Replies to the Questionnaire
<< Start < Prev 19/40 Next > End >>

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


Affiliation: Center for Democracy & Technology

Name: James X. Dempsey

Responses:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
The Center for Democracy & Technology, a non-governmental public interest organization working to keep the Internet open, innovative and free, is pleased to say that, overall, the IGF has been remarkably successful in addressing the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda. In particular, the IGF has been successful in addressing the elements of its mandate that involved raising awareness of Internet governance among a broad range of stakeholders – awareness as to what Internet governance is, how the Internet has been “governed” from its inception by a wide range of bodies and institutions (governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental), and how participation in those governance bodies can be expanded to reflect the interests and needs of non-governmental stakeholders and stakeholders from developing countries. Indeed, perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the IGF to date has been in demonstrating that Internet “governance” is not the sole or even primary province of governments and that there are existing non-governmental bodies that successfully “govern” elements of the Internet without government dominance. The IGF, in recognizing the success of open, multi-stakeholder governance models, has widened the possibility that even governmental and intergovernmental governance organizations can be opened to wider stakeholder participation.

Understandably, the first IGF focused less on those elements of the Tunis Agenda that refer to best practices, “ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world,” and “solutions” to the concerns of everyday users. However, as the awareness-raising and trust-building of the first IGF took hold, the emphasis appropriately shifted in the second and third sessions to the solutions that are at hand to expand Internet access. Future IGFs should continue to emphasize best practices and the success stories of Internet development, including in the developing world.

Throughout, as contemplated by the Tunis Agenda, the IGF has remained a lightweight convening body where governmental and non-governmental stakeholders can meet on equal footing to address key Internet governance issues, without attempting regulation or negotiation. This dialogue-based approach makes IGF unique among international bodies and has been critical to allowing all stakeholders to approach the IGF with a commitment to seeking common ground. The Internet does not need another governance body; it does need the respectful, global dialogue and information-sharing that the IGF provides.

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
The IGF has generally embodied the WSIS principles. In particular, we have been pleased to see that the IGF has kept human rights at the center of its focus. The information society poses many challenges and faces many risks, but the WSIS principles recognized – and the IGF has emphasized – that the growth of the Internet is will be most effectively and equitably fostered by a policy framework that is based on human rights principles.

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?
One direct way in which the IGF has had an impact has been in giving public interest advocates a strong platform for participation in the global Internet governance discussion. During the WSIS process and traditionally in other international forums, public interest voices were relegated to the hallways, as governments debated and decided the issues. Indirectly, the IGF has shown the power and value of multi-stakeholder structures. CDT believes that IGF has been a model for change in older institutions and can continue to be even more significant in that regard.

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?
CDT sincerely commends the chair (Mr. Nitin Desai), the executive coordinator (Mr. Markus Kummer), the staff of the IGF, the advisers to the chair, and the members of the MAG for their dedication and creativity, which have yielded a remarkable achievement. We know that they are working to continually improve the IGF’s processes, and we have no specific suggestions in that regard, deferring instead to those who have participated regularly in the MAG, the consultations and other planning activities.

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
CDT wholeheartedly agrees that the IGF should continue beyond its initial five-year mandate, in the form in which it exists today. The issues set forth in the Tunis Agenda remains entirely relevant today. Moreover, the multi-stakeholder, dialogue-based approach of the IGF’s first years has proven successful and should be continued. The large number, and global reach, of participants in the IGF prove the value of the forum. The continuing digital divide and the continuing and emerging challenges posed by the information society prove the need for the forum to continue.

6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
Although there are several areas where the physical and electronic operation of IGF could be streamlined and strengthened, we believe those changes are occurring organically (though not always at the speed some stakeholders would like). CDT would recommend against changes to IGF's organizational charter. In particular, we strongly advise against any efforts to change IGF into yet another decision-making or treaty body. To do so would stifle the open collaboration and free flow of ideas that has made IGF so uniquely valuable.

The IGF is not a governance body and should not be turned into one. The IGF is a governance forum, where representatives of all the existing governance institutions can come together with stakeholders who until recently had insufficient voice in governance, in order for those existing institutions to gain insight into how to improve engagement and for those stakeholders to learn where and how to make their voices heard in governance processes. The IGF does not supplant existing governance structures – rather, participants come to the IGF to gain cross-institutional perspective and to enhance their understanding of the forums and venues where solutions can be found to the problems impeding equitable development of the information society.

7. Do you have any other comments?
We have no other comments, except to again commend the chair, the executive coordinator and all participants in the IGF.?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=19?>

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