[governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF

[Jeremy Malcolm]

A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin  
Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a  
proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the  
IGF".

Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider  
this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is  
presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the  
caucus is required before 30 April.

Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as  
possible.  Thank you!

--- begins ---

Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'

Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The  
role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first  
workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php? 
mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self- 
appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a ‘periodic  
review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).  
Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same  
title during IGF, Hyderabad.

The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in  
general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,  
particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the  
conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this  
general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward  
and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe  
that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked  
or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the  
contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of  
those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion  
into something more.

Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year  
term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be  
reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to

(1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA  
mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are  
needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate

(2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for  
the IGF, if one is at all needed.

There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and  
substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include  
topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more  
focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for  
Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of  
the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion.  
Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized structure’ it  
will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond  
the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring  
IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which will  
inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and  
working group working on important issues contributing to the  
proceedings of the annual event.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
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