Internet Governance

McTim

Process/Function 1 : "Forum function"

1. Is there need for an additional arrangement or body?

"There no need for an additional body. We already have an alphabet soup of IG organisations that work well together. Funds that might be spent on another organisational structure could be put to better use on fulfilling the WSIS targets, especially "access for all".

I agree with Veni's response listed on the above url:

"The first question is actually leading the discussion"

I would rephrase it as :

The preamble and first question are actually leading the discussion.

Bertrand de La Chapelle

1) IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW ARRANGEMENT OR BODY ?

Clear need for a Forum FUNCTION (no existing space for multi-stakeholder interaction). This could require an additional body - or, rather a new framework allowing the creation of several ad hoc bodies or spaces following similar rules / procedures (see below reply on functions and thematic structuring).

2) WHAT FUNCTIONS SHOULD IT EXERCISE ?

Proposed roles for the Forum Framework (non exhaustive list):

- AGENDA-SETTING : allowing all actors to collectively identify their issues of common concern or interest

- CONVENING : help gather the relevant stakeholders around each issue or theme ("relevant" is a delicate word, opening up the broad question of who has a stake; but the principle could be : such a forum is by principle accessible to any entity with a stake in the issues it addresses)

- CATALYZING : fostering the formation of issue clusters, thematic networks of actors and the setting up of multi-stakeholder working groups when appropriate

- IMPROVING COHERENCE : on a given issue, help agencies and organizations with overlapping / complementary competences distribute responsibilities and workload among themselves (the extent to which the Forum could have the responsibility to solve competency disputes between competing bodies is an open question)

- CAPACITY BUILDING : awareness building and training, particularly in developing countries, both for governments and other actors

- VALIDATING CONSENSUS ON CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS : organize broad consultations on the result of the work of thematic groups, to verify that resulting recommendations are broadly accepted

Wolfgang Kleinwächter

Process/Function 1: "Forum function"

1. Is there need for an additional body?

Yes

2. What functions should it exercise?
(a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum ("without teeth")?

* discussion forum (representative multistakeholder core group; something like an "United Nations Internet Governance Communication Group/UNIG.cog),
* promoting public awareness (two Global Internet Forum per Year),
* outreach (Annual World Internet Report),
* promotion of communication and, where needed, coordination and cooperation, among different (governmental and non-.governmental) institutions, dealing with Internet related issues (Non-binding reccommendations to relevant parties)

(b) Give policy direction?

Yes, but in form of non-binding recommendations to governments, private sector, civil society, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, dealing with Internet related issues

(c) Any other function?

See 2(a)

(d) Be a combination of the above?

Yes as above.

Carlos Afonso

Introductory Note

I felt the questionnaire to be a bit redundant sometimes, and in particular some crucial issues could not be properly dealt with in relation to a new governance structure, like:

- Which precise legal and organic form of organization?
- How is participation of all stakeholders carried out?
- What are the decision-making processes and authoritative delegations?
- With which golden rules / protective clauses?
- Under which Statement of Principles?

My responses are based on the proposal I have recently circulated (in a new version available in the WGIG colaborative work intranet), and which should be read beforehand (sorry!).

--c.a.

Internet Governance Mechanisms: Questionnaire [response follows]

MJ Ray

1. Is there need for an additional arrangement or body?

Yes

If the answer to question 1 is yes:

2. What functions should it exercise?

(a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum?

Yes

(b) Give policy direction?

Only reactively to stakeholder input. Direction must not be secretariat-led.

(c) Any other function?

Some form of consensus-building and test implementations.

Ian Peter

1. Is there need for an additional body

YES

2. What functions should it exercise?

(a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum

YES

(b) Give policy direction?

YES

(c) Any other function?

Potentially this body could deal with high level root zone edit policy, but another body might provide a more suitable mechanism for this infrequent task (eg a reformed GAC).

Geoff Huston

Process/Function 1: "Forum function"

1. Is there need for an additional body

"need" is different to "desire". There is little evidence that there is a "need" for an additional body, in that the space appears to be more than overpopulated with bodies already, and that the mechanisms of market interaction and existing regulatory and coordinating frameworks are probably producing outcomes that would differ in no significant way if there were yet another body.

So in terms of "need" yet another body would be superfluous.

Raul Echeberria

Process/Function 1: "Forum function"

1. Is there need for an additional body

The internet works very well as it is now. A new body could be good, just not to solve current problems, but to satisfy political demands from some stakeholders, mainly from some governments. The existence of such body could offer some interesting opportunities, but it depends on the kind of body. This new body should not produce negative impacts in the current functioning of Internet.

William Drake

Process/Function 1 : "Forum function"

1. Is there need for an additional body? Yes

2. What functions should it exercise? (a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum?

Mandatory

(b) Give policy direction?

It depends on what we mean by "direction." I think the OECD provides a good model in this regard. On the one hand, it should not by default have a mandate to negotiate "hard" instruments like treaties or contracts.

Milton Mueller and Internet Governance Project

Process/Function 1 : Forum function
1. Is there need for an additional arrangement or body?

Our answer is Yes, but... There is definitely a need for an additional arrangement. But the need for an additional "body" is more debatable and needs to be approached carefully.

We see an immediate need for the negotiation of a framework convention that gets agreement among governments, private sector and civil society around basic principles and norms regarding Internet governance. We also see an immediate need for the creation of a new arrangement to provide accountability for ICANN and to internationalize oversight of the root zone file.