The Scope Of Its Mandate
The UN's World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) recently completed a meeting (PrepCom-1) in Hammamet, Tunisia in preparation for the second phase of the WSIS process. Following the meeting, the Secretariat of WSIS' Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) issued a statement discussing the organization's plans and goals.

The WGIG will produce a report and recommendations on internet governance prior to the 2005 WSIS meeting. Although the WGIG could well have a substantive impact on ICANN and virtually all internet stakeholders, the scope of the WGIG's mandate and its operation remain either undetermined or shrouded in secrecy.

A statement from the WGIG Secretariat begins with a commitment to working through an "open and inclusive" process with the "full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries". However, other elements of the statement raise serious doubts about WGIG's commitment to these goals.

The first doubts about openness and transparency are raised by the fact that there is no indication as to how stakeholders can be nominated to serve on the WGIG. Instead of having an open nomination process, the WGIG will be appointed by the UN Secretary-General assisted by the already existing Secretariat. The Secretariat has stated that there will be "consultations on the composition of the WGIG, the profile of its members..." and that the membership will have a "balanced composition." Thus, the group potentially responsible for the making key decisions about the future of internet governance will be appointed by the UN bureaucracy following "open-ended" consultations with those with whom they choose to consult. The specific decision-making process for determining WGIG membership is not discussed.

Once the WGIG is appointed, they will decide on what it is they are supposed to work. As the Secretariat's statement explains, "It will be up to the WGIG to decide on the scope of its mandate." The statement goes on to note, "But of course we need to be thinking about the possible scope of the mandate when proposing the members of the WGIG." Thus, the UN appointed group will have, in essence, free reign to involve themselves in and make recommendations regarding virtually every aspect of the internet, including content.

According to an interview with the Executive Coordinator of the WGIG Secretariat, issues that may potentially be addressed by WGIG include "concerns related to Internet content (e.g., spam and offensive content)." The notion of a United Nations' organization discussing and making recommendation regarding "offensive" internet content is, to say the least, rather disturbing.

Despite the apparent commitment to being "open and inclusive" the WGIG meetings will be "closed." However, in addition to staging closed meetings, the WGIG will also engage in yet more "open-ended consultations." Furthermore, the process may also be "supplemented by additional meeting and special advisers..."

The Secretariat describes the WGIG process as "a compromise between efficiency and legitimacy." In reality, the process appears to be neither efficient nor legitimate but simply compromised.