- New gTLD database
IGF improvements final working group report
This is the final report of the CSTD working group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. It was published in April 2012, having been approved in March 2012, and following three meetings in October 2011, January 2011 and February 2012
General Assembly Economic and Social Council
Item 18 of the preliminary list*
Information and communication technologies for development
Economic and Social Council
Substantive session of 2012
Item 13(b) of the provisional agenda**
Economic and environmental questions: Science and technology for development
Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum
This report has been prepared by the Chair on behalf of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum in response to the requests by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 2010/2 and by the General Assembly in its resolution A/RES/65/141.
Taking into account the results of the first two meetings held by the Working Group in early 2011, it gives a brief account of the establishment and the outcome of its three meetings held at the end of 2011 and in early 2012, within the framework of resolution 2011/16 extending the mandate of the Working Group, which had not been able to complete its task given the complexity and political sensitivity of the subject. During these three last meetings, the Group continued to fulfil its task, on the basis of the work already accomplished and in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda.
The Working Group established areas which should be improved, as well as broad agreements in this regard to guide and structure the drafting of specific and relevant recommendations on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. As requested, they are included in this report.
1. On 19 July 2010, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted, by consensus, resolution 2010/2 on the “Assessment of the progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society”. By this resolution, ECOSOC “invites the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda, and would make recommendations, as appropriate, to the Commission at its fourteenth session in 2011, in a report that would constitute an input from the Commission to the General Assembly, through ECOSOC, should the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended”.
2. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF1 underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”, and decided that particular consideration should be given to “inter alia, enhancing participation from developing countries, exploring further voluntary options for financing the Forum and improving the preparation process modalities, and the work and functioning of the Forum’s secretariat”.
3. The Working Group was composed of 21 Member States, including the five Member States that have hosted IGF meetings and the two that have hosted the World Summit on the Information Society. In addition, five representatives from the business community, five representatives from civil society, five representatives from the technical and academic community and five representatives from intergovernmental organizations were invited to participate interactively in the Working Group2. Subsequently, the Working Group agreed on the attendance of a representative3 of Mr. Fortunato de la Peña, Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), and on the membership of Kenya as host country of a completed IGF4. The full list of members and participants can be found in the annex to this report.
4. Following a number of face-to-face and online open consultations which were held prior to the setting up of the Working Group5, its work was carried out in two different phases. In a first phase, two meetings were held, on 25 and 26 February 2011 in Montreux, Switzerland6, and on 24 and 25 March 2011 in Geneva, Switzerland7, under the chairmanship of Mr. Frederic Riehl. During these two meetings, the Group sought, compiled and reviewed in an open and inclusive manner inputs from Member States and other stakeholders on improvements to the IGF, in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society.
5. ECOSOC at its 2011 substantive session and the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session considered the report prepared by Mr. Riehl concerning the results of the work of the Group, which did not have sufficient time to complete its task, given, in particular, the sensitivity and complexity of the subject and therefore significant divergences in this regard among Member States. Subsequently, in its resolution 2011/16 on the “Assessment of the progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society”, ECOSOC agreed to extend the mandate of the Working Group until the fifteenth session of the CSTD to enable the Group to continue to complete its task and to submit, if appropriate, recommendations on improvements to the IGF, as an input from the Commission to the General Assembly through ECOSOC.
6. With three additional meetings (31 October–2 November 2011; 11–13 January 2012; and 20–22 February 2012)8, which were held in Geneva under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Major, the Working Group carried out its work, in an open and inclusive manner, in a second phase with the primary goal of completing its task, in particular by establishing recommendations on improvements to the IGF.
7. The Working Group decided to continue its work based on the first two meetings, taking due account of the “Non-paper of the Chair for concrete recommendations of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF” and agreed to use the “Chairman’s draft summary of responses/recommendations to the Questionnaire on Improvements to the IGF” as a working basis when identifying relevant recommendations to improve the IGF9.
8. It is important to note that while the task of the Working Group consisted primarily in reviewing the functioning of the IGF to assess its efficiency and distinguish existing areas requiring improvements to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of the IGF as set out in the Tunis Agenda, participants recognized the important work of the IGF Secretariat which, with limited resources, was able, each year, to ensure the success of the IGF meetings held in six different countries.
9. The Working Group reaffirmed the mandate of the IGF as stated in paragraphs 72–80 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society.
10. On this basis, the Working Group agreed to make the following recommendations with regard to specific areas, namely the shaping of the outcomes of IGF meetings, the working modalities of the IGF, including open consultations, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the Secretariat, the funding of the IGF, broadening participation and capacity-building, and linking the IGF to other Internet governance related entities, as follows:
I. Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings
11. While maintaining the IGF as a non-binding, non-decision-making and non-duplicative forum, it is important to improve the quality and format of IGF outcomes to enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy. For this purpose, it is necessary that IGF outcomes clearly reflect the full diversity of opinions on key policy issues of the multi-stakeholder IGF community. In addition, more tangible and visible IGF outcomes combined with enhanced communication tools and strategy would also improve outreach.
The Working Group makes the following recommendations:
1. Develop more tangible outputs
12. To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part of the overall discussion.
The results of the debates on these questions, with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed at capacity-building, should be stated in the outcome documentation.
13. The outcome documentation should include messages that map out converging and diverging opinions on given questions.
14. The IGF should continue to produce and enhance its current reports, including the Chair’s report, the sessions’ transcripts, the workshop reports and the overall proceedings.
2. Improve the visibility of the IGF
15. Improve the visibility and availability of IGF outcomes by means of enhanced IGF communication tools and strategy to make the relevant documents available to all relevant stakeholders as well as the media.
II. Working modalities including open consultations, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, and the Secretariat
16. While being focused on themes and specific policy questions, it is important to maintain the overall structure of the IGF, namely main sessions, feeder workshops, workshops, round tables and specific policy questions. However, the working modalities of the IGF, including open consultations, the MAG and the Secretariat, could be improved to ensure the effective impact of IGF multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.
The Working Group makes the following recommendations:
1. Improve the overall preparatory process of the IGF
17. The IGF Secretariat and the MAG should reach out and continue to invite all stakeholders to be more actively involved in the preparation of the IGF, including by identifying pertinent key policy questions around which main sessions for the IGF will be structured. In order to enhance the bottom-up process and to facilitate the identification of key policy questions, the Secretariat could also issue the call for workshop proposals before the first open consultation.
18. Logistics for the preparatory process should be improved, including by retaining the practice that all of the annual consultations should allow for remote participation.
19. Establishing a clear timetable for the preparatory process is necessary, including for all open consultations and MAG meetings, and important dates shall be published well in advance to enable the well-prepared participation of all stakeholders.
2. Improve the structure and working methods of the MAG
20. The proposed selection process for the MAG:
- The three non-governmental stakeholder groups should propose lists of candidates that should be balanced, including in terms of gender distribution and in reflecting the diversity of geographical distribution. This will enable a wide range of diversity within the MAG, especially those groups which have been underrepresented in the MAG, and will be sufficiently large to provide some flexibility when selecting MAG members;
- Stakeholder groups should identify and publicize the process which works best for their own culture and methods of engagement and which will ensure their self-management;
- The contribution of lists of proposed candidates for each stakeholder group should not be restricted to one particular body;
- The final selection of candidates shall continue to be made by the United Nations Secretary-General.
21. During the selection process the following measures should be kept in mind:
- The process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented;
- New MAG members should undergo an orientation process before they participate in their first MAG meeting;
- The annual record of MAG physical and remote participation will be made by the IGF Secretariat and published on the IGF website;
- It is important that the MAG has clear terms of reference.
3. Strengthen the Secretariat
22. The IGF Secretariat should continue to operate with transparency and flexibility, be independent of any specific stakeholder interests, interface with all stakeholder groups and be accountable to the broader IGF community. With very limited human and financial resources, the IGF Secretariat, together with many volunteers, has effectively supported IGF meetings. However, it should be strengthened without losing its lightweight structure, as set out in the Tunis Agenda, to ensure that it has the ability to meet increasing demands in a cost-effective and efficient way, and to support the desired and increased outreach, including to developing countries and particularly the least developed countries (LDCs).
III. Funding of the IGF
23. Currently, the IGF relies on voluntary funding, including host-country and other in-kind contributions. While maintaining the present funding model, it is important to increase voluntary funding to enhance the long-term predictability and stability of funding contributions and create continuity of funds for the IGF activities. It is useful to explore additional ways to encourage voluntary contributions, in particular to support participation from developing countries and especially LDCs. Stable, predictable, and voluntary funding should also cover remote participation management and technical expenses. The Secretariat and the host country should work together to ensure the availability of adequate technical and human resources, including a remote moderator. There is an integral relationship between stable, predictable and increased voluntary funding and the implementation of other recommendations of the Working Group.
The Working Group makes the following recommendations:
1. Encourage increased voluntary financial contributions
24. The present funding model should be continued. However, more financial resources are needed to support the existing functions of the IGF Secretariat and to support and enhance the participation of stakeholders from developing countries, and in particular LDCs. All potential donors are encouraged to contribute and make pluri-annual contributions whenever possible.
25. The MAG is tasked with preparing IGF meetings, and its members can only fulfil this task if they are able to be physically present in meetings. Efforts should be made to fund those who are not in a position to do so.
26. One way to source additional funds would be to create a mechanism for inviting, accepting and aggregating contributions, including smaller contributions, that can be used specifically to broaden participation for developing countries, particularly LDCs, in the IGF. The possibility of establishing a light non-profit entity for this purpose should be explored.
27. Appreciation is expressed concerning the generosity of all donors to date. Donors are encouraged to continue, and where possible, increase their contributions, to assist in widening the donor base and to identify new mechanisms for predictable voluntary funding. In this regard, a closer relationship with stakeholders in the relevant fields should be explored and further encouraged.
28. Outreach and informational materials, including a letter of invitation to join the donors developed by the Secretariat, will be useful to communicate with potential donors.
29. The IGF Secretariat could make official announcements, via the website and other suitable mechanisms, to explain the fund-raising process, including information on how to contribute, as well as a description of the IGF and its activities that will be supported by contributions.
30. The resource mobilization for the IGF should be enhanced with proactive outreach and interaction with potential donors; in this regard, the Special Advisor on Internet Governance to the Secretary-General and the IGF Executive Coordinator can provide the necessary support in meeting this goal.
2. Enhance accountability and transparency
31. Annual financial reports detailing budget items, income and expenditure should be made available to the IGF community via the website, taking into account United Nations rules and regulations.
32. The IGF Secretariat should provide an annual update of IGF finances during open consultations with the possibility of providing views and comments, which the MAG may incorporate in its work and summary report.
33. There should be timely reports to donors, annually and at the end of every project cycle, on the implementation of the project document and on the use of funds.
3. Acknowledge the host country’s support and the in-kind support from other countries, organizations and the United Nations
34. The IGF should recognize and acknowledge the substantial contributions from host countries throughout the hosting of the global IGF, which include significant financial and in-kind voluntary efforts such as providing services for the use of remote hubs and remote participants, as well as audio-visual and ICT requirements as per host country agreements. Such acknowledgments should be discussed with each host country.
35. The IGF should also recognize and acknowledge verifiable in-kind voluntary efforts to the planning and organizing process from other countries, organizations, and the United Nations, including support for participation, the hosting of remote hubs and remote participation services, as well as audio-visual and ICT requirements.
IV. Broadening participation and capacity-building
36. Although participation in the IGF has increased with time, it should be further broadened, both at the annual meeting and in its preparatory phase, to involve new stakeholders, in particular from developing countries and especially LDCs, and persons with disabilities and other underrepresented groups.
Broadening participation enhances the IGF’s openness and inclusiveness and fosters effective multi-stakeholder policy dialogue and productive capacity-building. For this purpose, questions related to existing obstacles that limit greater involvement should be addressed. It is important to acknowledge that remote participation is now an integral part of the IGF and that adequate resources should be made available to develop this activity further.
The Working Group makes the following recommendations:
1. Expand and diversify participation
37. Support for participation of all stakeholder groups from developing countries, in particular LDCs, in the IGF and its preparatory process should be further enhanced.
38. More topics addressing issues related to Internet governance for development should be included in the agenda to make it more interesting for participants from developing countries, in particular LDCs, thereby encouraging them to enhance their participation.
39. The selection of workshops is important and they should be made more relevant and inclusive.
40. Increased financial support for stakeholders who are currently not able to participate with their own resources is necessary. Where possible, special funding and other means of support for developing-country participants, in particular those from LDCs, should be increased. It is also important to encourage fellowship programmes supported by participating organizations.
41. Mechanisms to broaden participation should be encouraged, and such efforts should be ongoing and transparent with regular reports provided by the IGF Secretariat on progress made and obstacles faced.
2. Enhance measures for broader participation
42. Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas:
- The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators;
- Chairs and moderators should give remote and on-site participants equal recognition and the opportunity to participate;
- Low-bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be
- Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by
ensuring that online meeting platforms interface with on-site interpretation;
- Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to non-English-speakers and to people with disabilities, whether they are on site or not.
43. It is important to ensure the accessibility of the IGF’s facilities to persons with disabilities.
44. To improve participation in the IGF of diverse linguistic and cultural groups, it is important to expand linguistic diversity functions in the work of the IGF. For example, this could be achieved by (resources permitting):
- Increasing the translation of key documents into United Nations official languages;
- Exploring the use of simultaneous machine translations based on realtime English transcripts;
- Encouraging the use of any of the United Nations official languages, not only English, as the working language in some workshops.
3. Improve the online visibility and accessibility of the IGF
45. A first step in this direction should be to enhance the IGF’s website by providing interactive functionalities and making it more attractive and inclusive. It should also maintain its conformance with open standards and further improve accessibility to persons with disabilities.
46. It is important to continue to encourage host countries to make information about logistics (e.g. low-cost accommodation, transportation between airports and hotels, shuttling between hotels and meeting venues) available in a timely manner on their websites.
4. Enhance all stakeholders’ understanding of the IGF and Internet governance issues
47. 47. The role of the IGF as a “one-stop shop” where people can increase their knowledge and understanding of the IGF and Internet governance issues should be strengthened. This could be done, for instance, by introducing a structured track of pre-events and events at the Forum that contribute to capacity-building in Internet governance.
48. All bodies dealing with Internet governance should be invited to participate, in a coordinated and cooperative manner, in the “one-stop shop” track of the IGF which contributes to capacity-building on Internet governance.
49. Orientation is important to better engage newcomers to the IGF and to create an environment where their participation becomes the most useful for them and also for other participants. Existing mechanisms to orientate newcomers should be continued and strengthened. This could be done by encouraging stakeholders’ initiatives to document the IGF, including concerning best practices, with related links on the IGF website. The establishment of an Internet Governance Observatory is also encouraged.
50. Taking into account the need to increase the participation of all stakeholders, and in particular representatives of governments and parliamentarians to further broaden their interactions with other stakeholders at the IGF, a broad strategy could be developed to encourage their attendance, including possibly by organizing a special session during the IGF for them.
V. Linking the IGF to other Internet governance-related entities
51. It is important for the IGF to continue and improve its interaction and communication with other Internet governance-related entities in order to further global policy dialogue. This goal can be achieved by developing a defined outreach and communication strategy.
The Working Group makes the following recommendations:
1. Ensure the relevance and inclusiveness of annual IGFs
52. The IGF is encouraged to continue and extend its interaction and communication with Internet governance-related entities in order to further develop the global policy dialogue.
53. The IGF Secretariat and the MAG should continue to improve the sharing of information related to the chosen policy questions for each annual IGF and its outcome documentation, with relevant Internet governance-related entities.
54. The IGF Secretariat and the MAG should further share information with relevant Internet governance-related entities about how they can contribute to and participate in the IGF.
2. Support enhanced communication
55. The communication should be improved between the IGF and relevant Internet governance-related entities. For example, it is important to improve linkages between the IGF and the CSTD, by requesting space in CSTD meetings to present information about IGF activities.
3. Empower the MAG and the IGF Secretariat to do consistent outreach
56. It is important to encourage better communication and interactions between national and regional IGF initiatives and the IGF, and to promote and enhance linkages with national and regional IGF initiatives. This should be achieved by consistent and active outreach to these initiatives by the IGF Secretariat. In addition, the MAG should ensure that national and regional IGF initiatives have adequate opportunities to feed into the IGF.
List of participants at the third, fourth and fifth meetings of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum
31 October–2 November 2011
11–13 January 2012
20–22 February 2012
Mr. Rômulo Neves, Head of Division for the Information Society, Ministry of External Relations
Mr. Leandro Silva, Secretary, Permanent Mission of Brazil to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and other economic organizations in Geneva
Mr. Thiago Carneiro, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of Brazil to WTO and other economic organizations in Geneva
Ms. Sylvia Poll, Ambassador, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations
Ms. Roxana Tinoco, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations
Ms. Nermine El Saadany, Director of International Relations Division, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
Ms. Christine Arida, Director of Telecom Planning, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
Mr. Yasser Hassan, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Egypt to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Félix Ulloa, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations in Geneva
Ms. Mervi Kultamaa, Counsellor, Information Society and Trade Facilitation, Department for External Economic Relations, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
Mr. Matti Nissinen, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Finland to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Anthony Kwasi Nyame-Baafi, Minister (Trade), Permanent Mission of Ghana to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. George Papadatos, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Greece to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Andras Dékany, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Peter Lengyel, Head of Unit, Ministry of National Development
Mr. Balazs Ratakai, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. István Erényi, Senior Counsellor, Ministry of National Development, State Secretariat of Infocommunications and Media
Mr. David Pusztai, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Peter Major, Special Advisor, Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations in Geneva
Ms. Tulika Pandey, Director, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
Ms. Nabanita Chakrabarti, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of India
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Mr. Abbas Bagherpour Ardekani, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of the Islamic
Republic of Iran to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Alireza Tootoonchian, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Mohsen Esperi, Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Anthony Andanje, Ambassador/Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Kenya to the United Nations in Geneva
Ms. Mpho Masupha, Intern, Permanent Mission of Lesotho to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Arturas Gailiunas, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Republic of
Lithuania to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Ahsan Nabeel, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Luis Magalhães, Professor, Technical University of Lisbon, President of the
Knowledge Society Agency (UMIC) until 3 January 2012, Ministry of Education and
Ms. Ana Cristina Amoroso das Neves, Head of International Affairs, Knowledge Society Agency (UMIC), Ministry of Education and Science
Mr. Alexander Kushtuev, OJCS Rostelecom Representative
Mr. Vladimir Minkin, Deputy Director-General, Radio Research and Development
Mr. Alexander Petrov, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Igor Kucer, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Slovakia to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva
Ms. Tshihumbudzo Ravhandalala, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Mandixole Matroos, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Vijaya Kumar, Chair, Industrial Technology Institute, Colombo
Ms. Lakmini Peins Mendis, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva
Mr. Thomas Schneider, Departmental Head, International Affairs, Swiss Federal Office of Communications, Bienne
Mr. Dirk-Oliver von der Emden, Legal Adviser, Swiss Federal Office of Communications, Bienne
Mr. Giacomo Mazzone, Media Expert, Swiss Federal Office of Communications, Bienne
Mr. Moez Chakchouk, Chief Executive Officer, Tunisian Internet Agency
United States of America
Mr. Craig Reilly, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the United States to the United Nations in Geneva
Ms. Marilyn Cade, Chief Executive Officer, MCADE LLC
Mr. Patrik Fältström, Manager, Research and Development, Netnod, Sweden (until 14 January 2012: Distinguished Consulting Engineer, Cisco Systems, Sweden)
Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chair, WITSA (Sub-Saharan Africa), Nigeria
Mr. Christoph Steck, Public Policy Director, Telefónica S.A.
Ms. Theresa Swinehart, Executive Director, Global Internet Policy, Verizon
Mr. Izumi Aizu, Senior Research Fellow and Professor, Institute for InfoSocinomics, Kumon Centre, Tama University
Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive
Mr. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor, Department for Media and Information Sciences, University of Aarhus
Ms. Marília Maciel, Project Leader and Researcher, Centre for Technology and Society, Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Mr. Parminderjeet Singh, Executive Director, IT for Change Technical and academic community:
Ms. Constance Bommelaer, Director, Public Policy, Internet Society
Ms. Samantha Dickinson, Internet Governance Consultant
Mr. Baher Esmat, Manager, Regional Relations (Middle East), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Cairo, Egypt
Ms. Nurani Nimpuno, Head of Outreach and Communication, Netnod (Autonomica)
Mr. Oscar Robles-Garay, General Director, NIC Mexico; Board of Directors, LACNIC (regional IP registry for the Latin American and Caribbean region)
International Telecommunication Union
Mr. Preetam Maloor, Corporate Strategy Division
Mr. Jaroslaw Ponder, Corporate Strategy Division
Ms. Regina Valiunia, Corporate Strategy Division
Ms. Jesungtlee Kim, Policy and Legal Analyst
Mr. Jean-Blaise Trivelli, Intern
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (remote
Mr. Cédric Wacholz, Programme Specialist, Knowledge Societies Division,
Communication and Information Sector
Mr. Andrea Beccalli, Associate Expert, Knowledge Societies Division, Communication and Information Sector
Ms. Michol Lucchi, Intern, Geneva Liaison Office
World Intellectual Property Organization
Mr. Joe Bradley, Head, Intergovernmental Organizations and Partnerships Section, Department of External Relations
Ms. Marisol Iglesias Vega, Programme Officer, Department of External Relations
Mr. Victor Owade, Consultant, Intergovernmental Organizations and Partnerships Section, Department of External Relations
Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice-President, Public Policy
Representative of the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la Peña
Ms. Elizabeth Té, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations
Mr. Chengetai Masango, Programme and Technology Manager
Ms. Farzaneh Badei, Consultant
1 General Assembly resolution 65/141. Information and communications technologies for development. 20 December 2010.
3 Ms. Elizabeth Té, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the United Nations.
4 The sixth meeting of the IGF was held in Nairobi, Kenya, on 27–30 September 2011.
5 A first open consultation meeting was held during the fifth IGF meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 16 September 2010. See the summary. An online questionnaire was then
published in November 2010 to which 23 responses were sent in. The results of the questionnaire were discussed during a second open face-to-face meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, on 24 November 2010.
9 In view of the third meeting of the Working Group (31 October–2 November 2011), the Chair classified the recommendations contained in contributions received to the Questionnaire on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
|Final report of the CSTD WG||78.7 KB|