Replies to the Questionnaire
<< Start < Prev 35/40 Next > End >>

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


Affiliation: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University

Name: John Mathiason

Responses:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
Refer to question 7

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
Refer to question 7

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?
Refer to question 7

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?
Refer to question 7

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
Refer to question 7

6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
Refer to question 7

7. Do you have any other comments?
The Internet Governance Forum was set up, at least in part, to further the intergovernmental processes that deal with ensuring that the Information Society functions effectively and positively. This is clear from several of the mandates, set out in the Tunis Agenda (para. 73) which states that:
The mandate of the Forum is to:
a) Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet.
b) Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body.
c) Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview.
…
g) Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations.
…
l) Publish its proceedings.

The IGF is subject to a five-year review, which will take place in 2010, in which, in conformity with the Tunis Agenda (para. 75): “The UN Secretary-General would report to UN Member States periodically on the operation of the Forum.”
It is obvious from the mandate shown above that the Forum is supposed to provide input into intergovernmental decision-making. This is not an unusual process, since many UN intergovernmental decisions are informed by non-binding results of such methods as ad hoc expert groups and seminars. Their function is to sift the issues to be discussed and, based on their combination of expert composition and stakeholder participation (including governments and civil society), to adopt a rough consensus about the issues discussed and show what could be the basis for a consensus at the intergovernmental level. An example is the Fourth World Conference on Women, whose final document, the Beijing Platform for Action, was preceded by no less than 24 expert groups and seminars organized by the UN’s Division for the Advancement of Women. A similar procedure was followed with the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in the preparations for the Tunis Summit. Many other international agreements have drawn on these preparatory activities.

Up to now, the Forum has been more concerned with ensuring the multi-stakeholder discussion than with providing input into intergovernmental processes. As the evaluation prepared by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs in Spring 2009 shows, despite the fact that no formal process of agreement that was in place, there was clear evidence that the discussions in the first three Forums were instrumental in narrowing the standard issues and in bringing forward new issues.

The formal intergovernmental process into which these conclusions and recommendations would flow are (1) the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, in the context of WSIS monitoring, and (2) the Economic and Social Council in the context of the General Segment, the monitoring of the Millennium Development Goals and their themes as appropriate. Either of these bodies could suggest Internet governance themes that it would like the Forum to consider, thus providing a two-way relationship that up to now has been missing.
The mechanics of obtaining a consensus in the Forum should be similar to any intergovernmental process, where there is a designated rapporteur for each segment who has the responsibility to summarize views, including consensus, in text with the assistance of the Secretariat. The rapporteurs could be chosen by the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group. They would constitute a drafting committee for the Forum and the conclusions could be circulated in advance of the final session in which they would be adopted. The drafting committee session, usually at night, could be relatively open. The key, of course, would be to ensure that the rapporteurs reflected the distribution of stakeholders at the Forum.

It would be useful to consider that, in the next five year period, including the Vilnius Forum, a major innovation should be the presentation of both general conclusions and recommendations, as well as those that would be specific to the themes taken up in the specific issue sessions. It should be recognized that the results are “rough consensus” and are non-binding, but the fact that they are accepted by the Forum should make them a useful input into intergovernmental discussions since they would reflect a relatively common view of all stakeholders including government experts.


This proposal could be tabled at Sharm-el-Sheikh and, depending in part on its reception there, could be included in the Secretary-General’s report.
?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=35?>

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