[APCPress] APC makes recommendations to UN internet governance forum

[Karen Higgs]

NO EMBARGO


Statement from the
Association for Progressive Communications (APC) on the
Second Internet Governance Forum,
Rio de Janeiro, November 12-15 2007


JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, 27 November 2007 – The second Internet 
Governance Forum (IGF) concluded on November 15 and the Association for 
Progressive Communications (APC) presents an initial assessment of the 
event and makes suggestions for moving towards the third forum in New 
Delhi in a year’s time.

The Rio IGF, like the first IGF in Athens, succeeded as a space for 
inclusive policy dialogue. The openness of the event’s format and the 
quality and diversity of the participants deepened understanding of 
complex and controversial issues. The format of the workshops enabled 
participants to gain a better grasp of both commonality and difference 
in their positions and opinions. It is this nuanced approach that 
enables the IGF to influence and inform policy without the constraints 
of needing to create consensus on negotiated text.

This being said, the IGF can and should make further progress in 
fulfilling its mandate. Based on the outcomes of various workshops at 
the second IGF, and our assessment of the process, APC would like to 
make the following suggestions:

1. Establishment of a self-regulatory mechanism to ensure participation, 
access to information and transparency in internet governance

APC recommends that a mechanism is created to ensure that all the 
institutions which play a role in some aspect of governing the internet 
commit to ensuring transparency, public participation (of all 
stakeholders) and access to information. See proposal from APC and the 
Council of Europe: http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5310569

2. Convening of regional and national IGFs

APC supports the idea of regional IGFs that can serve the purpose of 
defining regional priorities and enabling greater participation from 
multiple stakeholders at regional level. We believe that national IGFs 
are a powerful mechanism for learning, problem solving, collective 
action and building partnership among different stakeholders at national 
level.

3. Convening of “IGF working groups”

APC recommends that the IGF uses the format of the Working Group on 
Internet Governance (WGIG, established during the World Summit on the 
Information Society), or bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task 
Force (IETF) to convene working groups to address complex issues that 
emerge during a forum. These groups can be made up of individuals with 
the necessary expertise and drawn from different stakeholder groups. 
These groups can then engage specific issues in greater depth, and, if 
they feel it is required, develop recommendations that can be 
communicated to the internet community at large, or addressed to 
specific institutions.

These recommendations need not be presented as formally agreed 
recommendations from the IGF, but as recommendations or suggestions for 
action from the individuals in the working group.

These working groups have a different role from the self-organised 
dynamic coalitions which we believe should continue. Dynamic coalitions 
have a broader mandate and are informal in nature. We see IGF working 
groups as differing from dynamic coalitions in that they should 
particular challenges rather than a general issue area. They will also 
have a degree of accountability and an obligation to report that dynamic 
coalitions do not have.

Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears that working groups on the 
following issues might be valuable:
a)	Working group on self and co-regulation in internet governance
b)	Working group on business models for access
c)	Working group on a development agenda for internet governance.

The need for working groups will only be apparent when the event report 
has been finalised. We propose that the IGF secretariat and the 
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) consider this proposal at that time.

4. Effective resourcing of the IGF secretariat

We want to express our admiration of Markus Kummer and his team for 
accomplishing so much with so few human and financial resources. We 
recognise the extensive investment made by the government of Brazil, and 
also by the previous host country, Greece, as well as other 
contributions made by governments, sponsors and donors. However, if the 
IGF is to continue to succeed and make further strides in fulfilling its 
mandate, the secretariat needs to be properly resourced.

The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a 
UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to 
fulfil its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005.

5. Strengthening the capacity and legitimacy of the Multi-Stakeholder 
Advisory Group

We recommend that:
a.	one-third of the membership of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group 
rotates every year
b.	it is formally appointed by UN Secretary-General by the end of 
January of every year
c.	the mandate of the MAG is clarified and
d.	it considers electing some form of management committee to streamline 
its internal decision-making processes.

We recognise the right of the MAG to have closed discussions (Chatham 
House Rules) but it needs to adhere to basic principles of transparency 
and accountability. We propose that the MAG provides routine reports on 
its meetings and decisions.

6. Making better use of plenary time

Acknowledging that access, openness, security, critical internet 
resources and diversity have been explored extensively, APC does not see 
the value in recycling these themes in the plenary format. We encourage 
the IGF III organisers to consider a different format for the plenary 
panels. Such a format should allow for in-depth discussion of specific 
issues and can draw on the outcomes of workshops and inputs of working 
groups.

7. Increased participation in agenda setting

We suggest that the IGF secretariat and the MAG convene working groups 
for each of the main themes of the next forum to help shape the agenda 
and identify speakers well in advance of the event. These groups can 
assist the MAG and the secretariat to address gender balance and 
diversity in the composition of the panels.

8. Learning from experience

We encourage the secretariat and the hosts of the first two IGFs, Greece 
and Brazil, to engage in active sharing of lessons learned with the next 
host country of the IGF, India. This process should include 
representatives of all stakeholder groups.


In conclusion, we would like to extend our thanks to the host country, 
the co-chairs of the forum, the executive coordinator of the IGF 
secretariat, the people who assisted him and his team, and all 
participants. In particular we want to recognise the efforts of the 
Brazilian Internet Steering Group and their inclusion of civil society 
organisations throughout the preparatory process.

We wish India well in its preparations for the third IGF and express our 
commitment to the process and willingness to provide support in the 
process where we can.

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
South Africa, 27 November 2007
www.apc.org


-30-