Replies to the Questionnaire
<< Start < Prev 16/40 Next > End >>

Comments on the Formal consultation with Forum participants In accordance with
Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society


Affiliation: Communications and Information Technology Commission, Saudi Arabia

Name: Abdullah Daftardar

Responses:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
There are two basic, interrelated elements to the WSIS approach to Internet governance. The first is an enhanced cooperation process for development of public policy, which is the responsibility of states in coordination with all stakeholders. The second is the IGF, which provides a neutral and non-binding process for all bodies and which was conceived as, among other things, a forum for discussion of public policy proposals originating via the enhanced cooperation process.

For some reason, there was action to create and support the IGF, but there has been little effective action to establish an enhanced cooperation process to agree and implement Internet-related public policy. This has created an imbalance in the whole approach to Internet governance, and the result is not only ineffective, it is misleading: Ineffective because there is no public policy input to the IGF for discussion (where the intent is to implement that public policy); and misleading because some organizations appear to have concluded that the IGF alone fulfills the WSIS mandates for Internet governance.

In addition, without the required link to an enhanced cooperation process for public policy, the very fact that the IGF is constituted as a non-binding process limits its ability to address action items in its mandate other than those related simply to discussion and exchange of ideas.

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
WSIS principles are rooted in an improvement of the human condition. The IGF can embody those principles only insofar as it collaborates with an enhanced cooperation process for Internet governance and public policy. A neutral, non-binding discussion forum is powerless in isolation. Furthermore, it has shown little ability to include developing countries.

3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
Though Saudi Arabia participated in the IGF, we found little of value in the proceedings. On the contrary, we have had to commit substantial resources, trying to correct the imbalance created by the IGF, through supporting the development of an enhanced cooperation process for public policy, something that already should have happened as a result of WSIS.

4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
No comment.

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
It is absolutely not desirable to continue the IGF. The five-year mandate presupposed collaboration with an enhanced cooperation process, but this has not happened. Instead, the IGF has existed in isolation and may in fact be partly responsible for the lack of attention to an enhanced cooperation process. This situation has resulted in actually hindering the fulfillment of WSIS goals.

The WSIS Forum provides a venue for non-binding discussion and need not be duplicated.

6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
Not applicable.

7. Do you have any other comments?
No comment.?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=16?>

Top of Page

 
Joomla Professional Work

Latest News

Popular

Copyright © 2005-2010 Internet Governance Forum. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Level A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0