IGF MMWG Input

From Multi-stakeholder Modalities Working Group

Internet Governance Forum Input Statement by the Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG)

February, 28, 2006

Dear Mr. Kummer,

on behalf of the “Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG), a discussion group which was established by the “Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus” with the mandate

 a. to clarify the concept of multistakeholderism in the WSIS Context and 

 b. to facilitate discussion and interaction among individuals from governments,
  private sector and civil society with regard to Internet Governance,we allow us 
  provide the following input into the preparations of the “Internet Governance   
  Forum” (IGF) according to your call from February, 19, 2006. 

1.The MMWG sees the IGF primarily as a process in which an annual “Forum” is embedded and not as an independent singular event which takes place once a year. As the WGIG report has stated, there is “a vacuum” in the global discussion process with regard to Internet Governance. Such a vacuum would not be filled by a three or four day meeting every fall.

2.The institutional framework for the IGF should be developed bottom up according to the special functions and only insofar as there is a need for special formal arrangements to make the IGF a success. The MMWG opposes any heavy structured top down body like a “Bureau” or a “Council”, which risks to bureaucratize the IGF process and to reduce flexibility and efficiency. While procedural issues are important, the IGF should by mainly substance oriented.

3.The MMG believes, that to kick start the process a light weight “Programme Committee” would be enough. Based on the experiences of the preparation phase for IGF I, the IGF itself should discuss and decide whether an additional body would be needed to facilitate the process of discussion and the interaction among stakeholders between the annual forums. Such a “Facilitation Group” should be also as flexible as possible and avoid any bureaucratic structure.

4.The composition of the “Programme Committee”, like any other body which will emerge from the IGF process, should reflect the multistakeholder nature of the “Governance of the Internet”. It should also reflect the principle of geographical, cultural and language diversity and gender balance. The MMWG proposes to start with a small “Programme Committee” with not more than 15 (maximum 30) members, three (maximum six) from each of the five UN regions, representing governments, private sector and civil society on an equal footing. In the light of the experiences with the preparation of IGF I, another “Programme Committee” could be established for IGF II.

5.The mandate of the “Programme Committee” should be

  a.to kick start the IGF Process and 
  b.to prepare the first Internet Governance Forum.

6.To kick start the IGF Process, the “Programme Committee” should, in close consultations with the IGF Secretariat and individual experts, publish as soon as possible a “Call for Proposals” (CFP) with the aim to identify the priority issues of the involved constituencies. On the basis of the results of the CFP, the “Programme Committee” could

a.decide on the agenda of the first IGF,

b.launch the establishment of “virtual/electronic Discussion Groups on Internet Governance” (eDGIGs) on issues related to the agenda of IGF I and

c.invite speakers for plenary and working sessions of IGF I.

At a later stage, the Programme Committee could introduce a procedure to recognize other “eDGIGs”, dealing with various issues of interest for the global Internet Community according to documented requests by involved stakeholders and constituencies and based on a small set of clear criteria (minimum number of participants, multistakeholder participation, democratic, open and transparent etc.). Discussions in the “eDGIGs” would constitute, inter alia, the basis for the elaboration of recommendations by the IGF.

7.The members of the first “Programme Committee” should be appointed by the UN Secretary General, based on input by the three stakeholder groups. The IGF I should adopt a procedure how to populate future “Programme Committees” or any other bodies, which will emerge within the IGF process.

8.With reference to paragraph 33 of the Final Report of the WGIG, the MMWG had also a long discussion, whether the “technical and academic community” should be treated as a forth “stakeholder” group under the IGF. The majority of the participants in the MMWG discussion agreed that the nature of both the technical and the academic community is different from the nature of the other three stakeholders, as indicated also in paragraph 66 of the WGIG report. While it is the first responsibility of technical experts and academicians to provide innovation, knowledge and expertise on an as much as possible neutral basis to everyone, governments, private sector and civil society have vested legitimate individual interests and stakes in the governance of the Internet. The MMWG underlines that the “Geneva WSIS Declaration of Principles” (December 2003) has recognized the above mentioned three groups as “main and important stakeholders” in the process. This was confirmed by the second WSIS phase and in particular by the “Tunis WSIS Agenda for the Information Society”, adopted in November 2005 in Tunis. Recognizing the special role the technical and academic community plays in Internet Governance, one option could be to establish an “Advisory Panel” with individual experts from both the technical and the academic community which could assist and help the “Programme Committee”.

9.The MMWG will continue its discussion with regard to the second call of the IGF Secretariat related to content and substantial issues. We will provide another input before the dateline of March, 30, 2006.

Jacqueline Morris, MMWG Co-Chair Wolfgang Kleinwächter, MMWG Co-Chair

February, 28, 2006