Replies to the Questionnaire
<< Start < Prev 17/40 Next > End >>

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


Affiliation: Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Saudi Arabia

Name: A S Alorainy

Responses:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
WSIS envisaged a two-pillared approach to Internet governance. The Tunis Agenda recognizes that Internet governance and development of public policy are the responsibility of governments, on an equal footing, and in consultation with all stakeholders. Paragraphs 68 to 71 recognize that an enhanced cooperation process is required to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities. This is one pillar. The IGF, as mandated in paragraph 72, is the second pillar and provides a neutral and non-binding process for such ‘consultation with all stakeholders.’

WSIS requested initiation of the enhanced cooperation process before the IGF, but this did not happen. Instead, action was taken to create and support the IGF, but there was little effective action to establish an enhanced cooperation process. This has created an imbalance in the approach to Internet governance, and it is inconsistent with the WSIS mandates.

Though there is some benefit to a neutral and non-binding process, the existence of the IGF without a corresponding enhanced process for Internet-related public policy is ineffective in furthering the WSIS goals. The IGF, by its very nature, cannot address any areas of its mandate that require consensus, decisions, or recommendations.

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
The IGF appears to be trying hard to be inclusive, though it is still a body for those who can afford to attend. Also, in a real sense, the very existence of the IGF is detracting from the implementation of WSIS principles which are rooted in action and improvement of the human condition. By focusing attention exclusively on this neutral and powerless body, only one of the two WSIS pillars of Internet governance, attention has been taken away from an enhanced cooperation process for public policy, which was intended to focus on the goals assigned to states, the private sector, civil society, and intergovernmental and international organizations, each in their respective and defined roles, to establish and implement the processes to make decisions and to take the actions so badly needed.

Despite the multistakeholder nature of the IGF, WSIS principles are in no way embodied or advanced by avoidance of decisions, lack of negotiation of tough issues, and failure to take action. The IGF cannot exist in isolation but must be paired with an enhanced cooperation process for public policy.

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?
The IGF has had no positive impact on Saudi Arabia. Rather than act as a catalyst for change, it has been detrimental by focusing energy and resources on non-binding discussion rather than on positive action through an enhanced cooperation process for public policy, effectively entrenching the status quo in the area of Internet governance. The result has been frustration, not change.

The IGF, without being paired with an enhanced cooperation process, represents an imbalance in the ability of the international community to enable WSIS to make a real difference.

Decision-makers do not and cannot make decisions based on non-binding discussions alone, whatever the perceived positive impacts of such a forum. Until the IGF complements binding processes, rather than replaces binding processes as is currently happening, it must be considered as a negative factor in the WSIS outcomes and should be eliminated.

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?
Not 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?

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
Some, particularly from the private sector and civil society, have expressed support for the IGF as a unique forum for the exchange and development of ideas and for establishing beneficial relationships in a relatively non-threatening atmosphere. Though these are worthy results, we believe that the IGF as currently constituted has the net effect of undermining WSIS goals by focusing energy and resources in the wrong place.

Without being paired with an enhanced cooperation process for public policy, the IGF has not, and cannot, achieve WSIS goals. Its continuation would prolong the lack of focus on public policy and would be detrimental, serving only to delay real progress, and not assessting in expediting the implementation of the WSIS goals. The IGF as currently constituted is inconsistent with the balanced WSIS mandate on Internet governance and must be terminated accordingly.

The non-binding exchange of ideas and building relationships can, and probably should, continue in a separate venue where it is not being showcased as the response to WSIS goals for Internet governance. The annual ITU WSIS Forum already serves as a venue for such discussions.

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

7. Do you have any other comments?
Non?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=17?>

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