The IGF – an experiment in multi-stakeholder cooperation

1. The IGF – an experiment in multi-stakeholder cooperation Washington DC, 1 February 2007 Markus Kummer Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) http://www.intgovforum.org

2. Background • WSIS invited the UN Secretary-General to “convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue” – the IGF. • A space for dialogue – to bring all interested parties together as equals: • Governments and Intergovernmental Organizations; • Internet institutions; • Private Sector; • Civil Society; • Academic and Technical Communities.

3. The IGF in an international context • Search for new forms of international cooperation; • Recognition of non-State actors in international co-operation / development co-operation; • inductive approach: learning by doing; • The Secretary-General in his message to the meeting: ‘a move into uncharted territory’.

4. What is the IGF? Easier to define what it is not…: • …not a new organization; • …not a decision-making body; • …no defined membership.

5. Expectations Expectations range from: • IGF should be a new meta-body to fix all Internet related problems… • IGF at the most could be used as a platform for damage control.

6. Concerns Governments : • Afraid that their role would not be given due recognition. Civil Society: • Afraid that IGF would be dominated by Business and Governments. Internet Technical Community / Business: • Afraid of politicization of the Internet and interventionism ('trying to fix what ain’t broke’)

7. The IGF Mandate Mandate to - discussInternet related public policy issues, including issues relating to critical resources; - promote exchange of information and best practices; • identify emerging issues; • identify issues that are cross-cutting and multi-dimensional, or are not addressed in a coordinated manner. • asses “the embodiment of WSIS principles” in Internet governance processes; - contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing countries; • provide a platform for interaction between IGOs and other institutions.

8. The IGF - Work and Function - no oversight function, would not replace existing institutions, but involve them and bring them together; • build on existing structures – complementarily between all stakeholders, including IGOs; • multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent; • lightweight and decentralized structure; • subject to periodic review; • meet periodically, as required.

9. ThePreparatory Process - 1 • Invited Contributions on IGF website • 16 and 17 February 2006 - Open consultations • Outcome: • Development orientation and capacity building as overarching objectives. • Open and inclusive format. • Yearly meetings of 3 to 5 days duration. • Ad-hoc multi-stakeholder management structure (Advisory Group).

10. The Preparatory Process - 2 Based on these consultations, the Secretary General : • announced the establishment of a small Secretariat, hosted by the United Nations Office at Geneva (2 March 2006); • established a 46 member multi-stakholder Advisory Group (17 May 2006); • A second round of Consultations was held on 19 May 2006; • the Advisory Group met on 22-23 May 2006 and 7-8 September in Geneva;

11. The Agenda of the first IGF Meeting Overall theme: “Internet Governance for Development” Four broad themes: • Openness – free flow of information; • Security – creating trust and confidence; • Diversity – multilingualism / local content; • Access – interconnection costs; - Capacity building as crosscutting priority.

12. Structure of the first IGF Meeting General Sessions: - Interactive Panels Workshops: • Focused on specific issues • Multi-stakeholder in nature Encounter Plaza: - An open space for showcasing institutions and projects

13. The Athens Meeting • It exceeded expectations: • 1350 registered participants • 97 member States with 397 delegates. • Good cross section of opening speakers. • Interactive nature of Panels. • 36 Workshops. • Most participants were generally happy with the meeting, scepticism proved unfounded. • A solid basis to build on for the Rio meeting

14. Dynamic Coalitions ‘Dynamic Coalitions’ emerged from the workshops: • Stop Spam Alliance (ITU, OECD,APEC…) • Open Standards (i.a. Brazil, W3C, Sun Microsystems) • Privacy (i.a. France, World Bank, Microsoft, Amnesty International) • Internet Bill of Rights (i.a. Brazil, ISOC Italy, IP Justice) • Access to Knowledge (i.a. Google, CoE, EFF.)

15. Athens Review: What worked well • Interactive nature of the panels; • Broad agenda; • Workshops; • Lack of decision-making facilitated discussions; • Space for interaction and networking; • Open and inclusive preparatory process.

16. Athens Review:What worked less well • Geographical diversity (developing country participation); • Workshops selection and relationship with main sessions; • Virtual interaction and remote participation.

17. What the IGF could turn into: IGF could: - provide a space for structured policy dialogue on Internet related public policy issues; - provide a platform for sharing best practices at national and regional levels; - provide a neutral meeting place for all relevant institutions – IGOs and ‘Internet institutions’. - help build trust and confidence among all Internet users; - assist developing countries in finding their place in Internet governance structures.

18. Next steps and future • Stock-taking Session on 13 February: to assess what worked well and what worked less well and how to move forward; • Based on consultations: proposals to Secretary-General on way forward • New consultations in May • Rio de Janeiro : 12 – 15 November 2007 • 2008: New Delhi • 2009 : Cairo • 2010: Vilnius or Baku? • Review ‘within five years’ whether to continue.