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

This report is a response from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) to the United Nations Secretariat regarding the mandate review of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). IISD recommends renewing the IGF's mandate for a second five-year term but argues that the forum must evolve from a general discussion space into a multi-function body with greater analytic capacity, increased transparency in its governance, and stronger linkages to global policy issues such as sustainable development and climate change.

• IISD considers the IGF highly successful in fostering multistakeholder engagement, creating a transparent and multilateral space for a diverse assembly of interests that previously did not exist, particularly in allowing all participants to have a voice.
• The IGF has served as a critical arena for IISD to integrate sustainable development (SD) into Internet policy, leading to SD being listed as a goal by the APC, the inclusion of SD thinking in Industry Canada's digital economy work, and the recognition of SD as an emerging theme at the 2007 Rio meeting.
• Despite successes within its 'core community,' the IGF has had little to no discernable impact on the broader sustainable development community or on domestic debates in Canada and the United Kingdom regarding security, content, or open access.
• The IGF suffers from a lack of analytic capacity and isolation from other global policy forums, such as those addressing the Millennium Development Goals, climate change, and the global economic crisis.
• The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) is criticized for limited transparency and accountability, with IISD suggesting that the MAG has resisted the IGF's evolution and rejected proposals for alternative discussion formats.
• IISD strongly supports renewing the IGF mandate for another five years, provided it evolves into a body that mainstreams capacity-building and sustainable development, improves the transparency of the MAG, and avoids acquiring formal decision-making roles.
• IISD argues that the current internal self-assessment review process is problematic because it relies on 'insider' perspectives and fails to explain why many governments, businesses outside the ICT sector, and civil society groups do not participate.

APA

International Institute for Sustainable Development (n.d.). Review of the Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf_mandate_review.pdf

Chicago

International Institute for Sustainable Development. Review of the Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD. n.d. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf_mandate_review.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=International Institute for Sustainable Development |title=Review of the Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf_mandate_review.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{internationalinstituteforsustainabledevelopmentndreview, author = {{International Institute for Sustainable Development}}, title = {{Review of the Mandate of the Internet Governance Forum: A response from IISD}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf_mandate_review.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }