IGF | Forum | | | |

IGF Discussion Space
Welcome, %1$s. Please login or register.
September 19, 2018, 02:15:19 AM


Select language:

+  IGF Discussion Space
|-+  Recent Posts
: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 : October 30, 2008, 01:36:32 PM 
muguet - wlk521
i can hardly known it!

 : September 08, 2008, 12:53:29 PM 
admin - admin
The attached files contain excerpts from the discussion on the IGF Advisory Group mailing list.  The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule. 

Excerpts from the discussion between:

 22 September - 2 October 2008

 10 - 21 September 2008

 3 - 9 September 2008

 26 August - 3 September 2008

 18 - 26 August 2008

 29 July - 17 August 2008

 16 - 28 July 2008

 1 - 15 July 2008

 17 - 30 June 2008
 6 - 17 June 2008
 16 May - 5 June 2008

 8 - 16 May 2008
 28_April - 8 May 2008

 14-20 April 2008

 11-17 March 2008
 25 February – 2 March 2008

 18-24 February 2008

 4 - 10 February 2008

 30 January - 3 February 2008

 6 December 2007 - 15 January  2008  (previously posted)

 : July 05, 2008, 05:19:03 PM 
VeronicaC - Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
An event of this magnitude requires the various components of the event to be handled as professionally as possible. For this feedback task, it may be necessary to engage an agency like Gallup or India's IMRB.  A questionnaire (optionally filled in) may not produce a summary that truly reflects the average opinion, but there may be other methods such as Indepth Exit Interviews of a scientifically selected sample of 100 or so participants. The most appropriate advise could come from the Agency chosen to handle this task.... Please think along the lines of engaging a professional agency. There are several agencies that may fit the task.

 : June 27, 2008, 12:14:19 PM 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy - Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
The World is not inventing Internet Governance. Internet is already being governed.

There is governance, but without a formal structure - the structure is undefined like a round table.  The table is not quite round, perhaps oblong, or queer shaped. Some participants around the table are visible and some are invisible.  And whether or not the table has a 'chair' there is a head of the table visible or invisible.

The opponents of the concept of Internet Governance perhaps believe that the essential character of the Internet is preserved best by challenging the very concept of Governance.  The words "Governance", "Control", "Regulation" or even "Coordination" are mistaken to be invasive to the essential character of a free, open and user-centric internet.

This tendency on the part of some groups arises out of naivety, it is naive to believe that today's Internet is free space  It is not. The truth is that it is being governed, regulated, steered and controlled informally or invisibly. The nature of present internet governance is subtle. It is as subtle as a State with a concept for Free Press actually controlling the Press. There is no government on planet earth that keeps its eyes closed on press reports and there is no corporation which stands by and watches the press write anything that it feels about its management. In this sense at least there is control of the "free press" .  The control in this case is subtle and not too obvious. This is the world order.

The voices that I hear in Internet Forums around the world are largely the voice of the Technical Experts who have caused the Internet to become the lifeline of the world. They have developed the technology, developed the standards and have built the Internet. Also heard is the voice of the users have contributed to the explosion of content and the spread the reach of the Internet. It is the users and the Technical Experts who express voices of concern about Internet Governance.  But Governance happens to be in the realm of politics and management, which are arts too subtle for the scientific mind or for the common man to recognize.

Governments and Corporations have controlled Film Studios in the past ( and present ). Better understood is the control of the press. If Studios are newspapers are "influenced"  would the Internet be free of subtle infulences? Internet is enormous, global and ubiquitous.  Internet has caused a far more (positive) upheaval in the World Order than that caused by the Industrial Revolution. It is too signinficant to be left alone.

Wars have been waged for the sake of maintaining an edge in agricultural or automobile trade. The size of these business segments pale in comparison with the magnitude of the internet economy.  There are two aspects of the Internet Economy. One, the business value of the Internet infrastructure and services. More important is the business value of the business that takes place by using Internet as a medium. If Agriculture, Automobile or Tobacco was in the order of billions, Internet Economy is in the order of trillions, tens of trillions, soon to be hundreds of trillions.

Are we naive to assume that Governments and Corporations have stayed away from the Internet so far and have left it as a 'property' of the common man?  I don't think so.

Today's internet politics is subtle. It is veiled. Present trends - the discussions on Internet Governance and increasing expressions of interest from Governments to participate in the Internet etc. are to be taken as an opportunity to formalize the Governance that is already there backstage. The Internet Community now has an opportunity to turn the invisible Governance into Open Governance.

If the independent policy and technical community and all the activist groups go to the table with this understanding a lot of good can happen. What needs to be recognized is the fact that there needs to be a formal process of governance rather than leave governance to the invisible and the subtle. Then the discussions can center around creating a balanced structure which has several aspects to be attended to:

1. Governments:  Huge investments are needed to update and scale up the Internet Infrastructure. The money is not going to come from chartable individuals, a few corporations or from the academic community.  How would the governments of north, south, east and west share the investment opportunities?  More importantly whatever 'participative' roles in governance taken up by governments needs to be equitably shared by north, south, east and west, rich and poor nations, cold and hot continents.  How ? Will it be equitable or more like how it is at the UN Security Council ?

2. Corporations:  How is the collective role of business corporations from the rich world and the poor world, from the proprietary corner and the open source, from IT and non-IT, from the profit corporations and the not-for-profit entities to be balanced ?

3. Civil Society and the Internet Community:  The Internet Community broadly represents the free, user-centric internet of today. Rather than be on the other side of the table of the "Governance" proponents, the Internet Community might rather evolve to be Internet Governance Community embracing 1. and 2.  Here again there is a note of caution. When Monarchy paved way for Democracy, the world saw a new class of monarchs within the Democratic form of government - Monarchs by any other name. When socialism became the political order in some countries, the concentration of wealth shifted to the power centers that were not meant to be.  If the Internet Community is to govern the Internet what checks and balances are to be in place to ensure that history does not repeat in the context of Internet Governance? The caution here is that it is important for the Internet Community to first preserve its present character before taking up the task of preserving the character of the Internet.

These are the very broad issues to be debated on the topic of Internet Governance.

 : May 28, 2008, 01:16:59 AM 
Jeremy Malcolm - Jeremy Malcolm
I am pleased to announce a new book - please excuse the cross-posting to several lists.

Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum
Author: Jeremy Malcolm
Published: May 2008
ISBN: 978-0-9805084-0-6
Pages: 639

Multi-stakeholder governance is a fresh approach to the development of public policy, bringing together governments, the private sector and civil society in partnership.  The movement towards this new governance paradigm has been most marked in areas involving global networks of stakeholders, too intricate to be represented by governments alone.  Nowhere is this better illustrated than on the Internet, where it is an inherent characteristic of the network that laws, and the conduct to which those laws are directed, will cross national borders.

Thus momentum has developed to bring multi-stakeholder governance to the Internet, through reforms such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).  In this groundbreaking and incisive book, Jeremy Malcolm examines the new model of multi-stakeholder governance for the Internet regime that the IGF represents.  In doing so Jeremy outlines the state of the regime as it preceded the IGF's formation, and provides a faithful yet accessible account of international law, international relations, democratic theory and consensus decision-making as they bear on the topic.  He then builds a compelling case for the reform of the IGF to enable it to fulfil its mandate as an institution for multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

"A book that ought to be read by every participant in the UN Internet Governance Forum. Malcolm provides an exhaustive exploration of the great potential -- and the obstacles and dead ends -- faced by multi-stakeholder policy making around the Internet."

— Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School Of Information Studies and XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology

"Internet governance, once a distant abstraction, increasingly touches everyone, even those seemingly remote from the Net. Jeremy Malcolm's in-depth analysis of its recent evolution and the role of the IGF, a key player in this rapidly developing field, is a timely contribution and a useful reference for scholars, practitioners and policymakers alike."

— David Vaile, Executive Director, Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre

For more information please see:

* The publisher's Web site: http://press.terminus.net.au/igfbook
* Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC
* Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0980508401
* Press contact: +61-8-9213 0801 / [email protected]

 : May 14, 2008, 11:10:57 AM 
admin - VladaR
Agreeing that more interactivity should be introduced to the IGF sessions, which was again expressed at the Open Consultations meeting by Mr. Nitin Desai yesterday, hereby I am presenting briefly some ideas on upgrading the interactivity of sessions of the IGF:

General comment:
- Plenary sessions with 1000+ people can not be fully interactive
- Therefore special care should be given to workshops and side event panels
- Finally, the opportunities of the online space and web2.0 tools should be used to maximum
- In all cases, youth representatives should be asked for suggestions for interactivity, as they are the masters of creative approaches
- The organisation of Village Square / Fair is a must, as this is the interaction hub

Plenary sessions:
- Taking some interventions by the audience/participants well in advance (even prior to IGF) to be integrated with the plenary debates
- Taking interventions from the audience in real-time with strictly limited time allotted (2 minutes) (as was the case for Critical Resources session in Rio which was moderated in an excellent way in terms of the questions)
- Considering email/chat interventions as well: either read by someone, alike with the Open Consultations, or even shown on a separate video beam so that both audience and the panellists can see (though that might also drag the attention from the discussion)
- Introducing debate-like parts of plenary sessions, with involvement of the audience: pros vs. cons, with listing both pros and cons online (shown on some beam) as they are identified from the debate by the moderator, but also as suggested by the audience (prior to or during the session, through chat/email or even piece of paper) to support the debate and assist the debaters
(debates could not only bring about important pros and cons on an issue, but can also be highly dynamic and engaging sort of session)

Workshops and sessions:
- Introducing models such as simulations within groups, role-play games (exactly - games: games are not only for kids!), and other
- Involving the youth in suggesting the formats and organising the sessions:
  . the youth representatives should be encouraged to suggest ideas for formats of sessions;
  . the organisers of the workshop/open forum/best practices sessions should be advices to use more interactive approach, and could be given the assistance of some chosen youngsters with idea and suggestions (and even facilitation and organisation on the spot), related to the topic and original idea of the organisers.
(non-conventional interactive approaches commonly introduced by youth have shown to be very productive also when performed by the elder participants; GK3 even in KL in December has brought up several examples; but also some sessions of the WSIS Tunis)
Online space
- The easiest way of the remote participation are Web2.0 tools, including forums, wikis, hypertext comments on proposed documents, etc.
- The Announcement space should be given online, allowing each player/organisation to present the achievements and plans within 700-1000 words
- A team of people should be in charge of planning and implementing the online discussion fora – which would involve both the people present at the IGF and those accessing remotely
- The team would also be in charge of making digests or picking out the key inputs and idea introduced online and presenting at the IGF sessions (though the participants themselves will already be encouraged to use some idea during their performance)

Village Square / Fair
- Village or Fair (or whatever titled) should be well taken care of this year again: it was one of the most important segments throughout WSIS process; the contacts and networking resulted with countless cooperation and joint activities
- A space for the Announcements should be given to all the interested organisations, with allotting 10-15 minutes each to present their achievements and plans; whoever is interested might come by and listen (this was one of the well implemented idea of the GK3 even in KL)
- List of participants (people and organisations) should be available in advance on the web, with the option of uploading profile of organisation and of the delegates online (with photo) for each participating actor; the exact plan of the Village should be shown bit in advance as well. This would ease and speed up meeting among the actors, and would allow targeting potential partners prior to coming to IGF.

Best regards,

   Vladimir Radunovic

 : May 13, 2008, 10:16:48 AM 
admin - Bhola
Some of the structures mentioned herein are to be reviewed for the betterment of the future generations Interest?.
"40, comprising, in the spirit of true multi-stakeholderism and equal representation, 10 from each stakeholder group (governments, business, civil society and technical community"
Being a World wide Organisation the Nrs are small, & should be increased.
in additions I do not find the issue of CONSUMERS or END USERs of IT products interested persons?.  I hope this may be reviews & changed to favour the consumers interest.?
"International organizations with relevance to IG issues are welcome as observers--(subject to the approval of the Chair)   ?  What if the chair has no personal interest to change the matter? will it remain UNCHANGED?             


 : May 12, 2008, 04:41:52 PM 
admin - shop2002
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus

13th May, 2007

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input into the open round of consultations on 23 May 2007 to discuss program and agenda for the second meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro.

In view of their central importance to the current discourse on Internet Governance, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus will like the following themes addressed in the main sessions at the second meeting of the IGF in Rio de Janeiro.

(1) Global Internet Public Policy - Issues and Institutions

A call to "discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance" is the first point in the IGF mandate in the Tunis agenda. The Agenda deals at length with the question of new global public policy issues regarding IG, the possibility of new frameworks and structures, and the role of existing ones (e.g, paragraphs 61, 69). We therefore believe that an IGF main session should explore the following topics:

a) What is "public policy" on the Internet and when do we need to use global institutions to establish it? The Tunis Agenda distinguishes between "technical" and "public policy" issues, and between public policy and the "day-to-day technical and operational matters." What makes an Internet governance issue a "public policy" issue, and what happens when policy concerns are closely linked to technical administration?

b) What was intended by the Tunis Agenda’s call for the "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources" and how can this goal be pursued?

(2) Core Internet Resources and their Current Governance Institutions

Policy toward "critical Internet resources" is a major topic in the Tunis Agenda and the mandate for the IGF. Currently, name and number resources are administered by ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries. This main session should discuss the policy issues and policy making processes in these institutions. In particular, ICANN's status as an international organization, its representation of various constituencies and stakeholders, and the changing role of the GAC within ICANN should be discussed.

(3) Global Internet policies Impacting Access to and Effective Use of the Internet by Disadvantaged People and Groups - The Development Agenda in IG

A main session should be devoted to the topic, how can global Internet governance policies and practices have an impact on disadvantaged peoples' access to, and effective use of, the Internet, and their access to knowledge? This session would try to identify and explore the specific policies, institutional mechanisms, resource allocation processes, property rights regimes and financing mechanisms that are international in scope and can have a real affect on access to, and effective use of, the Internet by disadvantaged people and groups.

(4) The Role and Mandate of the IGF

The Tunis Agenda mandated that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview;  identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. Since these critically important, value-adding functions cannot be performed by any existing Internet governance mechanism, nor by annual conferences built around plenary presentations from invited speakers, the purpose of this main session would be to foster an open and inclusive dialogue on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate.

 : April 30, 2008, 01:22:08 PM 
admin - Jeremy Malcolm
The draft programme for the Hyderabad meeting incorporates a number of incremental improvements to the programmes for the Athens and Rio meetings which take into account some of the concerns and suggestions that civil society and other stakeholders have long expressed.  However whilst this movement is in the right direction, the rate of progress remains too slow in light of the fact that at the mid-term of its initial five year mandate, the IGF remains incapable of fulfilling each of the roles that the Tunis Agenda sets out for it.

To begin with, it is laudable that the Secretariat has joined the majority of stakeholders in recognising the need to refresh the now-stale and ineffective main sessions for the next meeting.  To this end the new draft programme suggests that more "specific issues" be the focus of the main sessions in Hyderabad.  However, this alone will not redress the problems of relevance that attended the plenary sessions in Athens and Rio.  Most important is not how specific the issues under discussion are, but whether those issues bear on the governance of the Internet rather than simply its use.

For example, to discuss the quality of peer produced content (to select at random a topic chosen for last year's plenary meeting), whilst interesting and a suitable topic for a conference on the sociology of the Internet, does not touch on the IGF's mandate and it inevitably achieves little.  Instead, to continue the example, discussion should be directed as to how (if at all) peer production should be governed and in what respects - that is, through norms (perhaps codified in a voluntary code of conduct), laws (subject to the observance of human rights standards), or some other mechanism.

A second proposed reform, responding (though not expressly) to a suggestion from civil society stakeholders such as IT For Change, is for certain workshops to be held on topics defined by the MAG and linked to main sessions, rather than being left entirely at large for ground-up development.  These workshops would not be held to conflict with main sessions, to facilitate the attendance of all interested stakeholders.  The overload of events will be further reduced through a moratorium of meetings during the lunchbreak or after 6pm.

These suggestions as to scheduling represent an advance over previous meetings, but do not go far enough.  It should be that workshops and main sessions are held on different days altogether, so that none of them conflict with each other.  This is common practice elsewhere in the Internet community, for example in the annual APRICOT conference (http://www.apricot.net/), at which workshops precede the main conference days.  This would foster a greater sense of purpose and community amongst IGF participants than the fragmented programmes of Athens and Rio made possible.

An additional change foreshadowed in the draft programme is that event organisers would be required to present a report on their events, failing which they would be disqualified from holding similar events in the following year.  This is a sensible suggestion, but does not sufficiently redress the lack of control that the IGF at large exercises over the activities of those acting under its auspices, and in particular its de-facto working groups, the dynamic coalitions.

Specifically, it has long been contended by the author and others from civil society, and has more recently been acknowledged by the MAG also, that criteria should be developed in open consultation with all IGF stakeholders by which dynamic coalitions (and, if relevant, other working groups that may form under the IGF) to be accredited for their compliance with basic norms of democratic and multi-stakeholder procedure.  Why has this widely-accepted deficit still not yet been addressed?

A fourth reform that has been put forward in the draft programme is that further efforts should be made to enable remote participation.  This, again, is a reform for which the author and many other stakeholders have long been calling.  It is regrettable, then, that there has been no sign of any progress towards its implementation ahead of the Hyderabad meeting, or at least that any such progress that may have been made has taken place behind closed doors.

It is insufficient for the Secretariat simply to rely upon the decentralised action of stakeholders to make good the deficit in mechanisms for remote participation on a voluntary and unfunded basis.  If real progress towards a better experience for remote participants is to be achieved, it will need to be actively facilitated and funded by the Secretariat in open consultation with stakeholder groups working in this area.  Although the Secretariat's funding is limited, if comparable priority were accorded to online engagement as is accorded to the annual meeting, the IGF's facilities for remote participation could be second to none.

Finally, on the proposed new themes for the plenary sessions - Universalisation of the Internet and Managing the Internet, I also have some concerns.  Taking the first of these to begin with, although development objectives are important, these are also those themes that have the greatest potential for overlap with the other follow-up mechanisms from WSIS, and also tend to raise questions of governance of the Internet only very incidentally.  Consequently, I question whether they merit over a full day of time on the Hyderabad programme to the exclusion of other governance topics.

As for Managing the Internet, my only concern is that the alternative title for this stream of "Using the Internet" should not be further entertained.  The IGF is not a conference about the use of the Internet.  It is a multi-stakeholder public policy governance forum.  By having allowed the first two meetings to become symposia for the aimless discussion of issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, much of its early potential has been wasted.  "Managing the Internet" more appropriately redirects the focus of the forum towards its principal purpose: that of Internet governance.

Beyond the minor vaunted reforms that have been described above, and which do deserve some credit, it is at the same time disappointing that a more radical rethinking of the basic format of conference-style plenary sessions accompanied by stakeholder-organised workshops has not been undertaken.  My previous submissions have explained in detail why little progress will be made towards the fuller achievement of the IGF's mandate while its main sessions are structured as a conference rather than as a deliberative forum.

Without repeating those submissions, it will be necessary for the IGF to embrace more deliberative forms of discussion, in which participants are assisted by trained facilitators to engage in intensive small-group discourse on discrete issues of Internet-related public policy.  Such processes of democratic deliberation should extend not only to the annual plenary meeting, but also to on-line fora, as well as supportive intersessional and regional activities.

 : April 04, 2008, 02:43:35 PM 
admin - doramaria
Do we have a rough idea on times specifically --
what time things will begin on December 3 ?
and what time they will end on December 6?

I also wanted to know when registration to the conference would open and also when registration for the hotels would be open?

I am trying to figure out flights and the days needed for flight time.


Dora Maria

: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Valid XHTML 1.0! SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid CSS!