1

ICC BASIS Statement

Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014
Statement of ICC BASIS on
Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)


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 its
inauguration in 2006 because it provides a unique opportunity to exchange views and best
practices on a wide variety of important policy issues that affect continued development of the
Internet.

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 all
participants on an equal footing. Multistakeholderism has to-date become more of a
mainstream concept, and we have started to take for granted the ability to have open
multistakeholder conversations. The IGFs initial role was trailblazing in this regard, and its
focus was on establishing the legitimacy of the multistakeholder concept and the value-add of
participation in the conversation. IGF is maturing, and the needs of the governance
community have evolved. This IGF is taking place at an inflection point, not just within the
IGFs own story, but in the complex international environment in which it exists. This
statement 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 of
issues 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 also
builds community. The simple idea of MEETING has turned out to be of extraordinary
importance in a world of constant contact over the Internet. It is a way for people to focus and
have face-to-face interactions, which cements relationships and orients actions that would
otherwise not only be amorphous, but also, lack the standing to be drawn from
multistakeholder engagement. The possibility of remote participation also allows those that
are 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 have
not only reinforced the importance of meaningful multistakeholder participation in existing
Internet governance processes and forums, but also, reaffirmed the importance and value of
the 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 cooperation
and partnership among all stakeholders. The IGF continues to fulfill this important role and
responsibility in the development and governance of the Internet.





2
ICC BASIS Statement
Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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 all
in prominent capital cities of developing countries. In its first phase, the IGF was organized
around the themes of Openness, Security, Diversity, and Access. Critical Internet Resources
was introduced in 2007. Between 2009 and 2012, it entered a second phase and expanded
on these themes while adding discussions under a new sub theme Emerging Issues. And
by 2013, the current and third phase, four original main themes were broadened to include
Human 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 permanent
chair and a new, rejuvenated MAG, to become contemporary and relevant on global Internet
governance issues. Apart from the important themes of Policies Enabling Access; Internet as
an Engine for Growth and Development; Internet and Human Rights; Critical Internet
Resources; and Emerging Issues; the IGF in 2014 will also see discussions on: Content
Creation, Dissemination, and Use; IGF and the Future of Internet Ecosystem; and Enhancing
Digital Trust. Furthermore, three main sessions on the IANA Transition and Accountability,
Net Neutrality, and the Evolution of IGF and its Engagement with other Global Internet
Governance Platforms, have been planned.

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

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



3
ICC BASIS Statement
Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014

For example, local and regional IGF processes continue to be an effective way to expand
participation in Internet governance dialogues and create a healthy exchange of ideas at the
grassroots level, while also feeding into the global IGF. The CSTD Working Group on
Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) engaged in an exercise in early 2014 aimed at identifying
existing mechanisms that address a broad range of Internet public policy issues a process
in which business actively participated. Of the 24 mechanisms identified by the WGEC as
enabling enhanced cooperation, initiatives undertaken at the IGF or as a result of IGF
workshops and session discussions were cited in 19 of these mechanisms, covering topics as
wide-ranging as human rights, multilingualism and cultural diversity, Internet uses and
applications, and capacity building, to name a few. BASIS members have also raised their
own examples of how the IGF has generated important new initiatives aimed at remote
learning and participation, building capacity, sharing best practices, and strengthening
Internet governance more broadly.
1


These developments, the capacity building they have fostered, and the inter-linkages
between the IGF and regional fora are all examples of key outcomes that had been identified
as goals in the WGECs 2012 Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet
Governance Forum.
2
BASIS members firmly support the Report and believe that its
implementation on an immediate basis will go a long way toward strengthening IGF
processes.


How the IGF can Improve

It is important to ensure that any changes and continued improvement to the IGF contribute to
enhancing 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 the
exchange of best practices, policy approaches and experiences is its strength, as it
maximizes the time all relevant stakeholders spend on substantive exchanges instead of
negotiated texts.


1
E.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 app
concepts and animation and promote local cultural and economic advancement. Based on active discussions at each of the
2011 through 2013 IGFs, Disney also launched a schools based online safety curriculum in Latin America, developed in
partnership with an NGO, that has reached 785 schools, nearly 2000 teachers and 300,000 children. Similarly, based on
meetings with participants from East Africa at the first IGF in Athens and discussions at subsequent IGFs on improving
Internet access and content, Verizon Communications, the Internet Society, the Uganda Communications Commission, and
the Uganda Martyrs University organized a 2010 multistakeholder symposium on Maximizing the Value and Impact of East
African Broadband for Higher Education.
2
See, 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
ICC BASIS Statement
Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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 a
road map, making a unitary outcome impossible. The needs of the IGF must be responsive to
both the needs of the participants and the nature of the topic at issue. Some topics will lend
themselves to toolkits, others to references to existing work; some to existing or emerging
best 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. Capacity
building and the unique potential of IGF value-add cannot occur if the lessons learned are
limited to an annual meeting in a far off location. Better communication with regional and
national IGFs is one important element of possible improvement, and this communication has
to be bi-directional in relation to needs, opportunities, diffusion of knowledge, and capacity
building. 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 these
conversations is required so that they have complementary effects that can build across
successive conversations. Thus, BASIS believes that to improve the IGF is not to remake it
in the image of other successful meetings but to strengthen the present value of IGF to
advance 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 policy
dialogue, and advance the portability and relevance of its tangible outputs. While the
IGF remains a forum that generates inputs to other fora, such discussions, lessons, pragmatic
solutions to priority challenges, and capacity building should be better documented and
summarized in order to enable these fora, organizations, national governments or other IGFs
to build on them. This can be advanced by making key policy questions and emerging themes
required and documented elements across all workshops, main sessions, dynamic coalition
discussions, etc. Divergence in opinion relating to such policy questions must be included.
Further, the Chairs Report, session transcripts and other reports by substantive rapporteurs
must get formal recognition, be presented in a timely fashion, and be used as benchmarks for
future sessions to measure progress in the discussions linked to specific issues.

2) Strengthen the IGF itself. This would particularly be achieved through ensuring
guaranteed, stable and predictable funding through a broadened donor base from all
stakeholder groups. It would also require improving the institutional continuity of the IGF
through 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 related
meetings 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
ICC BASIS Statement
Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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 to
observers is one way to ensure regular exchanges between the various Internet
governance forums and IGF through the year.

4) Restructure and expand the IGF secretariat so that, with adequate long term
funding, the secretariat has the resources to prioritize IGF topics of relevance to the
community, and ensure adequate documentation of policy discussions and best practice
recommendations. Key goals for any restructure and expansion of the secretariat would be to
strengthen interactions between the global IGF and the national and regional IGFs and to
allow for a more inclusive process of participation and continuity of discussions. Any change
should 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 from
developing countries. The goal is to better enable both developing country participation at
the IGF and year-round access to the work product and outcomes of Internet governance
discussions, 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 once
they leave and see this exchange of information wherever they may be based, to demonstrate
their capabilities, share best practices and measure progress. Remote moderators, remote
hubs, linguistic diversity, facilities for people with disabilities and translations must be
considered basic and necessary facets to any IGF meeting. Such dynamic engagement and
opportunities for wider and year-round participation would firmly establish the IGF as a
conference with a serious knowledge agenda. Finally, the knowledge agenda needs to build
over time, so IGF programs need to accommodate conversations of different complexity in a
way 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 inclusive
discussion of key Internet governance topics. Even though the IGF was initiated in 2006,
the participation from developing countries, number of national IGFs and participation at
regional 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 Latin
American. A conscious effort to increase awareness about the IGF and its benefits in these
countries needs to occur through all resources available. Unless the IGF truly represents a
bottom-up, democratic process that is substantially diverse, its acceptability and relevance will
remain high but relegated to limited pockets of the world.

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



6
ICC BASIS Statement
Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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-level
criteria available on the UNs process for MAG appointments, each constituency group has its
own unique process for making MAG recommendations. These procedures should be
collected and shared with all, and the UNs selection criteria should be clear and the process
transparent. Further, issues of a MAG mandate and operational processes that reflect the
essential multistakeholder nature of the MAG should be promulgated to better articulate
responsibilities, expectations and commitments. These deficiencies to the transparency, order
and processes of the MAG should be addressed as part of the improvement of IGF.




*** *** ***