IGF improvements, enhanced cooperation and the CSTD

Both the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the idea of “enhanced co-operation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet” are outcomes of the 2005 WSIS document, Tunis Agenda for the Information Society.

Since the Tunis Agenda was adopted by UN Member States, there have been six IGFs, involving thousands of participants, linking stakeholders in different Internet governance areas from around the world, and spawning a number of national and regional IGF initiatives.

CSTDWG chair Peter Major talks with member Izumi Aizu. Photo: Sam Dickinson

In that same time period, there have been sporadic consultations on what "enhanced co-operation" is and should be, with no agreement amongst stakeholders on whether enhanced co-operation is a governments-only co-operation mechanism or is about broader co-operation between governments and all other stakeholders in Internet governance.

In 2012, the CSTD becomes home to discussions on both the IGF, through its ongoing CSTDWG on IGF improvements, and on enhanced co-operation, through a one-day open consultation meeting in May. This article looks at the impact of the addition of enhanced co-operation discussions at the CSTD on the CSTDWG on IGF improvements.

CSTDWG on IGF improvements in 2011

In 2011, a number of members of the CSTDWG (CSTD Working Group) regarded the working group as an important venue that could be used to make changes to the current Internet governance model. By aiming to develop WG recommendations that would make the IGF more decision and outcome oriented, some member states, in particular, hoped to be able to change ICANN’s structure, as well align the IGF with more traditional UN decision-making structures such as the ITU, CSTD and ECOSOC.

Some also hoped that if the recommendations could turn the IGF into a regular UN budget item, it would prevent what they currently see as potential or actual “capture” of the Internet’s interests by developed world and private industry interests.

On the other hand, other members of the working group, who support the idea that current multi-stakeholder Internet governance is, on the whole, working well, saw the CSTDWG as a way to make pragmatic improvements to the IGF, such as finding additional sources of funding and ensuring greater participation from developing countries.

Everyone in the CSTDWG in 2011 agreed that the IGF could be improved. The major difference, however, was in the broader ideological changes sought by some, and the more pragmatic, incremental changes sought by others.

The discussion between WG members in the three 2011 meetings was lively, with the third meeting gradually leading to participants agreeing that, at a high level, there was broad consensus on issues such as the need to support more developing country participation in the IGF, and the need for IGF outputs to be more accessible and in a form that can be used to inform and develop local Internet governance initiatives, particularly in developing countries. The details of how to achieve these higher level goals were still undecided at the end of the November 2011 meeting, however, and two of the most difficult discussions the WG needed to have, on Item C, “Funding”, and Item E, “Linking the IGF to other related processes”, were postponed due to lack of time.

CSTDWG in 2012

It was with this context that the fourth, and second to final, CSTDWG meeting was held 11-13 January 2012.

On the whole, discussions continued in the cooperative vein that had been established in the November 2011 meeting. There were, of course, the expected passionately held views about funding. In particular, when the IGF Secretariat reported UNDESA’s clarification that the IGF could not become part of the regular UN budget without the adoption of a UNGA resolution making this change, one member of the WG argued that, while such a resolution would be difficult to achieve, it should not stop the WG from recommending UN regular funding.

The CSTDWG meeting room in Geneva. Photo: Sam Dickinson

In light of UNDESA’s advice, however, other WG members preferred to focus on more immediately achievable funding sources. There were also discussions on whether organizations involved in Internet management, such as ICANN, should be required to commit a certain percentage of their revenue to IGF’s funds.

The major difference at the 2012 meeting, however, was the distinct lack of member-state oppositional politicking. The UN, like any national parliament or congress, has members that form alliances and members that automatically disagree with proposals from members they consider their ideological opposites. This is neither good nor bad, but is simply a facet of political life.

The large number of countries now represented at the UN (193 as opposed to 51 when the UN was first formed) and the need to have either a consensus or majority vote on UN resolutions means that alliances are the only way to successfully advance or block a member state’s proposal. These wider UN politics naturally have also played a part in previous CSTDWG meetings, with some member states automatically suspicious of proposals from their traditional ideological opponents.

Passionate voices within discussions. Photo: Sam Dickinson

At the January meeting, in contrast, there were a surprisingly large number of agreements and expressions of support between member states and stakeholder group members who would normally be suspicious of each other. Although the levels of trust and general broad agreements established in previous meetings were certainly part of the reason for these new levels of co-operation, there is also another possible reason: the potential creation of a governments-only working group on enhanced co-operation.

An enhanced co-operation WG in 2012 or 2013?

In late 2011, the UNGA Second Committee’s adoption of the draft resolution, A/C.2/66/L.80, Information and communications technologies for development, added the possibility of a new, potentially governments-only venue for Internet discussion.

The draft resolution included a recommendation for the CSTD to hold open consultations, in conjunction with its 2012 Session, to identify “a shared understanding of enhanced co-operation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet”. The December 2011, a CSTD Inter-sessional Panel agreed to hold this consultation on 18 May 2012, in Geneva.

However, given that with the CSTDWG on IGF improvements has set a precedent within the CSTD for a creating working groups associated with Internet governance, there is also a reasonable possibility that some governments at the open consultation will propose creating a working group on enhanced co-operation.

If this happens, such a WG could possibly be closed to non-government stakeholders, leading to more government-centric ideas of what comprises enhanced co-operation. Although no member state has yet submitted a formal proposal for an enhanced co-operation WG, proposals such as India’s call for a "United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies" during its October 2011 statement to the United Nations' General Assembly Second Committee, and the draft IBSA position in September 2011 are indications that a new CSTD WG may be the next forum proposed for discussion of such ideas.

Impact of enhanced co-operation discussions on CSTDWG

If some member states are already working toward the creation of a governments-only WG on enhanced co-operation, it may be the case that the CSTDWG on IGF has become less important for those states as a venue for achieving broader ideological changes to Internet governance.

As a consequence, government representatives may have been told they are free to engage in co-operative development of IGF improvements, since the states’ broader desires for changes in Internet governance are more likely to find a home in a working group on enhanced co-operation.

Where to from here?

The good news is that, with only one more meeting left for the CSTDWG to complete its work on recommendations for IGF improvements, the increased levels of co-operation and agreement between WG members bode well.

The Chair, Peter Major, has been shepherding discussions on divergent views tactfully and WG members from all stakeholder groups have been taking advantage of the mailing list to swap ideas both outside and during the physical meetings.

Patrik Falstrom helps out with the remote participation. Photo: Sam Dickinson

Remote participation for the WG meetings, although still a work in progress, has enabled group members from all stakeholder groups, and from both developing and developed countries to participate in discussions and, for those who have not engaged in in IGF meeting remotely before, to gain an understanding of how difficult it is to achieve the levels of quality participation that the IGF has managed to achieve over its last six years.

Internet governance stakeholders only have a few more weeks to contact members of the CSTDWG to provide feedback on the IGF improvements under discussion. The Chair’s summary of the third meeting, which will contain the "rolling document" of proposal discussions, has not yet been published, but will be available from the CSTDWG web page.

The slightly less positive news is that all Internet governance stakeholder groups, already stretched by an ever-expanding Internet governance calendar of meetings, now also need to prepare for the 18 May 2012 CSTD open consultations on enhanced co-operation.

Those preparations will include not only developing positions on what enhanced co-operation is and should be, but also deciding what stakeholders would like to be the outcome of the consultations:

• Do stakeholders support the creation of another CSTD WG to discuss enhanced co-operation? If so, what form should the WG take: governments-only or multi-stakeholder?
• Is the CSTD the right venue for such a WG? If not the CSTD, where? In particular, given ongoing support for UN-based discussion of enhanced co-operation by some Member States, if the CSTD were not to be the home of such discussion, what UN body should host it? ECOSOC? ITU?
• If the creation of another WG or committee to discuss enhanced co-operation is not a desired outcome, then what do stakeholders want to be the recommendation/consensus/report of the open consultation to document?