Gregarius

Unread items (83)

IGP Blog

Call for Papers: 4th Annual Symposium of Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)

Posted: June 23rd, 2009, 11:27pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNET) is a scholarly community that promotes the development of Internet Governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study and facilitates informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and governments, international organizations, the private sector and civil society. On behalf of the Program Committee, we are pleased to announce the Call for Papers to the IV Annual Giganet Sympoium which will take place on November 14, 2009 - one day before the fourth UN Internet Governance Forum, in Sharm-El Sheik, Egypt.
China ready to pull the plug on IGF

Posted: May 14th, 2009, 8:42pm WST by Milton Mueller

The Peoples Republic of China cast a pall over the consultations of the Internet Governance Forum yesterday by announcing that it opposes extending the life of the Forum for another 5 years. "When it comes to Internet governance, [developing country] points of view are not sufficiently reflected in [Internet Governance Forum] discussions," China's representative said, "which is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years are up. So we repeat that the delegation of China does not agree with extending the mission of the IGF beyond the five years. We feel that after the five years are up, we would need to look at the results that have been achieved. And we need, then, to launch into an intergovernmental discussion." China's preference for intergovernmental forums where it has a more prominent and exclusive role, such as the ITU, is well known, however up to now it has never publicly opposed extending the term of the IGF.

IGFWatch news

China seeks to end the IGF

Posted: May 14th, 2009, 8:36am WST

The biggest bombshell out of yesterday's open consultation meeting came from China:We feel that the IGF has contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate. ... But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, ... are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years are up.

IGP Blog

The EU High-Level Internet Governance Group Hearing

Posted: May 7th, 2009, 9:06pm WST by Milton Mueller

Nearly 80 participants attended the EU-sponsored hearing on internet governance Wednesday. The hearing was held the day before a private meeting of the EC’s High Level Internet Governance Group (HLIGG), as a way of gathering opinions and ideas. Participants who came eager to discuss and explore Commissioner Viviane Reding’s call for new forms of accountability and oversight of ICANN quickly learned that her proposal was off-limits. Reding’s paper, we learned, was her own personal initiative, not an official or vetted product of the EC. Members of the HLIGG were as surprised by it as the rest of us and did not want discussion of it to dominate the hearing.
European Commission to hold Hearing on Internet Governance Arrangements, international dimensions of security and stability

Posted: April 30th, 2009, 4:32am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

IGP's Milton Mueller and Jeanette Hofmann have been invited to attend a European Commission Hearing on Internet Governance Arrangements to be held in Brussels on May 6. The agenda focuses attention on the international dimension of "security and stability" as governments continue to use the "critical infrastructure" rubric to position themselves for a stronger role. For example, it asks whether "self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services [should] be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities?"
Upcoming Event: Congressional Seminar on "ICANN & Internet Governance: How Did We Get Here & Where Are We Heading?"

Posted: April 18th, 2009, 3:55am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

IGP's Milton Mueller will be a panelist at a Congressional Seminar, "ICANN & Internet Governance: How Did We Get Here & Where Are We Heading?," hosted by the Progress & Freedom Foundation on April 24, 2009 from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC. You can register here.
As the Internet has become the backbone of our Digital Age economy, the issue of "governance" has taken on a new importance. What's next for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the non-profit corporation responsible for coordinating administration of the domain name system? New developments and possible policy implications will be discussed by a panel of recognized experts, who will cover the history and evolution of ICANN and debate such topics as the proposal for new top level domains, domain name system security, and ICANN's future after the expiration of its Joint Project Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding with the Commerce Department.
Other panelists include David Johnson (Visiting Professor of Law, Institute for Information Law and Policy), New York Law School and Mike Roberts (Internet Technology Policy Consultant and former President and CEO of ICANN), as well as panel moderator Michael Palage (Adjunct Fellow, The Progress & Freedom Foundation and former ICANN board member).

IGFWatch news

To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?

Posted: March 23rd, 2009, 1:27pm WST

An excerpt from my answer to this question in response to the IGF's questionnaire on the continuation of the Forum:

IGP Blog

IGF: The more things change, the more they stay the same

Posted: March 4th, 2009, 2:41am WST by Jeanette Hofmann

Compared to other international and intergovernmental negotiations, which move at a snail’s pace, the Internet Governance Forum is still a highly dynamic process with a continuing openness towards change and experimentation. This year's most interesting area of experimentation concerns the outcomes of the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF is a space for policy dialogue; it is a non-binding process without any oversight functions. Even recommendations are permitted only in one specific area of "emerging issues". But after a year of less polarized discussions in the MAG, the original antagonism inherited from WSIS had a comeback at last week's meetings.

IGFWatch news

Round tables proposed as the IGF's engine for outputs

Posted: March 3rd, 2009, 2:39pm WST

Following on from the MAG meeting that took place last week after two days of open consultation, an official summary of the meeting has just been released. The most important development foreshadowed here takes forward two of the ideas brought up during the open consultation meeting: firstly that there are certain areas in which a consensus on the need for action has emerged or may emerge, and secondly that the IGF needs to evolve some structure that could produce proposals for such action.

IGP Blog

Could DoC nominee benefit Internet governance, help globalize ICANN?

Posted: February 28th, 2009, 1:46am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Wednesday's announcement by the Obama administration, that former Washington state governor Gary Locke has been nominated as the next Secretary of Commerce could be a good sign for Internet governance, and the continued globalization of the ICANN regime. The Chinese-American Locke brings key political capital and experience to the table. He is well respected within and has access to the most senior levels of the Chinese government. And his firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, has deep expertise in Internet policy, having represented companies in China and on ICANN issues related to free expression. But, if confirmed, he will have his work cut out for him.

IGFWatch news

Comments on a maturing IGF from this week's consultation

Posted: February 25th, 2009, 11:49am WST

Here are summaries of some of what I consider the most insightful criticisms and suggestions about the IGF that came up at this week's open consultation meeting in Geneva, for those who weren't able to attend personally or virtually, and can't be bothered wading through the transcript or synthesis paper. The overall theme of the comments was that as the IGF is maturing, it is time to raise the level of the discussion, and at the same time to narrow the number of parallel sessions in which it takes place.

IGP Blog

Top Internet Governance Issues to Watch in 2009

Posted: January 10th, 2009, 1:38am WST by Milton Mueller

Here it is: IGP's contribution to the beginning of the year forecasting. Note well: these are not predictions of outcomes but designations of critical areas of change and decision in Internet governance, where the outcome is still unknown. We are sure we've overlooked some critical arenas -- use our comments to tell us what they are!
1. ICANN and its relationship to the USG
A shift from Republican Party conservative nationalism to Democratic Party liberal internationalism, along with the expiration of the Joint Project Agreement between ICANN and the U.S. Commerce Department on September 30, makes 2009 a watershed year for ICANN’s tether to the U.S. government. Moves toward internationalization by the Obama administration could break policy logjams that date back to 2003 (if not earlier); on the other hand, reassertion of the status quo would put an end to the original Clinton Administration plans for a “transition” once and for all.
IGF 2008: Epilogue

Posted: December 12th, 2008, 2:09pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

While the uncertainty surrounding attendance at this year’s IGF was mostly unfounded (there were more than 1200 attendees despite the Mumbai attack, an amount comparable with previous years IGFs), the usual doubts surfaced about what the Forum is accomplishing. Nonetheless, it seems that more participants are pushing the Forum to engage in substantive policy debate, and to identify a process for producing tangible outputs.
What is the IGF for?

Posted: December 7th, 2008, 1:47pm WST by Milton Mueller

Patrik Fältström, one of the panelists at the IGF security session blasted by IGP’s Michel van Eeten in a December 5 blog, has responded. Patrik’s response makes it clear why the IGF often generates so much frustration among the people working “together” on it. It’s very good that this disagreement has taken place. It tells us a lot about what is going on. Two very different – and almost inherently incompatible – visions of the Forum are revealed by this exchange. I would go further and say that if Patrik’s conception prevails, the IGF will not last for the next five years.

IGFWatch news

Day 4 of Hyderabad IGF - controversy and departure

Posted: December 6th, 2008, 11:07am WST

I have to confess I attended no other sessions today than The Role and Mandate of the IGF, due to work commitments and an early departure. This session was chaired by Lee McKnight of the Internet Governance Project, who had earlier caused scandal by taking a vote (shock, horror!) at the workshop on The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?. So this was bound to be a controversial session - and my paper the most of all, at least according to my spies in the audience. But is anything that I said really that controversial? Read below and judge for yourself.

IGP Blog

China threatens to leave IGF

Posted: December 5th, 2008, 7:25am WST by Milton Mueller

At the Hyderabad Internet Governance Forum, the Chinese delegate threatened to withdraw from IGF and "use other mechanisms" unless the IGF stops trying to avoid the controversial issues that led to its creation. The strong reaction from China came because a clear discussion of the problem of U.S. government control of the root and "enhanced cooperation" in the Tunis Agenda had been all but sabotaged by defenders of the ICANN regime.

IGFWatch news

Day 2 of Hyderabad IGF - drop-outs and mounds of food

Posted: December 5th, 2008, 3:54am WST

The meeting has been plagued with wireless Internet drop-outs. During the opening ceremony yesterday, apparently this was a side-effect of the organisers' covert use of mobile phone blocking technology as a security measure. Today, when the Internet was unavailable for the entire morning at least in the upstairs rooms, it can only be put down to poor planning. This seems to be a recurrent problem for the IGF.

IGP Blog

Security at the IGF: Just Give Me the Money

Posted: December 5th, 2008, 1:54am WST by Michel van Eeten

Day two at the IGF focuses on cybersecurity, meaning the main sessions are devoted to it. After the first session, I heard a participant say: “I know nothing about Internet security, but I didn’t hear anything new.”

IGFWatch news

Day 1 of Hyderabad IGF - soldiers, cancellations and remote participation blunders

Posted: December 3rd, 2008, 2:14pm WST

Despite my deep-seated differences with Nitin Desai, he is an incisive man and certainly not as naive as he often presents himself to be when uncritically extolling the IGF's virtues. At the opening ceremony today he surprised me by admitting that "essentially, this is a dialogue between two groups of people ... and we must face up to that reality.

Veni Markovski - The Blog

The Path Towards Centralization of Internet Governance Under the UN

Posted: December 3rd, 2008, 1:51pm WST by Veni Markovski

Part 2 of 3 of the essay on the IGF:

PART 2 OF A 3 PART SERIES
Essay by Anonymous

This essay is the second of a three-part series (1,3). It focuses on the steps of a possible roadmap for centralizing Internet governance under the UN.

As presented in the first essay, the course of Internet governance may be following the same incremental steps that international strategists follow when wishing to establish a permanent body with authority to deal with a given area. The steps as applied to recent moves for Internet governance under a UN umbrella are detailed below.

1. Launch Study

Normally friction comes as in-the-know people with interests (“stakeholders”) weigh in on policy decisions at the national level; then there is the added chafing that comes when different countries’ governments come together to try to hash out policies. But bring those in-the-know stakeholders from different countries together at the international level, and the possibilities for opinion clashes are endless.

Hence, it was predictable that the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) would unleash cacophony in convening thousands of people with varied interests in Geneva (December 2003). Anticipating the mêlée, a negotiating group on Internet governance drafted language for the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action. They proposed a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to prepare for the second phase of WSIS, to be held in Tunis (November 2005). Faced with hordes of people clamoring for attention to their myriad concerns, what government decision-maker could disagree with such a proposal?

The WGIG was thus created with a mandate to define (a) what should be conceived of as Internet governance, (b) what the public policy issues were that were relevant to this area, and (c) what the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be.

As any seasoned international negotiator knows, setting up a study group is the first step to agreeing new rules. Anyone not wanting new rules lost this battle.

2. Be Inclusive

In convening the WGIG, organizers conducted open consultations so as to enable any interested participant to contribute, with these inputs then feeding into work by an expert group. The process went far in enabling transparency and public participation.

If the ultimate goal was to establish a permanent UN agency to deal with Internet governance, the inclusive mode was brilliant. By bringing NGOs, businesses, and academic institutions into a setting normally reserved for governments, organizers could elevate these non state actors and dilute the power of governments – especially those governments wielding extra strong influence over Internet policy. Psychologically, non-state actors were on par with governments in this international process.

In the meantime, the WGIG process was setting the precedent for what would be accepted as fulfilling the call in the Declaration of Principles that “the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations…” In particular, the open participation would cause some people to view the centralized, UN process as affording direct representation and thereby being more democratic than the traditional mode of governments representing their publics at the international level. Of course, others might contend that stakeholders participating in WGIG consultations did not represent the public, but by and large people with this critical view stayed away – meaning that for the most part the voices present were those feeling empowered by the new mode.

3. Avoid Conclusions

For a negotiator wanting a study process to turn into something more prolonged and eventually permanent, an important way to avoid ringing alarm bells is to go slowly. After all, an initial study that produces revolutionary recommendations is sure to draw attention and attract opposition. Findings that are inconclusive are much more palatable and do not appear to be biased toward any particular agenda.

One way to avoid producing substantial findings is to limit the amount of time spent developing them. Perhaps this is why roughly half of the time allotted for WGIG work was “wasted” with the procedural matter of composing an expert group that would be politically acceptable.

Another technique is to put forward a mixed bag of options that satisfies nobody.

In the case of WGIG, the final report accomplished this beautifully, particularly the four models proposed for “Global Public Policy and Oversight”.

4. Receive Commission

The inconclusive WGIG report left it to government negotiators preparing for the second phase of WSIS to haggle over a path forward. With roughly 19,000 people traveling to Tunis to champion a multitude of concerns at that meeting, governments had to produce some form of agreed text so as to stay in a position of leadership. After last-minute horse trading, governments endorsed the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society.
In this document, governments extracted elements of the WGIG report and agreed to two notable Internet governance processes: First, they agreed to have the UN set up an Internet Governance Forum (IGF), mandating this forum, among other matters, to: “[d]iscuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance…”; “[i]dentify emerging issues…”; “[d]iscuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources”; and “[h]elp to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet…” Second, they agreed for the UN to lead a process of “enhanced cooperation” whereby the UN would promote improved ties among entities dealing with international Net policy. The same officials who had chaired the negotiating group that proposed WGIG and who had led WGIG would now continue to shepherd these processes.

5. Stay Mainstream

If the end goal is to establish a permanent, centralized body for Internet governance under the UN, a key strategy at this stage is to show demand for central coordination and to demonstrate this capability in a mild way, as a facilitator.

In the forum process, the key is thus to focus on non-contentious issues that stakeholders say require international cooperation. The IGF has done so first by convening consultations and receiving written inputs to hear what stakeholders’ concerns are, and then by selecting problems nobody can deny (e.g., spam and online child pornography) for concerted efforts. The IGF then facilitates dialogue by offering a forum where stakeholders in a position to tackle issues collectively can meet.

In addition to starting with non-contentious issues, it makes sense to categorize work under banners that nobody can disagree with politically, such as the themes of IGF meetings in Athens (2006) and Rio de Janeiro (2007): “Access”, “Diversity”, “Openness”, “Security”, and “Critical Internet Resources”. Such banners help to avoid conflict concerning values (e.g., human rights) and allay qualms on the part of governments that fear the process will force them to make changes. After all, at this point governments are still the decision-makers in the international system.

It is also strategic to continue with the arrangement that dilutes the power of those who stand to lose, i.e. governments. As long as non-state actors are present, they will issue calls for equal air time and wish to be on the same footing as governments. All that the organizers need to do is to create space for the non-governmental stakeholders.

(Of course, sometimes these stakeholders can stand a little prodding. By way of illustration, the first “Dynamic Coalition” on its surface seemed to spring up spontaneously as a result of a multi-stakeholder panel on privacy at the first IGF meeting in 2006. While this and later Dynamic Coalitions are billed as something that stakeholders came up with, in fact it was an official from a government that favors a restructuring of Internet governance who planted the idea. These Dynamic Coalitions in turn have become the recognized vehicles for civil society input to IGF meetings. In their meetings between IGF meetings, they are helping to give institutional form to the IGF.)

Turning to the process of “enhanced cooperation,” it is strategically important to take a somewhat passive approach initially, since being too proactive could alert people to a trend toward institutionalization and backfire. Instead, what is required at this juncture is to appear nonchalant. By inviting agencies involved in Internet governance to initiate their own cooperation and to report on it, the process leaders can avoid criticism for trying to promote centralization. Most likely, these agencies will prove reluctant to respond, for they are not subject to this enhanced cooperation process and do not wish to create the impression that they are. They have no real way to object, however, for an organized, collective response can be converted into a sign of success in the process’ ability to promote cooperation; meanwhile, simply remaining silent does not alert others to the inappropriateness of the enhanced cooperation process’ telling them what to do. They are stymied.

6. Celebrate Harmony

It is foreseeable that the IGF will use its five-year mandate not to establish any sort of ranking of concerns, but rather to show that there is a mish-mash of concerns, and that so far the process has shown constructive engagement among all stakeholders.

Stakeholder groups will still be responding to the call for participation and coming together to clamor for attention. Their own processes will have become more streamlined and formalized. Not only will they help to give the impression that there is demand for a permanent body in which people can talk, but also they will serve to show that the IGF has materialized into a veritable structure. As suggested above, the meetings-between-meetings by self-organized, multi-stakeholder groups like Dynamic Coalitions represent a sort of institutionalization of the IGF.

Even voices of dissent can be translated into expressions of support, cited as evidence that the process is inclusive. Once the IGF has demonstrated its capacity to serve as an inclusive forum where all views may be expressed and heard, who will be able to argue against it? Making the case for a permanent body just got easier.

7. Salvage Cooperation

With reference to the process of enhanced cooperation, the agencies involved in Internet policy are unlikely to fall in line with the dictates of a process that has no authority over them. Hence, they will appear recalcitrant. It will then be logical and acceptable for the light-handed coordinators of the process to assume more pro-active positions.

8. Become Established

Under the bicycle theory, certain government delegates advocate keeping the momentum going and establishing a permanent body to continue the forum’s process of dialogue in an institutionalized fashion. (They may do so, for example, at a follow-up, WSIS-style meeting.) As for enhanced cooperation, the pro-centralization group may call attention to the fact that agencies dealing with the Internet have been slow to exchange information, suggesting that decision-makers should give central organizers a greater role in prompting cooperation. If made permanent, the scope of such mandates will likely expand as the Internet becomes more and more pervasive in the information society.

9. Expand Authority

Once established as a permanent body to host discussions and coordinate agencies, the institution can begin to exercise more authority. This movement appears natural as the institution becomes indispensable in serving as a central point for information exchange. Early efforts will entail convening meetings, coordinating among agencies, and conducting consultations.

Having set a precedent for exercising authority, the body takes on additional functions incrementally. In this way, the institution will morph from being a place for information exchange, to being a place where decisions of consequence are taken. Leaders may justify this expansion of functions as fitting under the body’s coordination role: after all, it is only natural that coordination would begin to affect the actual workings of Internet policy. To strengthen their position, these leaders can highlight improvements in agencies’ operations due to the cooperation.

After a period, organizers may see to it that proposals are put forward to expand the institution’s official authority and to formalize what it has been practicing. So, for example, instead of just discussing public policy issues related to Internet Governance, members can set policy at meetings hosted by the institution; this would be a logical juncture to add other competencies as well, such as the management of critical Internet resources and dispute resolution.

TO FOLLOW
The last essay in this three-part series will discuss reasons for concern and suggest that participation in the process may nonetheless be the best way forward given those reservations.

IGFWatch news

Day 0 of Hyderabad IGF - blackouts, lunches and missing fliers

Posted: December 2nd, 2008, 12:36pm WST

The day preceding the IGF's opening has become best known for the GigaNet academic symposium, which ran today to a slightly less than capacity audience, due to the disruption of the terrible events in Mumbai. In fact, there were a few presenters missing too - so that the poster presenters such as myself were invited to fill the missing time by briefly introducing our papers.

IGP Blog

Internet Governance Forum Opens in India

Posted: December 1st, 2008, 11:51pm WST by Milton Mueller

The 3rd meeting of the UN Internet Governance Forum is now underway in Hyderabad, India, beginning with the Annual Symposium of GigaNet (Global Internet Governance Academic Network). Attendance has been affected by the violence in Mumbai, which is 700 km away. Life in Hyderabad, however, is quite normal, attendees are moving about the city and the suburban “Cyberabad” area where the Forum is being held with no problems, other than the sometimes horrific road traffic. The presence of Indian security forces at the hotels and conference venues is noticeable. Many Indian commentators take the same attitude toward avoidance as was taken by New Yorkers after 9/11: it is important to not be intimidated and to insist on going on with one’s life.
New Publication: Regional Address Registries, Governance and Internet Freedom

Posted: November 26th, 2008, 12:01pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Leading up to IGF 2008 in Hyderabad the IGP is releasing a second publication, Regional Address Registries, Governance and Internet Freedom. This paper looks at the Regional Internet Address Registries (RIRs), which are private, nonprofit and transnational governance entities that evolved organically with the growth of the Internet to manage and coordinate Internet Protocol addresses. We argue the RIR’s management of Internet address resources is becoming more contentious and more central to global debates over Internet governance. This is happening because of two transformational problems: 1) the depletion of the IPv4 address space; and 2) the attempt to introduce more security into the Internet routing system. We call these problems “transformational” because they raise the stakes of the RIR’s policy decisions, make RIR processes more formal and institutionalized, and have the potential to create new, more centralized control mechanisms over Internet service providers and users. A danger in this transition is that the higher stakes and centralized control mechanisms become magnets for political contention, just as ICANN’s control of the DNS root did. In order to avoid a repeat of the problems of ICANN, we need to think carefully about the relationship between RIRs, governments, and Internet freedom. In particular, we need to shield RIRs from interference by national governments, and strengthen and institutionalize their status as neutral technical coordinators with limited influence over other areas of Internet governance.
New Publication and Website: Appraising the Success of the IGF

Posted: November 23rd, 2008, 9:42am WST by Milton Mueller

In anticipation of the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India the IGP is releasing the paper, Appraising the Success of the Internet Governance Forum. The paper was written by Dr. Jeremy Malcolm, with some editing and additions by the IGP Scientific Committee. IGP does not wholly endorse the positions taken by Malcolm but is publishing the paper because we believe it raises important points about the degree to which the Internet Governance Forum is fulfilling its mission. We'll be debating and discussing the paper on the IGP blog, feel free to chime in. Our goal is to advance discussion of the IGF's performance in order to contribute to the review of the IGF and the possible renewal of its mandate in 2010.
In this spirit, IGP is concurrently launching an online IGF feedback forum website. The site allows anyone to easily submit and indicate their support for ideas for improving the IGF. It is bottom-up, multistakeholder-driven, collaborative effort - so have at it! Whether your ideas reflect positively or negatively on the IGF, let the Secretariat hear your voice.
Inaugural Address: "The Future of Freedom on the internet: Security, Privacy and Global Governance"

Posted: October 10th, 2008, 3:45pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Milton Mueller, appointed as professor to the Chair of Security and Privacy of Internet Users within the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management at the Delft University of Technology will present an Inaugural Address, "The Future of Freedom on the internet: Security, Privacy and Global Governance" on Friday, 17 October 2008 at 3:00 PM (Central Europe time), 9:00 am US Eastern time. The 30 minute address will be webcast.

IGFWatch news

Debate at the IGF debated - and why is ICC/BASIS so scared?

Posted: September 20th, 2008, 2:17pm WST

Those who have been following the IGF for a couple of years may remember that the agenda for the 2007 meeting in Rio de Janeiro once included what were called speed dialogues - essentially the governance equivalent of speed dating, in which participants intensively debate a particular issue around a table, before rotating to a new table with a new issue to consider.

IGP Blog

Internet Governance Consultations in Geneva

Posted: September 16th, 2008, 9:21am WST by Milton Mueller

We are in Geneva for a flurry of Internet governance related meetings. Monday morning ICANN held one of its consultation sessions on “Improving Institutional confidence.” The topic of discussion there was “completing the transition,” which is about whether people think ICANN is accountable enough to be released from U.S. supervision. ICANN is holding half a dozen of these sessions around the world. In the original documents and negotiations creating ICANN the concept of a “transition” meant completing the privatization of DNS governance by ending the US Government oversight role. However, the US pulled back from that in 2000 and has since insisted on its intention to keep its hand on the root zone and the IANA contract indefinitely. At the consultation I asked whether the “transition” meant nothing more than an end to the Joint Project Agreement, or something more. Both of the Presidential Strategy Committee members were unable to answer that question.
New Book: "Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Institutions"

Posted: September 8th, 2008, 11:34am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Routledge Press recently published "Internet Governance: The New Frontier of Global Institutions" by IGP's John Mathiason. Released in the UK on July 30, it will be available in the United States soon. The expansion of the Internet has been called the most revolutionary development in the history of human communications. It is ubiquitous and is changing politics, economics and social relations. Its borderless nature affects the roles of individuals, the magic of the marketplace and the problems of government regulation. As its development has increased apace, contradictions have arisen between existing regulatory regimes, private interests, government concerns, international norms and national interests. Unlike most areas where there are global institutions, and the role of governments is predominant, the Internet is a field where the private sector and civil society each have a role as important – or sometimes more important – than governments.
IGF Advisory Group Renewed, Expanded

Posted: August 25th, 2008, 11:04am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

The IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been renewed, adding 17 new appointments, which brings the total number of advisers up to 50. We provide a quick review of the new appointees.
Internet rights should be more prominent in IGF

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 11:25am WST by Milton Mueller

There’s some concern that basic human rights to free expression, privacy, and other civil liberties might be getting pushed too far away from the center of the UN Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) meeting agenda. The IGF will meet in Hyderabad, India the first week of December this year, and the Secretariat has just published a draft agenda. The agenda is very heavy on security concerns and weak on individual rights protection. A coalition of groups promoting an “Internet bill of rights” has sent a letter to the Secretariat complaining that “rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the opportunities that the Internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main security theme plays on negativity and fear of the Internet.” That letter was endorsed by the civil society Internet Governance Caucus, which IGP participates in.
Does a change in the IGF invitation mean a change in priority? Probably not.

Posted: August 3rd, 2008, 9:35am WST by John Mathiason

Does who signs the IGF invitation mean a change in priority? That the invitation to IGF 2008 was signed by the USG-DESA does not reflect more than a change in protocol and may reflect a greater institutional commitment by the UN to Internet governance issues.
2008 NCMR: Establsihing links between Internet Governance and Media Reform

Posted: June 16th, 2008, 10:06am WST by Mark Costa

[Editor's note: IGP graduate intern Mark Costa, a doctoral student at Syracuse University's School of Information Studies, joins us today as a guest blogger. Mark recently returned from the 2008 National Conference on Media Reform, one of the largest annual gatherings of domestic media advocates in the United States.]
I recently attended the National Conference for Media Reform in order to build bridges between Internet governance and advocates of free speech and media reform.

CircleID

CADNA Held London Online Brand Abuses and Internet Governance Education Forum

Posted: June 10th, 2008, 4:08pm WST

The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) recently held its London Online Brand Abuses and Internet Governance Education Forum. The forum included companies from the US, UK, Belgium, Netherlands and Switzerland, with half of the attendees representing Global 500 companies. Forum attendees expressed concerns over issues such as online brand dilution and the often-ineffective governance of ICANN. More...
ISOC-Bulgaria Asks Worldwide Internet Community to Bring Top Priorities During the Coming IGF

Posted: June 10th, 2008, 3:22pm WST

The IGF has a tendency of slowly shifting from a place of a discussion about the way the world accesses information resources, into a place where only topics that make the headlines are being highlighted, with many of the same players being among the loudest speakers. We believe that due to cross-cultural reasons, these people are mainly coming from North America and Western Europe. We urge the IGF to allocate equal time for people from regions outside of those two. More...

IGP Blog

Upcoming Event: GigaNet Workshop on Global Internet Governance

Posted: June 5th, 2008, 9:24am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Initiated in spring 2006 in conjunction with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is hosting several events this year, including an upcoming international workshop on "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction" in Paris, 23 June 2008, from 08:30 to 13:30, concurrent with the ICANN-Paris meeting. [invitation-fr] [invitation-en]
The purpose of the workshop, the first of its sort, is to allow scholars involved in Internet Governance related research to describe their ongoing research projects to other scholars in the field, in order to share ideas, forge possible collaborations, and identify emerging research themes in the field. Scholars from various academic disciplines and all regions of the world are expected to contribute to this reflexive exercise, with the long-term objective of collectively building this interdisciplinary research field.

Veni Markovski - The Blog

Bulgarian NGO asks the worldwide Internet community to bring their top priorities during the coming IGF meeting

Posted: June 4th, 2008, 2:34pm WST by Veni Markovski
This is a press-release from ISOC-Bulgaria; as ISOC.bg website is going through changes, I prefer to publish it here, and at the ISOC’s site there is a link to this article.

Internet Society Bulgaria being an active participant at the WSIS and IGF , expresses their views for the coming IGF in Hyderabad, India.

Need for new participants
The IGF has a tendency of slowly shifting from a place of a discussion about the way the world accesses information resources, into a place where only topics that make the headlines are being highlighted, with many of the same players being among the loudest speakers. We believe that due to cross-cultural reasons, these people are mainly coming from North America and western Europe. We urge the IGF to allocate equal time for people from regions outside of those two. Having that in mind, we urge the participating organizations to send new people to the IGF in Hyderabad, and also to try to send as many young people as possible. The IGF needs new people, carrying the young spirit of the new Information Society.

Contents of the discussions at the IGF
We believe that some of the topics like security and critical internet resources and diversity seem to be explored extensively already (also at other forums), and the biggest challenge continues to be how to connect the rest 5 billion people on the planet. We see no real attention paid to the under-connected nations; we see no real attention paid to the digital divide in the developed countries themselves - between the big cities and the small towns. We see that some of the proponents of the agenda of the workshops and plenaries, coming from the developed countries, do not take any steps to ensure competition among the Internet Service Providers in their own countries (one such an example is the USA and the behavior of some of the American Internet Governance Civil Society Professionals). In the era of the climate change threat, we see not serious attention paid to the Environmental Sustainability theme in the discussion, as it is inextricably bound up with development of the Information and communications technologies.

Suggestions
We would like to propose an open poll - for all participants at the IGF, to name what are the three or five most important issues for them. Based on this poll, we suggest focusing the discussions at the remaining IGF meetings. For us, in Bulgaria these are, in random order:
- assaults on freedom of the Internet and freedom of access to the Internet - by the Interior Ministry, and by the Business Software Alliance (here and here)
- corruption deals of Microsoft with the Ministry of State Administration
- the monopoly of the .bg domain name registry
About
Internet Society - Bulgaria is a non-governmental organization (NGO), founded on December 4, 1995 in Sofia by a group of Bulgarian Internet professionals. It became known world-wide in 1999, when it sued the government of Ivan Kostov against the proposed licensing of the Internet Service Providers in Bulgaria. In 2001, through ISOC-Bulgaria’s influence, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) remained outside of the monopoly of the national telecom, which allowed a great variety of new Internet services to start in Bulgaria. ISOC-Bulgaria is a non-governmental organization for public profit, and represents users. More information can be found at ISOC.bg site.

IGFWatch news

Book announcement: Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum

Posted: May 22nd, 2008, 10:43am WST

Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum
Was my judgment on the IGF too harsh?

Posted: May 5th, 2008, 6:31am WST

Since a number of the shortcomings of the IGF Secretariat and Advisory Group that I have highlighted in my research are now being addressed, it might be argued that the verdict of my thesis (and the forthcoming book into which it has been adapted) has become too harsh. For example, I wrote of the process by which the Advisory Group was appointed for Athens, and re-appointed for Rio, that:In no sense could the Secretariat's selection of candidates for the Advisory Group, in a closed process pursuant to criteria that were never published, be described as consensual or democratic.
February open and MAG meetings: IGF reform is a hard slog

Posted: March 2nd, 2008, 2:50pm WST

These comments on the flurry of IGF developments during February is a little belated, since my dissertation on the IGF is due this month, and it will not be possible to reference those developments in the submitted version (particularly when I am attempting to reduce, not increase its word length). However it would be remiss of me not to make a few brief comments here.

IGP Blog

One Internet, two modes of governance

Posted: February 27th, 2008, 4:15pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

On Monday the NTIA released the agenda for the upcoming public meeting in Washington DC covering the Mid-term Review of the JPA between DoC and ICANN. And yesterday, in Geneva, the Internet Governance Forum opened its first preparatory meeting for the upcoming Forum in Hyderabad, India from December 3-6. It’s too early to draw conclusions, but the structure of the meetings suggests two distinct operational modes of Internet governance.

IGFWatch news

Advisory Group decides not to open its mailing list

Posted: February 7th, 2008, 4:57pm WST

Last month, an edited compilation of the mailing list discussions of the Advisory Group on the issue of its own rotation was posted to the IGF's Web forum. Now the IGF's Web site tells us that this was not simply a one-off:Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are available on the Forum Section on a regular basis.Sure enough, a second such document has just been posted, covering the Advisory Group's own views of the calls for improvement of its transparency.

IGP Blog

The IGF and Networked Internet Governance

Posted: January 18th, 2008, 3:25pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

The European Parliament has issued a resolution which illustrates the growing interplay of global Internet governance and domestic or regional polities. It also hints at how we might begin to incorporate the broad array of interests affected by global Internet policies.
Moving towards a developing agenda for Internet Governance

Posted: January 6th, 2008, 3:59pm WST by sonia.arenaza

[Editor's note: Maxwell graduate student Sonia Arenaza joins us today as a guest IGP blogger. Sonia is working towards a degree in International Relations and Public Administration, with a concentration in International Development and Information Technology for Development. After graduating from the Entrepreneurship Development Institute in India, the Business School of the Peruvian Pacific University, and from the Systems Engineering School of the Peruvian National Engineering University, Sonia worked as a Strategic Planning Manager at the General Secretariat of the Andean Community, from 2004 to 2006; and as an Information Technology Project Leader at ACCION International where she worked in the microfinance fields for developing countries, from 2002 to 2004. In addition she worked as a microfinance and information technology professor in Peruvian and Bolivian universities. She speaks Spanish, English and French.]
The Second IGF meeting held in Rio raised , in one of its workshops on last November 13th, a latent and to-date crucial issue, a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.
Panelists and participants discussed about the importance of considering a development perspective into internet governance mechanisms, institutions, principles and initiatives; and also offered a brainstorming of possible approaching ways. Some of those ideas were to follow a top-down approach; to analyze the impact on development some controversial issues of internet governance such as freedom of expression, privacy, intellectual property among others have on development, and the way they interact to each other; to take into account existing differences in markets, decision-making processes and regions; to consider development as a cross-cutting issue among the Internet Governance themes -access, openness, diversity and security- and as a way to evaluate their performance; to take into account not only implementing businesses practices in the community but also empowering ICT to ordinary people because they know how to use it for development and reducing poverty; and last but not least to build a development agenda by the aggregation of related issues or by a horizontal approach considering how key Internet Governance principles of multilateralism, transparency and democracy impact on development.
IGF Workshop Summary: DNSSEC: Securing a Critical Internet Resource

Posted: December 5th, 2007, 1:40pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

[Editors note: Below is a summary of discussions which will feed into a report on the "DNSSEC: Securing a Critical Internet Resource" workshop held at IGF-Rio on November 14th.]
This informative workshop, co-sponsored by the Internet Governance Project, CGI.br, and EuroISPA, drew approximately 80-90 attendees from government, civil society, the private sector and technical communities. While the multi-stakeholder panel brought a diversity of opinions regarding DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC), they agreed that improving the security of the Internet’s infrastructure is an important activity which should be pursued.
In general, there are two camps concerning the deployment of DNSSEC, which is a technical standard that requires coordination among many actors to be successfully deployed on a wide-scale basis. One side is ready to proceed with deployment, particularly the hurdle of creating a “trust anchor” key and digitally signing the root zone file. The other is more cautious in its approach, believing that the successful deployment of DNSSEC is subject to many open technical and governance questions.
An IG Research Home: A Long Term Role for IGF?

Posted: December 5th, 2007, 10:48am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

It is quickly becoming apparent that an important function of the UN's Internet Governance Forum could be to serve as a long term clearinghouse for knowledge acquisition and assessment concerning Internet governance. Despite its structural imperfections, the IGF is becoming a magnet for the academic community to discuss Internet governance ideas. As such, it may be finding its role in the global Internet governance regime.
Taking Stock of the Rio Internet Governance Forum

Posted: November 27th, 2007, 11:23pm WST by Milton Mueller

Reflection on what was wrong and what was right with the Rio Internet Governance Forum is not waiting for the February 25 "stocktaking" session planned by the IGF's Secretariat. Civil society advisory group member Adam Peake has already opened an interesting dialogue on the governance list. I have some opinions about that...
Too much of the energy of the Forum and its participants is being thrown away on issues that are not global in scope, and have nothing to do with global governance of the Internet. We all must pay closer attention to the distinction between issues that are best addressed at the national, local or regional levels and those that truly require global coordination and global institutions. IGF should be restricted to the global. If the truly global governance issues are actually quite narrow and specialized, and don't include the issues that turn you on, so be it. Those who are fundamentally not interested in those issues should find a more appropriate venue for their activities. The disappointing thing about IGF 2 was that the dialogue was so cluttered with things that do not require or will never get international coordination or agreement that it was impossible to focus on the things that do.

CircleID

An Internet Security Operations Viewpoint of IGF

Posted: November 21st, 2007, 4:59pm WST

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an annual UN conference on Internet governance which was held this year in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The topics discussed range from human rights online to providing Internet access in developing countries. A somewhat secondary topic of conversation is Internet security and cyber-crime mostly limited to policy and legislative efforts. Techies and Internet security industry don't have much to do there, but I have a few updates for us from the conference. More...

IGFWatch news

Policy development at the edges: conclusions on IGF 2008

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 11:49pm WST

The most significant development of the Rio IGF meeting was the dawning acknowledgement, particularly evident during the session on Taking Stock and the Way Foward, that the conference format of the annual plenary meetings is increasingly irrelevant to the work of the IGF. It is becoming obvious to many that another three years of the same dry platitudes on openness, security, diversity and access are going to achieve nothing, and that the IGF must move on. Even the addition of a plenary session on the provocative issue of critical Internet resources this year was insufficient to generate any new spark.
Day 4 of Rio IGF

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 10:51pm WST

The final day of the RIo IGF meeting began with a workshop organised by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on "Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF." This was the workshop I had most been looking forward to, since it is by assessing the IGF's achievements against its mandate in the Tunis Agenda that its shortcomings are most apparent.

Singh-a-Blog

IGF 2007: Emerging Issues session and the need for “IGF for Dummies”

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 2:50pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

Much was said and debated at this session, and what was said covered a diverse range of issues. One observation: (as one would expect in a multi-stakeholder environment) different groups push different issues from technical to non-technical to social responsibility to policy to something somewhere in-between (and outside!).Talking to some IGF delegates who were “rookies” and some with
IGF 2007: ISOC Visibility @ IGF Rio

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 2:49pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

This year ISOC was highly visible at IGF (and yes I am happy!). In the “Village Square” ISOC had the premium booth and was pretty much the first thing anyone entering the section saw. The 11 ISOC Ambassadors were given lanyards (good one Kevin) to hold their security IDs and this meant we stood out with our white lanyards with ISOC logos blazing on them. As far as I know, the ISOC Ambassador

IGP Blog

The Rio IGF: The Center Does Not Hold?

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 9:48am WST by Milton Mueller

The Rio IGF has been a great venue for raising ideas and fostering dialogue. But the managers of the Forum will have to address some severe structural problems during the next two years. The basic problem is that all of the action at the Forum has gravitated to the "edges" -- i.e., to participant-defined workshops and dynamic coalitions -- while the "core" plenary sessions have become hollow. They were mostly stilted, boring one-way communication affairs; the speakers were selected more for their lowest common denominator political acceptability than for their ability to advance important ideas. Worse, there is almost no common processing of ideas and common deliberation on what transpires at the edges. In fact, due to the competition for attention created by scheduling many workshops at the same time as the plenary sessions, the workshop programs attracted far more people than the plenary itself during the second and third days. The result is a decentered trade-show or academic conference-like atmosphere. One can sense growing frustration with this among a variety of parties.

CircleID

Vint Cerf at IGF: Government Control of Internet Likely to Fail

Posted: November 14th, 2007, 3:08pm WST

In an interview with Reuters on the sidelines of the Internet Governance Forum in Brazil, Vint Cerf said the fact that the Web is almost entirely privately owned is a major obstacle to such control. "I believe it will be very hard to accomplish that objective for one simple reason -- 99 percent of the Internet, the physical Internet, is in private sector hands, operated by the private sector," he said, defending a different governance structure made up of multiple stakeholders. More...

Singh-a-Blog

IGF 2007: Dynamic Coalition on Access & Connectivity for Remote, Rural and Dispersed Communities

Posted: November 14th, 2007, 2:44pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

I was involved in the organisation of this workshop and it turned out to be a rather good session, though we had some logistics problems in the beginning with Videos that did not start playing and microphones that did not work.The session started with a presentation by Janna Anderson from Imagining the Internet on a survey they carried out at IGF Athens and it was interesting to hear comments

CircleID

IGF on Connecting Another Billion Users to the Internet

Posted: November 14th, 2007, 2:29pm WST

Now that more than 1 billion people use the Internet, international policymakers and computing experts are struggling with how to link the world's other 5 billion to the increasingly crucial network. "Ten years ago, to talk about 1 billion Internet users sounded exaggerated, unthinkable, but now we talk about the next billion," said Markus Kummer, the official heading the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Brazil. "It is clear sooner or later we will reach that number. It is also clear that next billion will be poorer than the first." More...
ICANN CEO: “High Politics” Fueling IGF Debates

Posted: November 13th, 2007, 1:02pm WST

It has been reported that the U.S. control over how domain names are assigned dominated discussions at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which began yesterday in Brazil. Although few participants at IGF attacked the United States directly, most were well aware of the role Americans play over domain name policies, including whether and how to assign top-level domains in languages other than English. More...

the i-witnesses

Internet leaders tread carefully at IGF round 2

Posted: November 13th, 2007, 7:02am WST by Panos London

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) opened in Rio yesterday on a sober note, with speakers cautious about their expectations. UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon’s message to the assembled crowd emphasised the groundbreaking nature of the consultation mechanisms introduced at the...

IGFWatch news

Day 1 of Rio IGF, morning

Posted: November 12th, 2007, 5:44pm WST

The worst-kept secret of this year's IGF was blown during the Opening Ceremony when a Brazilian speaker (either Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Brazilian Extraordinary Minister for Strategic Affairs, or Augusto César Gadelha Vieira, Coordinator of CGI.br - please follow up to this post to correct me if you know), explicitly called for ICANN "to pass on its power to a more inclusive organisation, without confrontation and without any problem."

Singh-a-Blog

IGF 2007: IGF Delhi 2008 Dates

Posted: November 12th, 2007, 2:40pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

The dates have been announced by the Indian Delegation as 8th to 11th December in New Delhi, India, and the five themes from this year will continue.Update: Venue for IGF 2008 is going to be the Taj Palace Hotel
IGF 2007: And we are away!

Posted: November 12th, 2007, 2:36pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

IGF Rio has kicked off!The usual roll call of guest speakers is ticking along. In the opening session, there was some reference to the old ICANN/DNS Adminstration story, but it was good to see some of the guest speakers picking up on this, and re-stating what the focus of IGF should be, and highlighting that all present should expend their energy on the more pressing global issues such as getting

IGFWatch news

Day 0 of Rio IGF

Posted: November 11th, 2007, 9:22pm WST

The day before the official opening of the IGF has been taken up with three parallel side-events: the second GigaNet Symposium for Internet governance academics, a Standards Edge conference on Digital Inclusion about the potential to further global access through open ICT standards, and an open South American civil society forum (which I skipped, not speaking Spanish or Portuguese - and the other two events being enough to juggle).

CircleID

U.S. Internet Control Threatens to Overtake Discussions at IGF Meeting

Posted: November 8th, 2007, 6:40pm WST

Debate over U.S. control of the Internet's core system threatens to overtake the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), an international meeting in Brazil, next week. The meeting was meant to cover topics including spam, free speech and cheaper access. More...

IGP Blog

IGP Releases New Paper on "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance"

Posted: November 5th, 2007, 4:26pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

As a contribution to the 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), IGP has released a new paper showing how network neutrality can serve as a globally applicable principle to guide Internet governance. The paper defines network neutrality as the right of Internet users to access content, services and applications on the Internet without interference from network operators or overbearing governments. It also encompasses the right of network operators to be reasonably free of liability for transmitting content and applications deemed illegal or undesirable by third parties. Those aspects of net neutrality are relevant in a growing number of countries and situations, as both public and private actors attempt to subject the Internet to more control.
An important part of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum is to develop globally applicable public policy principles for Internet governance. The paper contends that the principle of network neutrality combines and integrates concepts of universal access to the resources connected to the Internet, freedom of expression, economic innovation, and free trade in digital products and services.
IGF Rio to be Supported by Online Community

Posted: October 21st, 2007, 6:16am WST by Derrick L. Cogburn

Enclosure: [download]

As most of you know, the Inaugural Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Athens spawned a number of "Dynamic Coalitions.” These multisakeholder Dynamic Coaliations (DCs) were designed to include all interested parties from both developed and developing countries, and to advance the work of the Forum. One of these DCs, the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition (OCDC), has developed a suite of collaboration tools to facilitate a degree of online participation at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Rio.

CircleID

The “Internet of Things,” the Internet and Internet Governance

Posted: October 16th, 2007, 9:52pm WST

As the second Internet Governance Forum approaches, it is an appropriate moment to take stock of how the Internet Governance dialogue has evolved since the conclusion of the WSIS Summit in 2005. One year after the first IGF in Athens, it is clear that government, industry and civil society stakeholders are still grappling over the direction and focus of the IGF... There is little doubt that some governments will choose to borrow concepts from the IGF when developing law and policy and will ultimately apply them to the Internet within their respective jurisdictions. Given the global nature of the Internet, this should be a fundamental concern. While this important dialogue about the Internet continues at the IGF in Brazil next month, another no less important debate is emerging with regard to RFID technology and the so-called "Internet of Things." The Internet of Things is a term coined to describe a future ubiquitous sensor network that collects commercial and personal data in public and private settings created, in part, through the rollout of RFID technology... More...

IGFWatch news

The launch of igf-online.net

Posted: October 16th, 2007, 10:15am WST

igf-online.net, the new community site for remote and intersessional participation in the activities of the Internet Governance Forum, has just been launched, as the first tangible output of the IGF's Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition. So far it features: Sympa mailing lists WordPress blog IRC chat RSS aggregation MediaWiki wiki PHPiCalendar calendarall linked together with a custom-developed menu that sits at the top of (most of) these pages, and which also links to the official IGF Web sites and those of the dynamic coalitions.
Final schedule for Rio IGF

Posted: October 4th, 2007, 6:03pm WST

The schedule for the Rio meeting has just been finalised (though it is not yet on the IGF Web site). Like I did last year, I'm presenting my pick of sessions here:
A Consociational Bureau for the Internet Governance Forum

Posted: September 22nd, 2007, 3:19am WST

The principle that Internet governance “is a joint effort which requires cooperation and partnership among all stakeholders” (Geneva Declaration of Principles, para 20) has become axiomatic since it was first agreed at WSIS, and is fundamental to the IGF as a “new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue” (Tunis Agenda, para 72).

Eco-Rama

Internet Governance, Global Privacy and IGF-Rio

Posted: September 18th, 2007, 11:38am WST by José Murilo

The global debate on Internet governance will once again gather people from all over the world at UN’s IGF, this time in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The process was started last year in Athens, when more than 1,200 participants focused on discussion of the overarching issues tied to the future of information and communications technologies, including control over the Internet architecture and numbering and naming system, security, intellectual property, openness, connectivity, cost and multilingualism.

The IGF’s innovative multi-stakeholder format, designed to grant governments, NGOs, and commerce an equal seat at the table, was praised by many as an evolution from the bounds of classical diplomacy. But the role of the IGF as a pure discussion forum — “a neutral, non-binding and non-duplicative process” as the EU presidency put it — and the absence of a more formalized output were intensively discussed by several governments and NGOs, Brazilians included. Blogs report:

Great expectations and a good dose of self criticism will surely be present at the Second Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which will take place in November in Rio de Janeiro. The occurrence of the IGF in Brazil was the result of a big effort of the local government, and the discussions will focus not only on the conventional issues related with the virtual environment, but also on the foundational purposes of the IGF process. In a significant evolution from its last meeting in Athens — which was characterized by the absence of deliberative power — the IGF in Rio will position the present Internet governance model and the IGF’s mandate as central themes of the forum.
II Forum de Governança da Internet - Dialógico

A revised draft program for the event, and the definition of the items of debate in each of the five thematic axes — access, diversity, openness, security and critical Internet resources — were the results of the IGF’s multi-stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva last week. A civil society appointee of the Brazilian delegation blogged about the meeting and its outcomes.

The main debate in this meeting of the multi-stakeholder Advisory Group focused on defining the items of the ‘critical internet resources’ thematic axis. The Brazilian delegation fought an almost solitary fight to include issues like interconnection costs, telecommunications infrastructure, root-servers administration, and names and numbers registry… the IGF’s multi-stakeholder format is at the same time its biggest strength and also its frailness. How to reach decisions in a meeting with actors from such different natures? And in the long run, what is the use of a forum that does not decide anything? In order to discuss IGF’s mandate and find answers to the previous questions, one of the main panels will be “taking stock and the way forward”. This was proposed by the Brazilian delegation and opposed by the “ICANN group” [who have been against the IGF’s very existence], but finally approved as part of the official programme… The third dispute was to decide if the IGF would or would not produce a final report. In this case, Brazil managed to attract the EU to its position defending that, although the IGF-Rio still won’t produce a final document [voted by the plenary], it will at least generate a report reflecting the diverse positions presented… Once again, and suffering strong opposition from the “ICANN group”, Brazil has supported the concept of an “Athens Plus” for the IGF-Rio, or a going beyond what happened in Athens 2006.
Gustavo Gindre direto de Genebra - PSL Brasil

There are two other interesting issues in the UN Press Release. It explicitly mentions that the Advisory Group has been tasked to make proposals on “a suitable rotation among its members”. This reflects a concern among civil society groups who suspect that unless some rules of procedures are established the multi-stakeholder approach will degenerate into some nontransparent back-room deals by a few self-appointed buddies. The fact that the UN addresses this concern indicates a comprehensive care for the IGF’s legitimacy which includes the views of non-governmental actors. The second remarkable issue concerns the mandate of the IGF. The press release announces “critical internet resources” as an additional fifth theme on the IGF’s agenda. Similar to old WSIS days, the G-77 countries forcefully made the point at the May 23 consultations that the question of DNS and IP address management needs be tackled in the context of the IGF to fulfill the Tunis Agenda. The UN press release acknowledges this claim by referring to its widespread support. So far, the UN’s political support structure for the IGF strives to be inclusive and to balance the concerns of the various stakeholders. No major mistakes have been made.
IGF’s MAG renewed: government flex muscles? - IGP

Apart from the Brazilian interest in the IGF — with preparatory events at FGV and Nupef — which in great part comes from being the host country, the event doesn’t seem to be attracting much global attention at the moment. The Italian government is organizing a preparatory event in Rome, specially focusing on Internet rights, and the Open Society Institute for Southern Africa (OSISA) is preparing to send a 20-member delegation to Rio, but that’s all we can trace on the blogosphere right now.

In regard of an event intended to hold the global dialog on Internet governance, and which has as one of its main goals reaching out for a broad remote participation, we are not seeing yet any preparation of participatory channels for the event in terms of interactive web interfaces. But, as the Brazilian government has announced efforts to assure the participation of all interested sectors of society, especially focusing on Brazil and Latin America, we are hoping to hear more about it soon.

In contrast with the almost reticent coverage of the IGF-Rio by the media and the blogs, there was an event last week that caught the attention of almost everyone involved with the Internet: Google’s call for web privacy laws. Extensively covered by all kinds of media, the venue did not go unnoticed. It was at the UN’s Strasburg conference where the company’s privacy chief Peter Fleischer choose to make his announcement. This meeting was the third of a cycle of regional UNESCO’s conferences on the ethical dimensions of the information society and was intended as a contribution to the implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and preparatory to the Internet Governance Forum. Surely, the success of an international privacy standards initiative will depend on support from many stakeholders. Some are wondering if this move by Google could be a signal that it plans to use the UN as a platform to reach out for global consensus?

He [Peter Fleischer] described a typical scenario of an online transaction, involving a French consumer that uses a North American website. This North American web page can have data processing centers in many countries and the customer service may proceed from India. “Each time a person uses the credit card, the information can cross six or seven borders”, said Fleischer mentioning the importance of reaching global patterns for privacy protection of the internauts. Asked about the reason why Google chose to propose a global privacy agenda instead of approaching Washington, Fleischer showed resignation about the North-American simplifying policies. “I honestly don’t believe that changes will occur in this Congress”, he said. “The global debate will help to motivate the debate in the US.”
Google propõe padrão mundial de privacidade - Cdigitalizando

As the Internet Governance Forum continues to evolve definitions of the potential UN role in promoting the global debate on the future of the Information Age, stake-holders from small to large are also in the process of defining themselves, their agendas and their participation in the new worlds of cyberspace governance. The November meetings of IGF-Rio could be the place where many conversations and initiatives rise from blog-talk into a world view.

IGFWatch news

Advisory Group beginning to open up?

Posted: September 6th, 2007, 4:20am WST

I almost fell off my chair this morning when checking updates to the IGF's Web site and reading, "The Advisory Group is meeting in Geneva on 4 - 5 September 2007. The agenda is available here. A summary report will be made available after the meeting."
Completion of my thesis on the IGF in draft

Posted: August 27th, 2007, 4:15am WST

I have just uploaded the first complete draft of my PhD thesis, titled Multi-Stakeholder Public Policy Governance and the IGF. From that page you can read it online, download a copy in PDF or various other formats, or even annotate or suggest edits to the thesis (click "About" on that page to read how).

IGP Blog

IGF's MAG renewed, governments flex muscles?

Posted: August 23rd, 2007, 3:48pm WST by Jeanette Hofmann

Finally, the UN Secretary-General has renewed the mandate of the multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for the Internet Governance Forum. Officially, the Advisory Group's mandate expired with the closure of the IGF's first meeting in Athens in November 2006. Since then, the Advisory Group's status has been in limbo. What looked like an understandable delay for some time - there was a changeover of leadership in the UN headquarters in early 2007 - became a problem in May this year. Following open consultations in Geneva, the Advisory Group was supposed to meet to discuss the agenda for the IGF's Rio meeting in November. Without a formal mandate, however, the AG could not hold a meeting. The official public consultation had to be extended into another two days of unofficial, half public meetings. Now, there is not only a new mandate including some concrete tasks, there is also a new position.

IGFWatch news

Advisory Group reappointed

Posted: August 21st, 2007, 11:15am WST

The reappointment of the Advisory Group has just been announced (though this is not yet reflected on the IGF's own Web site). You may have missed the open call for volunteers for appointment to the Advisory Group, because there wasn't one. Somehow, though, 47 Advisory Group members have been selected, though we have no idea who they are or the criteria pursuant to which they were appointed.
Only two weeks to draft submissions for the Rio IGF

Posted: July 26th, 2007, 8:20am WST

The Secretariat has just announced 10 August as the deadline for the submission of input papers for the Rio IGF meeting, if they are to be included in its synthesis paper and translated. This provides stakeholders with only about two weeks to write their statements.

IGP Blog

Money and Advice for the Internet Governance Forum: The structure of the MAG and financing the IGF Secretariat

Posted: July 10th, 2007, 2:22pm WST by John Mathiason

Enclosure: [download]

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is now moving through its second year and two institutional issues have emerged in the open-ended consultations and in the discussions among stakeholders: how is the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) that is supposed to provide advice on management of the IGF to be structured and how is stable, long-term financing of the IGF Secretariat to be arranged. Given the innovative status of the IGF, resolving these issues will set important precedents for similar initiatives, as well as for the long-term success of the IGF.
The attached paper suggests approaches to both, by showing how the MAG is consistent with past practice and its composition can be adapted. It argues that the funding for the IGF Secretariat should be built into the assessed budget of the United Nations in order to ensure continuity and permit medium-term planning.
Drezner Muffs Internet Governance

Posted: June 19th, 2007, 1:24am WST by Milton Mueller

Tufts political scientist Daniel Drezner has produced an appealingly simple model to explain the typology of global economic governance. You can get a quick summary of his position at Cato Unbound. His basic thesis is that global governance is still driven by the power of states -- well, not states exactly, but "Great Powers." There are at the moment only two Great Powers, the US and the EU. From this, he derives a useful typology. When the US and EU interests are congruent, and the rest of the world isn't adamantly opposed, we will get harmonized and effective global governance. When the EU and US agree, but the rest of the world won't go along, the Great Powers will avoid universal institutions and forum shop, and we will get "club" standards.

When the EU and US disagree, and there is wide divergence of interest among the rest of the world, we will get "sham" standards, putative global governance principles that don't mean anything and can't be enforced. Drezner puts our beloved Article 19 in this category. Ouch. But he's right about its effectiveness, isn't he? And when the EU and US disagree and have clusters of allies around the world we will get rival governance standards, like in the case of genetically modified foods.

Singh-a-Blog

IGF 2006: Reflections on IGF Athens 2006

Posted: November 3rd, 2006, 2:54pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

Well IGF 2006 is over and done with. It has been an interesting week. My impressions? Well for the most part (a consensus agreed to by just about everyone I talked to) IGF has been the same people saying the same thing all over again, except in a different city. A lot of the same old agenda's were being pushed by the same bunch of people. Perhaps what is needed is some fresh blood and some new
IGF 2006: Chair's round-up session

Posted: November 2nd, 2006, 2:53pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

This morning was the Chair's round-up session for workshops. Some of the Chair's pretty much lost the plot and went into long drawn out rhetoric reading reports. I kept mine short and simple, highlighting the need to keep things practical, and consideration been given to the needs of remote communities at future IGFs, which includes communities in mountainous regions and other similar disparate
IGF 2006: Should it be Internet Facilitation Forum instead of Internet Governance Forum?

Posted: November 1st, 2006, 2:53pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

I am sitting in the Wednesday Summing Up session which reviews yesterday's workshops and discussions. Vint Cerf intervened and suggested that the event has been titled wrong - it should perhaps be the Internet Facilitation Forum, not the Internet Governance Forum. This is an interesting suggestion. Indeed much of what is being discussed here is indeed more "facilitation" then "governance",
IGF 2006: ISOC/GIPI Local Access Workshop

Posted: November 1st, 2006, 2:45pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

Tuesday was the start of the workshops at IGF with the ISOC/GIPI one first off the block. There was a fairly large and diverse line-up of speakers, and all pretty much spoke on different issues. I spoke on "Access Challenges in the Pacific". Slides from my presentation are available here.The Workshop was well attended. The unfortunate bit is that there are upto 4 concurrent sessions running,
IGF 2006: Defeated by Blogspot

Posted: November 1st, 2006, 2:41pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

My regular updates from IGF have been dealt a severe blow. Submissions using Blogspot's email engine has had the sh--s, so I have to resort to manual submissions, and with the generally unstable network at IGF this is getting hard. I will have to bulk upload later I guess.....apologies in advance to those looking for regular updates.
IGF 2006: How not to organise a Conference

Posted: October 30th, 2006, 5:06pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

Having organised some conferences in the past, what I see at IGF Athens is total disorganisation. At least the simple things like getting an information pack should be easy enough to organise. So what we had were scores of people walking around aimlessly like headless chooks. The excuse that its a large conference to organise just does not hold water. There are some basic things that need to
IGF 2006: Arriving in Athens and Registering

Posted: October 29th, 2006, 5:08pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

Well made it to Athens in one piece, and so did my luggage, which I checked-in from Fiji to Athens. Managed to find the cleverly hidden IGF desk at the Airport and after waiting for another hour or so, got bundled into a bus to the Hotel. Check-in was relatively painless and the sleep much needed. Next morning (29th) off to Divani Appollon, the conference venue. Got an ID card and that's about it

Gregarius

Feeds

Unread items (83)

Posted: June 23rd, 2009, 11:27pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: May 14th, 2009, 8:42pm WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: May 14th, 2009, 8:36am WST

Posted: May 7th, 2009, 9:06pm WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: April 30th, 2009, 4:32am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: April 18th, 2009, 3:55am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: March 23rd, 2009, 1:27pm WST

Posted: March 4th, 2009, 2:41am WST by Jeanette Hofmann

Posted: March 3rd, 2009, 2:39pm WST

Posted: February 28th, 2009, 1:46am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: February 25th, 2009, 11:49am WST

Posted: January 10th, 2009, 1:38am WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: December 12th, 2008, 2:09pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: December 7th, 2008, 1:47pm WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: December 6th, 2008, 11:07am WST

Posted: December 5th, 2008, 7:25am WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: December 5th, 2008, 3:54am WST

Posted: December 5th, 2008, 1:54am WST by Michel van Eeten

Posted: December 3rd, 2008, 2:14pm WST

Posted: December 3rd, 2008, 1:51pm WST by Veni Markovski

Posted: December 2nd, 2008, 12:36pm WST

Posted: December 1st, 2008, 11:51pm WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: November 26th, 2008, 12:01pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: November 23rd, 2008, 9:42am WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: October 10th, 2008, 3:45pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: September 20th, 2008, 2:17pm WST

Posted: September 16th, 2008, 9:21am WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: September 8th, 2008, 11:34am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: August 25th, 2008, 11:04am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: August 16th, 2008, 11:25am WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: August 3rd, 2008, 9:35am WST by John Mathiason

Posted: June 16th, 2008, 10:06am WST by Mark Costa

Posted: June 10th, 2008, 4:08pm WST

Posted: June 10th, 2008, 3:22pm WST

Posted: June 5th, 2008, 9:24am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: June 4th, 2008, 2:34pm WST by Veni Markovski

Posted: May 22nd, 2008, 10:43am WST

Posted: May 5th, 2008, 6:31am WST

Posted: March 2nd, 2008, 2:50pm WST

Posted: February 27th, 2008, 4:15pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: February 7th, 2008, 4:57pm WST

Posted: January 18th, 2008, 3:25pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: January 6th, 2008, 3:59pm WST by sonia.arenaza

Posted: December 5th, 2007, 1:40pm WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: December 5th, 2007, 10:48am WST by Brenden Kuerbis

Posted: November 27th, 2007, 11:23pm WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: November 21st, 2007, 4:59pm WST

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 11:49pm WST

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 10:51pm WST

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 2:50pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 2:49pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

Posted: November 15th, 2007, 9:48am WST by Milton Mueller

Posted: November 14th, 2007, 3:08pm WST

Posted: November 14th, 2007, 2:44pm WST by Rajnesh D. Singh

Posted: November 14th, 2007, 2:29pm WST

Posted: November 13th, 2007, 1:02pm WST