Read the APC input to the IGF open consultation meeting held on 23 May in Geneva, as well as reactions from different stakeholders. APC makes practical recommendations to ensure the accomplishment of the IGF’s mandate and to strengthen it as a truly space for multistakeholder dialogue.
APC input to IGF open consultation meeting, 23 May 2007
APC has reviewed the written contributions to the IGF secretariat made by various stakeholders and is concerned that the proposed program and schedule do not fully deal with the specific requirements of paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda which lays out the IGF’s mandate. Policy dialogue on the four themes satisfies the broad mandate of the IGF to provide a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue, and to a certain extent, the requirement of paragraph 72.a in that security and development of the Internet are addressed as a broad theme for policy dialogue.
The focus on policy discussion, while it is very valuable and contributed to the success of the first IGF meeting in Athens, seems to have arisen out of the controversy over the management of critical internet resources and the oversight of ICANN (also known as ‘enhanced cooperation’).
The discussion during WSIS focused on this narrow aspect of internet governance but has rubbed off on the handling of public policy issues that are within the domain of the broader definition of internet governance.
In other words, significant stakeholders within the IGF are so concerned that the issue of ICANN or ‘enhanced cooperation’ will come up that they act in concert to prevent the mandate of the IGF being taken beyond policy discussion. Other stakeholders are equally determined to address the question of ICANN or ‘enhanced cooperation’ and therefore pursue strategies to get the issue on the agenda of the IGF or even the Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD).
This results in a stalemate, which prevents the IGF from actively fulfilling the requirements of paragraph 72.
APC has a proposal to address this:
1. Recommendation on an inter-institutional dialogue on current practices of Internet Governance bodies
The IGF should have a standing annual Inter-institutional Dialogue session which focuses on paragraph 72.b of the Tunis Agenda in order to ‘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’; (TA para72.b.)
The IGF could convene a panel with some of the following bodies: ICANN, WIPO, ITU, WTO, UNESCO, OECD, EU, APEC/ASEAN, RIRs, IETF, CERN. This would enable bodies that are engaged with internet governance in one form or another to engage in discussion on how they are addressing IG issues within their jurisdiction, share best practices and identify issues that are falling through the cracks. It should NOT consist of institutions marketing or promoting their ‘current work’ but enable dynamic debate and dialogue.
This would take the spotlight off ICANN and the management of critical internet resources as an obsession of some stakeholders and yet allow for discussion of ICANN in the context of other IG bodies.
2. Recommendation on plenary and emerging issues sessions
APC feels that themes and issues should be mapped to some of the requirements of paragraph 72 a. to k. each year. Naturally, it is not possible to cover all themes and issues or all of the requirements of paragraph 72. But each year a different combination and theme/issue could be addressed in the plenary sessions, emerging issues and best practices fora. This would ensure that the IGF does not simply operate as a space for policy dialogue and panel discussions but that it attends to other requirements of its mandate in an innovative way.
By way of illustration, the following combinations of theme/issue/practice, session and paragraph 72 requirements could be worth considering under the Access, and Emerging issues themes.
Plenary session on Access
The manner in which access is currently addressed facilitates general policy dialogue, but does not fulfil the mandate outlined in para 72e: “Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world” (TA para72.e.)
We have more detailed proposals on how to deal with access which we’ll come back to in section 5.
Plenary session on Emerging Issues:
We believe the following issues should be addressed under this theme:
i) Net Neutrality
This issue is relevant to para 72g: “Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations”
ii) Consumer rights
A focus on consumer rights is relevant to paragraphs 72 b, g and k: “Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; (TA para72.g.)
“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” (TA para72.b.)
“Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users” (TA para 72.k)
Clearly more work would be required to set these plenary sessions up. It would not be a matter of engaging a moderator and identifying a diverse mix of panelists.
A working group would need to be established to work on the preparation, research, framing of topic, expert or multi-stakeholder input and appropriate form of outcome, whether in the form of advice (72.e), identification of practices and issues and facilitation of discussion (72.b), identifying of new issues, bringing of attention, making of recommendations) (72.g), finding of solutions (72.k) and contributing to (72.h).
However, multi-stakeholder teams could be established as sub-committees of the MAG to prepare for each plenary session.
This preparatory work also lends itself to follow-up work after the IGF which could contribute to making the IGF more of a process, than just an annual event.
3) On the subject of a bureau:
APC is of the view that the combination of the IGF secretariat and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) satisfies the requirements of paragraph 78.b and wishes to express full confidence in the current arrangements.
We are strongly opposed to the creation of a bureau as it will cause unnecessary power struggles and would be counter-productive to the purposes of the IGF as a space for multi-stakeholder dialogue. We do have concerns that the MAG has limited representation from civil society and needs to improve its reporting in the interests of greater transparency and needs to be adequately financed to fulfill its tasks.
However, we feel that this could be addressed by strengthening the IGF secretariat through greater resource mobilization and other approaches such as secondments and internships. In addition, ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups which could work on preparation of themes could be established and be open to broader participation.
In the discussion on financial mechanisms the Task Force on Financial Mechanisms concluded that there was adequate finance available for ICTD, but that it was not being accessed adequately. The IGF has made its overall theme ‘Internet Governance and Development’. Surely there should be recognition amongst donors of the value of the IGF. Failure to adequately support the IGF financially will have consequences.
We also propose that the reporting format which the IGF uses to report on its activities should report against the specific requirements of paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.
4. On the handling of emerging issues
APC would like the Emerging Issues session to be retained in its current position at the beginning of the schedule and focus on one or two issues at the most. At the end of the IGF, there should be a short session for new issues that have emerged during the IGF to be identified and addressed. If this is not possible, a section of the IGF report should include a section on emerging issues arising in the course of the forum.
5. Specific recommendation on the sub-themes and content of the Access plenary session
We would like to see the issue of open access to the internet be addressed in the plenary session on access.
This should be conceptualised on the layered model of the internet. At the physical layer, we would like to see non-market approaches to infrastructure such as municipal and community based networks being addressed. At the logical layer we would like the issue of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) to be addressed. And at the content layer, we would like to see the balance between intellectual property rights and fair use be addressed in the context of developing countries.
ICC/BASIS has proposed that ‘the legal, policy and regulatory conditions that enable innovation, promote competition and foster entrepreneurship which are essential to establishing the right enabling environment to promote access to infrastructure and the Internet’. This proposal summarizes a market approach to access. We would like to see a debate between market and non-market approaches to access take place. Out of this debate we would like to see whether it is possible to fulfil the requirement of paragraph 72.e. that the IGF should ‘advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world.’
Pre Rio Public event: Challenging the access divide: exploring technologies, olicies, capacity and business models for sustainable access
APC, together with many partners, will be organising a one day public event on this issue on November 10th, just prior to the Rio Forum.
The purpose of the initiative is to create a series of on-line and face to face forums hat can take stock and discuss in an integrated way technical and policy solutions for affordable and sustainable access in the many places in the world where it does not exist.
The initiative will address the issue by exploring four different elements :
1) Business models (e.g. Community driven networks, VSAT and wireless ommunity network; bandwidth cooperatives, telecentres/community centres, neighbourhood networks, market driven models etc.)
2) Technologies (wireless, VOIP and many more)
3) Policy and regulation
4) Capacity (skills) for sustainability
Working with our partners, we will commission a series of issue papers and conduct a literature review for each element. This will take place in the lead-up to the event and inform facilitated on-line discussions and consultations to capture experiences and lessons from the APC network of members and strategic partners.
Ideally, on-line discussions will be decentralised, with APC members and partners leading on-line processes in their own contexts and languages. The outcomes/outputs, will be collated and fed into face to face event in Rio as well as a pre-event online forum.
These ‘outputs’ will bring together ideas and experience in a way that will bring us closer to getting a sense of what the agenda should be at different levels – at the level of capacity building, policy change, innovation and technologies and tools andsustainable business/implementation models.
Outcomes of the one day event will be fed into the Rio forum, through workshop, best practice and other formats.
Comments on APC intervention
>>SWITZERLAND: [….] And we would express our interest in the proposal made by WIllie Currie from APC just a few minutes ago about having a standing annual dialogue between relevant existing mechanisms with regard to the public policy interests on Internet governance mechanisms. And finally, Switzerland who has supported WGIG and the IGF Secretariat from its beginning would like to join those who call on all stakeholders for better funding of the IGF and its Secretariat. Thank you.
>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, chairperson. This is a contribution from the civil society Internet governance caucus. [….] We heard APC speak about an institutional dialogue forum which could in some way be related to these open forum. And this is something which we would like to look at as well.
>> CANADA: Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman. […] Like the speaker from the APC this morning, we believe that the Secretariat and the multistakeholder advisory group are effectively serving the role that is called for in paragraph 78 where it mentions a bureau, and I with mention it’s
bureau with a small "B."
>> ICC/BASIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Walda Roseman of Compass Rose International, and I am speaking on behalf of ICC/BASIS. […] ICC/BASIS also supports APC’s suggestion that there be an annual dialogue among organizations with responsibilities for aspects of the Internet.
>> ADAM PEAKE: Yes. I have one contribution where the person has sent e-mail and asked that it be read out, so I will do that if I may. It’s from David Allen the COLAB CPR. [….] Following Willie Currie’s innovative attention for APC, where he suggested intergovernmental dialogue, another option would be to invite a session jointly organized by the collection of main actors and main governments concerned.
