>(draft version 09.04.08)
>
>Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
>
>Organizers
>
>Åñ    The Internet Governance Caucus
>Åñ    The Government of Jamaica
>Åñ    The Global Telecentre Alliance
>
>Panelists
>
>William J. Drake (moderator)  
>Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance
>Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva
>
>Karen Banks
>Network Development Manager for the Association for Progressive Communications
>
>Ayesha Hassan
>Senior Policy Manager, E-Business, IT and 
>Telecoms and Executive in charge of ICT policy, 
>the International Chamber of Commerce
>
>Everton Frask Lucero
>Head of the Science and Technology Division of 
>the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of 
>Brazil
>
>Matthew Shears
>Director of Public Policy, the Internet Society
>
>Parminder Jeet Singh
>Executive Director, IT for Change
>
>Nicholas Thorne
>United Kingdom¹s Ambassador and Permanent 
>Representative to the UN and other International 
>Organisations, Geneva
>
>
>Summary of the Discussion
>
>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 mandate¹s 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.
>
>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.
>
>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 IGF¹s 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 Internet¹s public goods 
>character.  In contrast, another panelist 
>cautioned against a formulaic ³check the box² 
>evaluation of the IGF¹s 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 Rio¹s 
>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.
>
>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 
>mandate¹s functions in relation to each IGF 
>activity, rather than as segmented streams of 
>new activity, and to establish working methods 
>on this basis; governmental participants¹ 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 mandate¹s 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.
>
>
>Relevant Organizations and ways of communicating with them
>
>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.
>
>Possible follow-up
>
>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.   
>
>
>***********************************************************
>William J. Drake  
>Director, Project on the Information
>   Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
>Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
>Geneva, Switzerland
>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>***********************************************************
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance