icc basis igf improv final

8/11/2019 Icc Basis Igf Improv Final

1/6

1

ICC BASIS Statement

Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014

Statement of ICC BASIS on


Business Reaffirms the Value of the IGF and the Multistakeholder Model

ICC and BASIS members have been actively contributing to and supporting the IGF since itsinauguration in 2006 because it provides a unique opportunity to exchange views and bestpractices on a wide variety of important policy issues that affect continued development of theInternet.

The IGF is a unique forum that was founded to not just include, but be managed and

organized by stakeholders from government, industry, academia, and civil society, with allparticipants on an equal footing. Multistakeholderism has to-date become more of amainstream concept, and we have started to take for granted the ability to have openmultistakeholder conversations. The IGFs initial role was trailblazing in this regard, and itsfocus was on establishing the legitimacy of the multistakeholder concept and the value-add ofparticipation in the conversation. IGF is maturing, and the needs of the governancecommunity have evolved. This IGF is taking place at an inflection point, not just within theIGFs own story, but in the complex international environment in which it exists. Thisstatement is focused on setting forth the ICC-BASIS views on ways to improve the IGF.

Business recognizes that the diverse issues affecting continued development of the Internet

are best addressed if all stakeholders involved participate both in discussions and definition ofissues as well as in their resolution. This was an aim of the Geneva Declaration of Principles.In this way, the IGF has not only advanced diverse and critical thinking, but the IGF alsobuilds community. The simple idea of MEETING has turned out to be of extraordinaryimportance in a world of constant contact over the Internet. It is a way for people to focus andhave face-to-face interactions, which cements relationships and orients actions that wouldotherwise not only be amorphous, but also, lack the standing to be drawn frommultistakeholder engagement. The possibility of remote participation also allows those thatare unable to travel to interact and participate in a meaningful way with a global audience.

To this end, BASIS is pleased that key Internet governance meetings of the past year havenot only reinforced the importance of meaningful multistakeholder participation in existingInternet governance processes and forums, but also, reaffirmed the importance and value ofthe IGF. Paragraph 20 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles states, in relevant part, that[b]uilding a people-centered Information Society is a joint effort which requires cooperationand partnership among all stakeholders. The IGF continues to fulfill this important role andresponsibility in the development and governance of the Internet.


2/6

2

ICC BASIS Statement


28 August 2014

Business Recognizes not only the Improvements that the IGF has already Undertaken,

but also, the Diverse Outcomes the Model has Fostered

Since its institution by the UN Secretary General in July 2006, eight IGFs have been held allin prominent capital cities of developing countries. In its first phase, the IGF was organizedaround the themes of Openness, Security, Diversity, and Access. Critical Internet Resourceswas introduced in 2007. Between 2009 and 2012, it entered a second phase and expandedon these themes while adding discussions under a new sub theme Emerging Issues. Andby 2013, the current and third phase, four original main themes were broadened to includeHuman Rights, Freedom of Expression, Inclusion, and Free Flow of Information on Internet.The new themes expanded to include Legal Frameworks, Spam and Cybercrime. And further,the IGF began to see discussions on Enhanced Cooperation, Principals of Multistakeholder

Cooperation, and Internet Governance Principals.

The IGF has taken some significant steps in 2014 under the leadership of its new permanentchair and a new, rejuvenated MAG, to become contemporary and relevant on global Internetgovernance issues. Apart from the important themes of Policies Enabling Access; Internet asan Engine for Growth and Development; Internet and Human Rights; Critical InternetResources; and Emerging Issues; the IGF in 2014 will also see discussions on: ContentCreation, Dissemination, and Use; IGF and the Future of Internet Ecosystem; and EnhancingDigital Trust. Furthermore, three main sessions on the IANA Transition and Accountability,Net Neutrality, and the Evolution of IGF and its Engagement with other Global InternetGovernance Platforms, have been planned.

A serious effort is also underway to fulfill the IGFs original mandate to identify EmergingIssues, bring them to the attention of relevant bodies and the general public, and, whereappropriate, make recommendations, by focusing on a Knowledge Agenda for IGFbeginning 2014. This agenda will include introduction of Best Practices Forums on a range ofcurrent issues addressing Development of Local Content, Regulation and Mitigation ofUnwanted Communication (SPAM), Developing Meaningful Multistakeholder Mechanisms,Child Protection Online, and Establishing and Supporting CERTS for Internet Security. All ofthese topics are especially timely and relevant for developing country governments andmultistakeholder groups.

Since its inception, the IGF has made important contributions to implementing the concept ofenhanced cooperation, and it is becoming an important laboratory for the discussion anddissemination of best practices and capacity-building initiatives that further the WSIS goals ofexpanded interconnectivity and inclusiveness. The strength of the current distributed, bottom-up Internet governance process is not only in its open and inclusive participation model, andthe legitimacy and credibility that the model fosters, but also its flexibility to rapidly adapt tochanging technologies and issues. For that reason, we believe that the IGFs manyaccomplishments should be highlighted in the WSIS+10 Review currently underway.


3/6

3

ICC BASIS Statement


28 August 2014

For example, local and regional IGF processes continue to be an effective way to expandparticipation in Internet governance dialogues and create a healthy exchange of ideas at thegrassroots level, while also feeding into the global IGF. The CSTD Working Group onEnhanced Cooperation (WGEC) engaged in an exercise in early 2014 aimed at identifyingexisting mechanisms that address a broad range of Internet public policy issues a processin which business actively participated. Of the 24 mechanisms identified by the WGEC asenabling enhanced cooperation, initiatives undertaken at the IGF or as a result of IGFworkshops and session discussions were cited in 19 of these mechanisms, covering topics aswide-ranging as human rights, multilingualism and cultural diversity, Internet uses andapplications, and capacity building, to name a few. BASIS members have also raised theirown examples of how the IGF has generated important new initiatives aimed at remote

learning and participation, building capacity, sharing best practices, and strengtheningInternet governance more broadly.1

These developments, the capacity building they have fostered, and the inter-linkagesbetween the IGF and regional fora are all examples of key outcomes that had been identifiedas goals in the WGECs 2012 Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the InternetGovernance Forum.2BASIS members firmly support the Report and believe that itsimplementation on an immediate basis will go a long way toward strengthening IGFprocesses.

How the IGF can Improve

It is important to ensure that any changes and continued improvement to the IGF contribute toenhancing the security, stability, privacy, resiliency, and interoperability of the global Internet,while also ensuring the rule of law and economic and social benefits. The IGFs focus on theexchange of best practices, policy approaches and experiences is its strength, as itmaximizes the time all relevant stakeholders spend on substantive exchanges instead ofnegotiated texts.

1E.g., Based on collaboration to prepare a workshop for the IGF Bali, Disney and the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB)

launched the ITB Apprentice Awards, to reward young innovators with cash and mentoring opportunities to develop appconcepts and animation and promote local cultural and economic advancement. Based on active discussions at each of the2011 through 2013 IGFs, Disney also launched a schools based online safety curriculum in Latin America, developed inpartnership with an NGO, that has reached 785 schools, nearly 2000 teachers and 300,000 children. Similarly, based onmeetings with participants from East Africa at the first IGF in Athens and discussions at subsequent IGFs on improvingInternet access and content, Verizon Communications, the Internet Society, the Uganda Communications Commission, andthe Uganda Martyrs University organized a 2010 multistakeholder symposium on Maximizing the Value and Impact of EastAfrican Broadband for Higher Education.2See, e.g., UN General Assembly Economic and Social Council, Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the

Internet Governance Forum (16 March 2014), particularly 2 and 47 and IV and V.


4/6

4

ICC BASIS Statement


28 August 2014

Business believes that a range of possibilities exists for IGF improvement, but that these are

not uniform across all topics. The IGF is more complex and varied than a set of principles or aroad map, making a unitary outcome impossible. The needs of the IGF must be responsive toboth the needs of the participants and the nature of the topic at issue. Some topics will lendthemselves to toolkits, others to references to existing work; some to existing or emergingbest practices, while still others are only at the stage of conversation. In each of these cases,we must work collectively to improve the portability of the learning from the IGF. Capacitybuilding and the unique potential of IGF value-add cannot occur if the lessons learned arelimited to an annual meeting in a far off location. Better communication with regional andnational IGFs is one important element of possible improvement, and this communication hasto be bi-directional in relation to needs, opportunities, diffusion of knowledge, and capacitybuilding. One of the most important improvements, and most valuable roles of the IGF

remains enabling conversation outside of a negotiated text, which may become the stepping-stones to understanding and consensus. Better management and documentation of theseconversations is required so that they have complementary effects that can build acrosssuccessive conversations. Thus, BASIS believes that to improve the IGF is not to remake itin the image of other successful meetings but to strengthen the present value of IGF toadvance several solutions over multiple topics.

To that end, to further improve the IGF, we should:

1) Reaffirm the importance of the IGF as a forum for multistakeholder policydialogue, and advance the portability and relevance of its tangible outputs.While theIGF remains a forum that generates inputs to other fora, such discussions, lessons, pragmaticsolutions to priority challenges, and capacity building should be better documented andsummarized in order to enable these fora, organizations, national governments or other IGFsto build on them. This can be advanced by making key policy questions and emerging themesrequired and documented elements across all workshops, main sessions, dynamic coalitiondiscussions, etc. Divergence in opinion relating to such policy questions must be included.Further, the Chairs Report, session transcripts and other reports by substantive rapporteursmust get formal recognition, be presented in a timely fashion, and be used as benchmarks forfuture sessions to measure progress in the discussions linked to specific issues.

2) Strengthen the IGF itself.This would particularly be achieved through ensuringguaranteed, stable and predictable funding through a broadened donor base from allstakeholder groups. It would also require improving the institutional continuity of the IGFthrough changing its present 5-year renewal cycle to a 10-year extension.

3) Reinforce linkages between IGF and other relevant Internet governance entities.There is a need to consciously incorporate IGF discussions at other important and relatedmeetings such as the WSIS, CSTD, ITU, and any other meetings such as NETmundial,national and regional IGFs, etc. Similarly, the discussions at these meetings should be


5/6

5

ICC BASIS Statement


28 August 2014

consciously reflected in development of the workshops and main sessions of the IGF. Cross

participation in these fora by the chair of the MAG and MAG members, in addition toobservers is one way to ensure regular exchanges between the various Internetgovernance forums and IGF through the year.

4) Restructure and expand the IGF secretariatso that, with adequate long termfunding, the secretariat has the resources to prioritize IGF topics of relevance to thecommunity, and ensure adequate documentation of policy discussions and best practicerecommendations. Key goals for any restructure and expansion of the secretariat would be tostrengthen interactions between the global IGF and the national and regional IGFs and toallow for a more inclusive process of participation and continuity of discussions. Any changeshould also establish a means to provide capacity building and technical support to enable

the launch of national and regional IGFs, particularly in developing countries.

5) Advance the IGFs knowledge agenda and drive increased participation fromdeveloping countries. The goal is to better enable both developing country participation atthe IGF and year-round access to the work product and outcomes of Internet governancediscussions, including through the build-out of capacity building and technical initiatives.Stakeholders (particularly developing economies) should be encouraged to engage at the IGF(whether in person or remotely), and also, be able to participate in discussions remotely oncethey leave and see this exchange of information wherever they may be based, to demonstratetheir capabilities, share best practices and measure progress. Remote moderators, remotehubs, linguistic diversity, facilities for people with disabilities and translations must beconsidered basic and necessary facets to any IGF meeting. Such dynamic engagement andopportunities for wider and year-round participation would firmly establish the IGF as aconference with a serious knowledge agenda. Finally, the knowledge agenda needs to buildover time, so IGF programs need to accommodate conversations of different complexity in away that enhances the value of the IGF across participants of various skills and backgrounds.

6) Reinforce the importance of the IGF in order to ensure a more inclusivediscussion of key Internet governance topics. Even though the IGF was initiated in 2006,the participation from developing countries, number of national IGFs and participation atregional IGFs show that the awareness and importance of the IGF remains inadequate,

especially amongst developing countries in Africa, Asia and Middle East and parts of LatinAmerican. A conscious effort to increase awareness about the IGF and its benefits in thesecountries needs to occur through all resources available. Unless the IGF truly represents abottom-up, democratic process that is substantially diverse, its acceptability and relevance willremain high but relegated to limited pockets of the world.

7) Strengthen IGF transparency.UN rules and processes related to IGF funding andIGF trust-fund account could be further clarified for stakeholders (or donors). Similarly theprocedures for the IGF meeting site selection process could be more open and transparent.


6/6

6

ICC BASIS Statement


28 August 2014

Both areas are important and can be improved, through publication to the multi-stakeholder

community of all the relevant procedures.

8) Solidify the procedures and composition of the MAG.Although there are high-levelcriteria available on the UNs process for MAG appointments, each constituency group has itsown unique process for making MAG recommendations. These procedures should becollected and shared with all, and the UNs selection criteria should be clear and the processtransparent. Further, issues of a MAG mandate and operational processes that reflect theessential multistakeholder nature of the MAG should be promulgated to better articulateresponsibilities, expectations and commitments. These deficiencies to the transparency, orderand processes of the MAG should be addressed as part of the improvement of IGF.

*** *** ***

icc basis igf improv final

Documents