Internet Governance Forum


The Internet Governance Forum is a multistakeholder governance group for policy dialogue on issues of Internet governance. It brings together all stakeholders in the Internet governance debate, whether they represent governments, the private sector or civil society, including the technical and academic community, on an equal basis and through an open and inclusive process. The establishment of the IGF was formally announced by the United Nations Secretary-General in July 2006. It was first convened in October–November 2006 and has held an annual meeting since then.

History and development

WSIS phase I, WGIG, and WSIS phase II

The first phase of World Summit on the Information Society, held in Geneva in December 2003, failed to agree on the future of Internet governance, but did agree to continue the dialogue and requested the United Nations Secretary-General to establish a multi-stakeholder Working Group on Internet Governance.
Following a series of open consultations in 2004 and 2005 and after reaching a clear consensus among its members the WGIG proposed the creation of the IGF as one of four proposals made in its final report. The WGIG report was one of the inputs to the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society held in Tunis in 2005. The idea of the Forum was also proposed by Argentina, as stated in its proposal made during the last Prepcom 3 in Tunis.
The second phase of WSIS, held in Tunis in November 2005, formally called for the creation of the IGF and set out its mandate. Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda called on the UN Secretary-General to convene a meeting with regards to the new multi-stakeholder forum to be known as the IGF. The Tunis WSIS meeting did not reach an agreement on any of the other WGIG proposals that generally focused on new oversight functions for the Internet that would reduce or eliminate the special role that the United States plays with respect to Internet governance through its contractual oversight of ICANN. The US Government's position during the lead-up to the Tunis WSIS meeting was flexible on the principle of global involvement, very strong on the principle of multi-stakeholder participation, but inflexible on the need for US control to remain for the foreseeable future in order to ensure the "security and stability of the Internet".

2005 mandate

The mandate for the IGF is contained in the 2005 WSIS Tunis Agenda. The IGF was mandated to be principally a discussion forum for facilitating dialogue between the Forum's participants. The IGF may "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations," but does not have any direct decision-making authority. In this mandate, different stakeholders are encouraged to strengthen engagement, particularly those from developing countries. In paragraph 72, the mandate focused on capacity-building for developing countries and the drawing out of local resources. This particular effort, for instance, has been reinforced through DiploFoundation's Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme that allowed participants from different regions to benefit from valuable resources with the help of regional experts in Internet governance.

Formation

The United Nations published its endorsement of a five-year mandate for the IGF in April 2006. There were two rounds of consultations with regards to the convening of the first IGF, in February and May 2006. The convening of the IGF was announced on 18 July 2006, with the inaugural meeting of the forum held in Athens, Greece from 30 October to 2 November 2006.

2011 mandate renewal and improvements process

In the lead-up to the completion of the first five-year mandate of the IGF in 2010, the UN initiated a process of evaluating the continuation of the IGF, resulting in a United Nations General Assembly resolution to continue the IGF for a further five years. In addition to the renewed mandate, another UN body, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, established a Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, which issued a report to the commission for consideration during its 15th session held 21–25 May 2012, in Geneva. The Working Group report made recommendations with regard to shaping of the outcomes of IGF meetings, working modalities, funding, broadening participation and capacity-building, and linking the IGF to other Internet governance-related entities.
At its meeting held from 21 to 25 May 2012 the CSTD made recommendations to the Economic and Social Council regarding Internet governance and the Internet Governance Forum, which the Council accepted at its meeting on 24 July 2012. The recommendations included urging the Secretary-General to ensure the continued functioning of the IGF and its structures in preparation for the seventh meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, to be held from 6 to 9 November 2012 in Baku, Azerbaijan and future meetings of the Internet Governance Forum.

2015 mandate renewal

The second five-year mandate of the IGF ended in 2015. On 16 December 2015 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the outcome document on the 10-year review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society. Among other things the outcome document urges the need to promote greater participation and engagement in Internet governance discussions that should involve governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, the technical and academic communities, and all other relevant stakeholders. It acknowledges the role the Internet Governance Forum has played as a multistakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues. And it extends the existing mandate of the IGF as set out in paragraphs 72 to 78 of the Tunis Agenda for a third period of ten years. During the ten-year period, the IGF should continue to show progress on working modalities, and participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries.

IGF Retreat, July 2016

After the UN General Assembly extended the IGF's mandate for ten additional years in December 2015, but before the December 2016 IGF meeting in Mexico, an IGF Retreat was held on 14–16 July 2016 in Glen Cove, New York to focus on "Advancing the 10-Year Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum". At the time that the IGF mandate was extended, the UN General Assembly called for "progress on working modalities and the participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries" and "accelerated implementation of recommendations in the report of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development Working Group on Improvements to the IGF."
Thus the retreat was framed by the mandates of the Tunis Agenda and WSIS+10 review. It also aimed to build on the report of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF and the many years of reflection of the MAG and the IGF community on improving the working methods of the IGF. The retreat was to focus on "how" the IGF could best work to deliver its role and how it could be best supported. As it focused on the "how", it would not try to carry out the substantive discussions that are to happen in the IGF itself.
The retreat reached the following understandings:
  • In addition to its renewal of the IGF's mandate in December 2015, the UN General Assembly expressed expectations, specifically the need to show progress on working modalities and the participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries, as well as for the accelerated implementation of the recommendations of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF.
  • There was also recognition that improvements have been and continue to be made on an ongoing basis.
  • The relevance of the IGF in the future is not assured, being dependent inter alia on increased voluntary funding to the multi-donor extra-budgetary IGF Trust Fund Project of the UN that funds the IGF Secretariat and on increased participation from a balanced and diverse set of stakeholders.
  • Other fora are emerging for those wishing to engage in discussions about Internet governance. This suggested that the IGF's distinctiveness and value within this range of alternatives would need to remain sufficient to maintain participation levels from governments and the private sector in particular.
  • A few participants felt that the MAG does not engage all parts of the community who want to take part in the discussion on Internet governance, and the IGF itself as well as the various intersessional activities could address this.
  • The IGF has evolved over the years and is now seen by many as much more than an annual forum. Increasingly, it is seen as an ecosystem including national and regional IGFs, intersessional work, best practice fora, dynamic coalitions and other activities.
  • More could be done to take a strategic, long-term view of the role and activities of the IGF, such as through a predictable multi-year programme of work. Even if not undertaken generally, it might be possible to reinvigorate the IGF by taking a longer-term view of particular issues, dedicating time and resources to progressing discussions and achieving concrete outcomes on these over time. it might be possible to move towards a continuous, predictable process for programming the work of the IGF.
  • The IGF's innovative and unconventional multistakeholder structure and culture, compared with other UN processes, is generally felt to be one of its strengths. However, it also made it more difficult to integrate it with other UN processes. The same is true with respect to integrating the IGF and its institutional arrangements comfortably into expectations of multistakeholder processes. One of the challenges therefore is how to reconcile its bottom-up approach and stakeholder expectations with other multilateral processes within the UN system.
  • The role of the MAG, in particular whether the MAG is expected or authorized to take on responsibilities beyond the programming of the annual IGF meetings, needs to be clarified in order to pursue significant innovations in the IGF.
  • It was generally felt that the IGF Secretariat is under-resourced and hence lacks capacities for its current responsibilities, let alone additional activities.