[WSIS CS-Plenary] APC Statement as IGF II closes

[karen banks]

hi everyone

some initial reflections as IGF II draws to a close..

karen
=====

APC statement on the second Internet Governance Forum
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
November 12-15 2007

15 November 2007

RIO DE JANEIRO, 15 November 2007 – As the second 
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) draws to a close, 
the Association for Progressive Communications 
(APC) is taking stock and formulating suggestions 
for action, as a way to move the IGF forward.

The Rio IGF, like the first IGF, succeeded as a 
space for inclusive policy dialogue. The openness 
of the format of the event, and the quality and 
diversity of the participants created an 
opportunity for reaching common understanding of 
complex and controversial issues. It builds 
understanding of differences in positions and 
opinions. It is this that enables the IGF to 
influence and inform policy without the 
constraints of needing to create consensus on negotiated text.

We appreciate the impressive effort of the 
Brazilian Internet Steering Group in organising 
the event, and in particular want to recognise 
their inclusion of civil society organisations in the preparatory process.

This being said, the IGF can and should make 
further progress in fulfilling its mandate. Here 
are APC’s suggestions to the IGF for consolidating its mechanism.

- Establish 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, 
including participation of all stakeholders, and 
access to information in their activities.

- Establish regional and national IGFs: Listening 
to the proposals of many Latin American and 
African delegates, including from leading 
governments and the private sector, APC would 
like to support the idea of establishing regional 
IGFs to define regional priorities and to enable 
greater participation from developing countries. 
. We also believe that national IGFs are a 
powerful mechanism for learning, problem solving, 
collective action and building partnership among 
different stakeholders at national level.

- Convene ‘IGF Working Groups’: APC recommends 
that the IGF uses the format of the WGIG, or 
bodies such as the IETF (Internet Engineering 
Task Force) 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.

Based on discussions at the IGF II it appears 
that working groups on the following five issues 
might be valuable: a) WG on the definition of 
illegal and harmful content; d) WG on self and 
co-regulation in internet governance; c) WG on 
business models for access; d) WG on a 
development agenda for internet governance; e) WG on open standards.

- Effectively resource the IGF secretariat: We 
want to express our admiration of Markus Kummer 
and his team for accomplishing so much with so 
little 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.

- Strengthen the capacity and legitimacy of the 
Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group: We recommend 
that one third of the membership of the 
Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group rotates every 
year; that it is formally appointed by Secretary 
General by the end of January of every year; that 
the mandate of the MAG is clarified and that 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.

- On the thematic areas of the IGF, 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.

- Increase participation in agenda setting: We 
suggest that the IGF secretariat and the MAG 
(Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group) 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.

- 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 people and government, the Executive 
Coordinator of the IGF secretariat and its 
chairperson, and all participants. We wish India 
well in it's preparations for IGF III and express 
our commitment to the process and willingness to 
provide support in the process where we can.

The Association for Progressive Communications
Rio de Janeiro, 15 November 2007