1 / 17

The Road To Athens

The Road To Athens. Yasser Hassan First Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Egypt. WSIS requested the UN Secretary General to convene the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). IGF's mandate was clearly defined in article 72 of the Tunis Agenda on the Information Society.

vinaya
Download Presentation

The Road To Athens

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Road To Athens Yasser Hassan First Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Egypt

  2. WSIS requested the UN Secretary General to convene the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). • IGF's mandate was clearly defined in article 72 of the Tunis Agenda on the Information Society. • Two rounds of informal consultations: • Feb. 06 • May. 06

  3. Post -Tunis • Post Tunis phase witnessed: • New initiatives were launched. • New understandings and preferences emerging. • Concrete results of Tunis are left to different mechanisms. Still the debate is going on over the WSIS documents in a process of “ soft negotiation” dealing with the best rules, characteristics and goals of the Information Society, and probably has not reached yet to an end.

  4. Informal Consultations • Ended with the establishment of an Advisory Group to work as a preparatory committee for the first meeting of the IGF in Athens. • Four themes for deliberations, namely: • Access, • Openness, • Diversity’ • Security, while at the same time addressing Capacity Building as a cross cutting issue.

  5. The Executive Secretary of IGF: • No membership to IGF, and no rules of procedure • No negotiations to reach a consensus (as was the case in WSIS) • No recommendations, but an “outcome” in the form of: • A Chair's Summary, which is expected to deal with the general proceedings of the event. • A more detailed report by the Secretariat. • A report to the UN Secretary General.

  6. The IGF • Will face difficulties to end with conclusions. • Could end with a “dynamic Coalition” among stakeholders. • Could place itself as a modest corner of international corporation.

  7. Concerns Ahead • How the IGF would be able to play the role of a catalyst, among different and diverse stakeholders, or advancing the efforts of the international community dealing with Internet Governance issues. • What could be the linkage, if there should be any, between the so called "outcome" of Athens meeting and the management of the Internet? • Some prefer the IGF as a platform for exchanging views and sharing knowledge & experience. • Others would like to see it as a progressive process influencing other processes somewhere else.

  8. Concerns Ahead: Cont’d • What could be the roles of some stakeholders, namely international organizations, in Internet Governance issues based on any "outcome" of the IGF? • In this respect it is needed to remember that: • Interface with international organizations is part of the mandate of IGF (para 72-c). • International organizations work according to pre-defined mandates & responsibilities, and guided by their governing bodies.

  9. Concerns Ahead: Cont’d • They are tasked by the Summit, based on their competences and mandates, with specific roles in the process of building the Information Society. • Modalities of coordination among themselves and when involving other stakeholders were precisely defined in a meeting held on 24.2.2006 (according to a request by the Summit).

  10. Concerns Ahead: Cont’d • How the IGF can contribute to address the need to maximize the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet governance? • Can the IGF provide a suitable platform for the engagement of African civil society and private sector in the process? • How can the Athens outcome reflect on the next IGF meeting agenda?

  11. IGF…A Unique Milestone… but it Shouldn’t Be… • Limited to the "exchange of views". • Forum of contradictions. • Ignoring the needs of different stakeholders. • Exclusive in its scope of work.

  12. African Cooperation • Africa’s participation to the IGF is significant. • No high expectations. Only discussions. • Africa’s focus on regional cooperation within the Continent should be a priority.

  13. Areas of cooperation: • Capacity building. • Public awareness / legal issues. • Inclusiveness of the process and of the African information society (multi-stakeholder partnerships).

  14. Areas of cooperation (cont’d): • Solutions for problems on community level (cultural/linguistic diversity, access solutions) • to mainstream Internet Governance public policy issues in their national ICT4D processes, policies and action plans

  15. The African engagement in IGF • Athens meeting will determine the way forward of the IGF. • Stress on the need for keeping with the principles of holding the meetings of IGF in a transparent, democratic and inclusive manner. • Review the mechanism of the Advisory Group. • Many things to avoid (definitions- principles). • Any Forumshould be complimented by a Function.

  16. The Future of IGF (cont’d) • Have better coordination on the African level. • Address developmental aspects in a wider scope. • Monitoring the international priorities and concerns when setting the agenda (themes)

  17. Thank you

More Related