[Chapter-delegates] Highlights from the IGF

[Terry Monroe]

The following information and analysis is provided courtesy of Matthew
Shears, Director of Public Policy
---------
Dear all,

The open IGF stock-taking consultation took place today in Geneva.  The
proceedings were webcast and along with remote participation - audio and
video feeds: http://www.intgovforum.org/index.htm .  

Here are (just) my quick/immediate "highlights" which are far from
exhaustive:

In his introductory comments Nitin Deasai, the IGF Chair, communicated that
the purpose of the meeting was to assess the Athens event and to provide
input to a summary report he would be making to the UN SG.  The EU opened
the discussion by reinforcing the notion of the neutral, non-binding nature
of IGF and the value that this provided as well as noting that the themes of
freedom of expression and security were important.  The discussion was then
punctuated by a forceful intervention by the Third World Network on the fact
that the discussion around critical Internet resources was deliberately
muzzled in Athens and that issues such as root servers, the DNS and IP
addresses should be on the agenda in Rio.  Brazil made an intervention on
various possible approaches to Rio including suggesting a focus on
interconnection costs and fundamental rights in cyberspace.  A number of
delegations suggested that all elements of the IGF's mandate should be
reviewed and addressed, some suggesting that success of future IGF's should
be measured in this way, again allowing for a much broader range of issues
than considered so far.  Many government and some Civil Society speakers
suggested that there is a need for final statements, recommendations, etc.,
and that these would provide greater legitimacy to the event.  A number of
business representatives commented on the need for open dialogue, continuity
of the general themes, but delving into more detail.  Italy raised the
Dynamic Coalition on creating an Internet Bill of Rights and suggested that
an international meeting could be held on this matter.   A number of
speakers suggested that the new UN SG should recommend that the IGF's be
addressed in a multi-annual way, avoiding a stop/start process.  I would
note that a number of the governments referenced the importance of linking
the IGF into the follow-up WSIS process and the coordinating role of ECOSOC
in that regard.  Perhaps in response to earlier speakers, a number of lunch
time speakers commented on the need to avoid any sort of official
negotiation or decision-making.  Security will clearly be on the agenda for
Rio - with many governments supporting its inclusion and Russia in
particular referring to the need to address the issue of cyber terrorism,
among others.  Members of Civil Society raised the possibility of setting up
a more formal Bureau to address more sensitive issues as per para 78 - this
was supported by Brazil (although I would note that the Bureau is what the
AG evolved from during discussions last year).  

During the morning plenary I referenced our submission
http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/ISOC%20IGF%20FEB%2007.pdf and
then raised a number of issues for Rio, including the need for a focus on
the user particularly when we consider the IGF's mandate, on best practices
and the need for their fuller integration, on greater interactivity for all
stakeholders including governments through structuring the panels so that
they are more of a give and take and sharing of experience, and on
localizing the Internet governance discussion - in other words how can the
IGF encourage ways and means of taking the discussion on IG matters to the
local and national levels.

After lunch Nitin Desai took a moment to reinforce the basic understanding
of the mandate of the AG - that it was only for Athens.  He also noted that
there was real acceptance of the process and of the multi-stakeholder
nature, despite the fact that for governments this was at times an awkward
process.  He went on to raise a number of key issues: 1) how to ensure that
this is an important discussion for developing countries; 2) how to ensure
that those that are sponsoring participants are coordinated - suggesting
some donor mechanism; 3) the importance of remote participation and noting
that some of the AG had agreed to work on this; 4) outcomes - how can a 5
year process not have outcomes - yet the dynamic coalitions are outcomes in
a manner of speaking - but the IGF is not a membership body and we cannot
formally agree anything as it is alien to the IGF; 5) awareness of the IGF
and its discussion - the need to be sure that this is disseminated or
available (transcripts, etc.).  He then addressed the themes, summarizing
what he thought were some of the keys discussions points: 1) that the IGF
cannot cover all of the mandate in para 72 in one IGF and that the IGF
agenda needed to reflect that the Internet is a rapidly evolving medium,
urging the new AG to look at the mandate but not to be too rigid; 2) that
while recalling that the IGF is not a negotiating forum he noted that
critical resources are not off the table, per para 72; 3) noted that while
development is important the IGF should not be duplicating the WSIS
follow-up activities and that the IGF needed to focus on the user and
his/her concerns.  Desai then commented on something that was raised in the
AG meeting yesterday which suggested that a "year in review" on the Internet
might replace the "setting the scene" session form Athens.  He went on to
suggest that a national focus is important and should be incorporated more
closely into the Rio agenda, using best practices as a means of bringing
in/engaging with all stakeholders.  In response to the comment on the Bureau
he clarified that the Advisory Group was the Bureau - noting that the
comments about its selection, etc., would be communicated to the UN SG.   He
also endorsed the importance of linking in the IGF to the other WSIS
follow-on processes. He closed on noting the importance of debating in good
faith if contentious issues are to be discussed in the IGF - if this is
possible then things can be discussed fruitfully.  

NOTE: May WSIS cluster meetings: 14 - 25th of May.  CSTD/GAID global
meeting.  Action-line facilitation meetings.  All info on the WSIS website:
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster2007.html

Next IGF meeting - 23rd May.

I welcome other thoughts, contributions, what I may have missed, etc.

Best.
Matthew
 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Memberpubpol mailing list
Memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org
http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/memberpubpol