Review of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD

IISD supports the renewal of the Internet Governance Forum's (IGF) mandate, praising its success in multistakeholder engagement and its role as a unique international policy dialogue venue. However, the report highlights significant gaps in the IGF's impact on the sustainable development community and its failure to effectively integrate issues like climate change and the Millennium Development Goals. IISD argues that the IGF lacks sufficient analytic capacity and transparency in its Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) governance. To evolve, the report recommends that the IGF establish themed working groups, strengthen linkages with national and regional forums, and move beyond a 'core community' to engage broader public policy actors, including those in the environment and rights sectors.

• The IGF has successfully created a transparent, multilateral space for multistakeholder engagement that is superior to most other arenas for information and communications technologies policy, allowing a broad assembly of interests to have a voice.
• While the IGF has served as a critical arena for IISD to promote sustainable development (SD) and has influenced some governments and organizations, it has had no discernable impact on the broader sustainable development community regarding climate change mitigation, adaptation, or environmental sustainability.
• The IGF operates in isolation from other critical global policy forums and issues, specifically failing to connect with the Millennium Development Goals, climate change challenges, and the global economic crisis.
• The IGF lacks the necessary analytic capacity to maintain global credibility and relevance; IISD suggests augmenting the Secretariat's resources, coordinating with academic research networks, or establishing working groups.
• The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) is criticized for limited transparency and accountability, with a perceived resistance to the growth and evolution of the IGF's role in addressing emerging issue sets.
• IISD strongly recommends renewing the IGF mandate for a second five-year term, provided it evolves from a general discussion forum into a multi-function body that mainstreams sustainable development and improves stakeholder engagement.
• The internal self-assessment process used for the mandate review is considered problematic because it relies on 'insider' perspectives and fails to capture why external actors or underrepresented groups do not participate.

APA

Creech, H., Maclean, D., Souter, D., Vetter, T., & Andjelkovic, M. (2009). Review of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf_mandate_review.pdf

Chicago

Creech, Heather, Don Maclean, David Souter, Tony Vetter, and Maja Andjelkovic. Review of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2009. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf_mandate_review.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Creech |first1=Heather |last2=Maclean |first2=Don |last3=Souter |first3=David |last4=Vetter |first4=Tony |last5=Andjelkovic |first5=Maja |title=Review of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=July 2009 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf_mandate_review.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{creech2009review, author = {Creech, Heather and Maclean, Don and Souter, David and Vetter, Tony and Andjelkovic, Maja}, title = {{Review of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2009}, month = jul, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf_mandate_review.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }