V1.2
Francis Muguet
IGF Open Consultations
24 February 2009
Geneva
IGF PROCEDURE PROPOSAL
I am the IGF focal point of the Linguistic Diversity Dynamic Coalition, and chair, co-chair, webmaster of various WSIS working groups that are still active to various extent.
I am speaking in my personal capacity.
I am going to be brutally honest in my assessment and then propose a pragmatic solution.
While being supported by the majority of its participants, the IGF process is nevertheless in a difficult position, because its usefulness is criticized from two parties. From one side, there are stakeholders, that are more in favor of an intergovernmental process because they feel that there is a lack of output, in particular in terms of recommendations. On the other side, there are stakeholders who perceive the IGF as annoyance that could be avoided, and would be glad to revert to the old ways before the WSIS. Both sides, could, from outside the IGF process, at the CSTD level, the ECOSOC level, impose an external review.
According
to the Tunis Agenda :
76.
We
ask the UN Secretary-General
to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in
formal
consultation with Forum participants,
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the
UN Membership in this regard.
I
agree with Markus Kummer that normally all review processes are
performed by people that are not stakeholders directly involved in
the activity under review. Even a 'internal review" means
usually review by people in the same organization, with no outsiders,
but not by the very people involved in the activity.
Whatever the
type of review, it is unavoidable that the extent to which each point
of the mandate is going to be precisely assessed. It is clear also
the review report is going to be the basis of the recommendations of
the UN Secretary General is going to send, along with the review
report, to the UN general assembly who is going to have the final
say.
Let
us examine briefly the Tunis agenda and assess the progress that have
been made.
Concerning IGF organization :
78.
The UN Secretary-General should extend invitations to all
stakeholders and relevant parti
2.
establish
an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF,
not fulfilled, no bureau has been
established,
Concerning the IGF mandate
72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
5.
Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing
world.
Not
fulfilled. There is no advisory document in the name of
IGF, or from the IGF, on this topic
7.
Identify emerging issues, bring
them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public,
and, where appropriate, make recommendations.
The point is not fulfilled at all.
9. Promote
and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in
Internet governance processes.
Not fulfilled. There is no assessment document in the name
of IGF on this topic
10.
Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet
resources.
.
12. Publish
its proceedings
OK, fulfilled partially, Are transcripts proceedings ?
It might be
supplemented by a scientific proceeding ( it is suggested a special
issue of Future
Internet
(ISSN 1999-5903), a new open access journal where contributions are
formatted in terms of papers.).
Personally I see that
the unfulfillment of articles 5, 7 and 9 of the mandate is linked to
the lack of establishment of a bureau. Since there is no bureau no
rules of procedures can be determined so that no documents ,
statements, recommendations can be produced in the name of the IGF.
It appeared to me, for a long time, as a stalemate without solution.
.
At the end of the Hyderabad meeting, I envisioned a way that
could offer a pragmatic
compromise with the help of the Dynamic
Coalitions, a completely unexpected concept
that arose during the
IGF .and I am developing further this idea now
Considering
key article 7 :
Identify
emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies
and the general public,
It
could be considered that the creation of Dynamic Coalition on some
issues pertains
to the task of identifying emerging issues. (
emerging : that emerge from the debate to differentiate from
emergent issues, meaning new, novel topics ) .
By facilitating the
creation of Dynamic Coalitions recognized by the secretariat and
listed on the IGF web site, the IGF has fulfilled its mandate
in Identifying emerging issues. The
dynamic coalitions are effectively bringing the issues to the
attention of the relevant bodies and the general public.
So this works.
and,
where appropriate, make recommendations.
following
this line of reasoning, it is the dynamic coalitions that are
making recommendations.
The set of the DC recommendations is
regrouped in one document entitled : Recommendations
at
the IGF.
The at
is put in bold
instead of of
to make it clear
that it is the recommendations made by the IGF entities that
have been recognized by the IGF as dealing with emerging issues. The
Recommendation at the
IGF does not have to be in agreement with one another, depending on
each DC approach.
In addition The MAG could held sessions
dedicated to the agreement of DCs, and those sessions be called
Bureau session, since in some sense, there are dealing with
procedural issues that may lead to recommendation
at
the IGF.
5.
Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing
world.
may be
fulfilled by asking DC to producing advisory documents for this
topic.
Similarly, the set of advices of each DC
could be regrouped in a document
called :
Advices
at the IGF concerning ways and means to accelerate the
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing
world.
and
also
9.
Promote and assess, on an ongoing
basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance
processes.
may
be fulfilled by asking DC to producing promotion and assessment
documents for this topic. Similarly, the set of
documents of each DC be regrouped in one general document
called :
Assessment
at the IGF concerning the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet
governance processes..
and
in this way the IGF could be considered as having fulfilled its
entire mandate.
The IGF process has not lived up to the
expectations of many, but also to the fears of many...
Its
role is crucial, and the IGF must be continued.
Now considering the consultations process since the DC are playing a formal role in the IGF, the formal consultation with Forum participants could be conducted, possibly partially, through the dynamic coalitions.
In this way, we have a legal and political coherence both for the implementation of the mandate and the consultation.