From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Links to audio, video, photos on IGF 2007 ...
http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/19/2007-igf-rio-wrap-up/
------------------
IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
The 2007 Internet Governance Forum <http://www.intgovforum.org/> (IGF)
<http://www.intgovforum.org/> is officially over. The second meeting
hosted by the United Nations <http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/> to advance
discussion on issues related to Internet governance was held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil from 12 – 15 November 2007.
The 4-day international conference focused on 5 main themes: Openness,
Access, Security, Diversity, and issues related to the management of
Critical Internet Resources (CIR). Capacity building was a cross-cutting
issue through all the main themes. Over 2,000 registered participants
from 109 countries attended the IGF's various main plenary sessions,
workshops, best practice sessions and other related meetings.
Overall, the IGF-Rio was a success; it built upon the inaugural meeting
<http://intgovforum.org/IIGF_webcasts.htm> in Athens, Greece in October
- November 2006, improving upon it in many ways, although back-sliding
in a few others.
This brief wrap-up of the 2007 IGF
<http://ipjustice.org/campaigns/igf/igf-rio-2007/> is meant to serve as
a means of improving the forum in preparation for the 2008 IGF in New
Delhi, India, which is scheduled for 8 – 11 December 2008. The first of
three Open Consultations to organize IGF 2008 will be held in Geneva,
Switzerland from 25 – 27 February 2008.
Where 2007 IGF-Rio Excelled:
1. High quality of the workshops and best practice sessions
The best part of IGF 2007 was undoubtedly the various workshops
<http://info.intgovforum.org/wsl3.php>, "dynamic coalition" meetings,
and best practice sessions, which were independently organized by the
meeting's participants. The level of quality of the dialogue in many of
these sessions was outstanding, with diverse stakeholders coming
together to engage on a common topic and present different viewpoints.
All of the new ideas discussed at this year's forum — indeed all
discussion of "emerging issues" — came from the independently organized
workshops and best practice sessions. As IGF Chairman Nitin Desai put it
during the 2007 closing session: like the Internet itself, all the real
action at this forum was at the edges.
In addition to the robust quality of the non-main session discussions,
IGF-Rio offered an incredible number (84
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Schedule_final.html>) of meetings on a
broad range of subjects – indeed so many that participants had to choose
between several interesting sessions that were scheduled concurrently.
But don't fret: you can still watch or listen
<http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/videos-archive.htm> to all missed sessions
for years to come via the Internet.
There were workshops that discussed open standards, the free expression
concerns with ICANN deciding what ideas may be expressed in top level
domain names, overbroad intellectual property rights
<http://ipjustice.org/2007/11/03/a2kigf-rio-2007/>, human rights issues
in ICT policies, digital education
<http://ipjustice.org/2007/11/06/digital-education-workshop-at-the-2007-igf-rio/>,
an international cyberlaw clinic
<http://ipjustice.org/2007/11/11/ip-justice-international-cyberlaw-clinic-to-be-showcased-at-igf-rio/>,
freedom of expression <http://foeonline.wordpress.com/>, an 'Internet
Bill of Rights'
<http://ipjustice.org/2007/11/13/robin-gross-remarks-at-igf-2007-on-internet-bill-of-rights/>,
network neutrality issues and many, many more. (See the events IP
Justice was involved with at IGF-Rio here)
<http://ipjustice.org/2007/11/08/ip-justice-at-internet-governance-forum-2007-in-rio-de-janeiro/>.
2. World-class technical capabilities and remote participation
opportunities
The Brazilian hosts <http://cgi.br/igf/> and IGF Secretariat receive
high marks for their technical capabilities in organizing and managing
IGF 2007. Despite the large number of participants all demanding online
access at the same time, the Brazilians delivered — and even exceeded
expectations in many cases. The technology simply worked.
All of the main sessions were webcast live so people around the world
could watch (and still can
<http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/videos-archive.htm>). And unlike most
online webcasts, these video streams were smooth, with virtually no
latency, like watching a TV program. The workshops and other sessions
were all audio cast live, recorded, and will be posted to the Internet
as MP3 files for download in the coming weeks.
Several language translations and live text transcriptions
<http://www.intgovforum.org/> of the sessions were available, making the
discussions understandable for millions of more people. The remote
participation component of the meeting also allowed for those not in Rio
to send moderators questions real-time via email or special chat
sessions set up specifically for this meeting.
This technical capacity was a marked improvement from last year's IGF,
setting a new gold standard for technical facilitation of international
conferences.
3. Offline interactions and networking opportunities
One of the best aspects of IGF-Rio was the incredible networking
opportunities in the hallways, coffee shops, evening programs, and other
informal IGF-related activities in and around the conference venue.
When thousands of people from all corners of the world with a common
interest in the Internet gather together the synergy can be electric.
New ideas were tossed around in these informal settings — without
moderators, presentations, or pre-prepared conclusions. Participants
were able to pick out key points made in the main sessions or workshops,
and explore them more fully in small informal discussion circles. The
particular lay-out of the conference venue, where IGF participants could
gather and further discuss issues without foot traffic from other hotel
guests significantly contributed to the positive networking
opportunities at this year's meeting.
The spontaneity of informal conversations and opportunities to meet new
people in the hallways provided sufficient value to justify the trip to
IGF-Rio — even if one is not an official speaker at the forum. And the
networking opportunities in the conference hallways contributed to the
creation of several new IGF Dynamic Coalitions, such as the coalition on
digital education
<http://ipjustice.org/2007/11/06/digital-education-workshop-at-the-2007-igf-rio/>
and the coalition on gender issues
<http://www.intgovforum.org/dynamic_coalitions.php?listy=12>.
Improvements for IGF 2008:
1. Human Rights and other controversial topics avoided in main sessions
Unfortunately not everything about IGF 2007 was a success. One important
area where IGF 2006 was clearly superior to IGF 2007 was with respect to
the discussion of controversial topics, such as online censorship or
other human rights.
Anyone at IGF 2006 will remember
<http://ipjustice.org/2006/11/15/igf_athens_report/> that countries like
China and Iran, and companies like Cisco Systems and Yahoo! were taken
to task by the Internet community for their role in contributing to
Internet censorship. Unfortunately this year, critical discussion of
human rights concerns was discouraged, and main session organizers
walked on egg-shells to avoid offending China or businesses who assist
in the repression of Internet freedom and democracy. IGF participants
have repeatedly been warned that if they raise such critical concerns,
repressive governments and companies will pull-out of participation in
the forum – and we can't have that!
The Chairman of the "Openness" session
<http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/videos-archive.htm#2>, Brazilian law
professor Ronaldo Lemos described
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Ronaldo-Lemos-Openness-IGF2007.MP3>
several aspects to "Openness" and he explained
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Ronaldo-Lemos-Open-Stds-IGF2007.MP3> the
developmental impact of Open Standards for Internet governance (note:
Susy Struble reported
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Susy-Struble-IGF2007.MP3> on the work of
the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)
<http://www.igf-dcos.org/> during another session).
While the main session on "Openness"
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Openness-14NOV07.txt>
included significant discussion on the threat to free expression that
overbroad intellectual property rules create, those comments had to come
from "discussants" such as Canadian cyberlaw Professor Michael Geist
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Geist-IGF2007.MP3>, the audience, and
remote participants, since the main panelists lacked expertise on the
tension between freedom of expression and intellectual property from
civil society's viewpoint. And although the topic of "access to
knowledge" is listed as a main topic for "Openness", no experts on that
issue were included on that panel.
Amnesty International's representative on the "Openness" session, Nick
Dearden, discussed
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Nick-Deardon_Amnesty-Intl-IGF2007.MP3>
the importance of freedom of expression on the Internet and called on
the IGF <http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17520> to
elevate discussion on free expression at the forum. US Ambassador David
Gross described
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/David_Gross_Openness.MP3> why enabling
the free flow of information on the Internet should be one of the most
important Internet policy goals.
Unfortunately discussion about the privacy rights of Internet users was
significantly down-graded in the main "Security" session
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Security-14NOV07.txt> this
year (while those who spread fear of pornography have been elevated to a
special status). Although Katitza Rodriguez
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Katitza-Privacy-IGF2007.MP3> and Ralf
Bandrath <http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Ralph-Bandrath-IGF2007.MP3>
made valuable contributions on privacy during the session. Issues of
importance for the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)
communities were marginalized, with only a single FOSS speaker, Georg
Greve <http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Georg_Greve-IGF2007.MP3>, on one
main session, "Security" to explain the need for transparency with
computer security.
Although human rights issues permeate through all of the forum's main
themes, human rights concerns were given short shrift in the meeting's
organization. For IGF to maintain any credibility as a forum responsive
to concerns of Internet users and one working towards "an Internet for
development", it must include focused discussion on human rights, and
specifically include the issue of human rights as a main theme for IGF
2008. Indeed the governments of Brazil and Italy issued a joint
statement
<http://www.ipjustice.org/IGF/Nov2007-Joint-Declaration-Brazil-Italy.pdf>during
the forum calling for human rights to a specific focus of IGF 2008.
Anriette Esterhuysen
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Anriette-IGF2007.MP3>, Executive
Director of the Association of Progressive Communications noted during
the "Opening Ceremony" that that Internet is a public good and should be
governed based on public interest principles including human rights,
free expression, open standards, privacy, balanced intellectual
property, interoperability, creativity, transparency, and accountability.
During the May 2007 IGF Open Consultations
<http://www.intgovforum.org/meeting.htm>, numerous civil society voices
(and some governments like the Council of Europe) called for human
rights to be discussed as a cross-cutting theme at IGF-Rio; but China
vetoed that request during the consultations. Similarly, during
preparations for IGF 2006 in Athens, a repressive Central American
government vetoed the call for human rights to be fully addressed at IGF
2006. The United Nations should not allow repressive governments to veto
calls for human rights to be discussed more fully at IGF.
I noticed government and business representatives wearing "VIP" badges,
but did not see any civil society leaders with "VIP" Badges. More must
be done to give civil society voices the same value as government and
business at the UN. The multi-stakeholder nature of IGF is viewed as one
of its core features, giving it legitimacy where other fora have failed.
But IGF risks slipping backwards to a forum where government and
business concerns are given precedence (even veto power!), while civil
society concerns are marginalized as insignificant or too controversial.
Despite the alluring rhetoric of multi-stakeholderism at IGF, the
reality is that some stakeholders are more equal than others.
2. Glaring lack of gender balance and exclusion of young voices in main
sessions
A disappointment in the meeting's organization was the over-whelming
majority of speakers on main sessions who were men – much, much older
men. For example, of the 7 speakers on the main "Openness" session, not
a single woman was included as a main panelist, and only one woman (of
6) was given the lesser role of "discussant" during this session. The
so-called "Emerging Issues"
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-EmergingIssues-15NOV07.txt>
session also did not include any female perspectives in the debate, and
despite the session's title, it did not include any speakers who
contribute to "new" thinking. Rather than the title of "Emerging
Issues", this session could more accurately have been described as
"fading away".
Anyone who works on Internet policy knows that women play a crucial role
in advancing dialogue on these issues and numerous women in Rio would
have made excellent contributions to these discussions if allowed to
contribute. Government and business in particular made no apparent
effort to consider gender balance in the sessions. Nearly all of the
speakers representing government and business were men, leaving civil
society with an even heavier obligation to nominate women as main
session speakers in order to achieve some level of overall balance.
Business and government should be required to make nominate some female
speakers for main session panels if they wish to participate in meetings
held under the United Nations flag.
Despite the obvious innovation that has come from young people on the
Internet, it appears that main session organizers consider the
perspectives of people under the age of 55 to be irrelevant. It is
undisputable that the creators of the Internet's most revolutionary
tools such as search engines like Google, or Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
file-sharing programs, or online communities such as YouTube, Facebook,
and Second Life come from young innovators and are often geared toward
young people. Sadly one speaker (Andrew Keen) on the "Emerging Issues"
session openly dismissed the concerns of youth as not worth listening
to. But it would have been a breath of fresh air to hear from the
leaders of tomorrow at this forum.
The lack of funding to bring women and voices of youth (and participants
from developing countries) to IGF is a major contributing factor to the
problem of gender and age imbalance in the forum. As long as there
continues to be no funding to bring women, youth, and developing country
panelists to IGF, the speaker lists will continue to be dominated by
older men from developed countries, who are sent to IGF by large
companies and governments to advocate for their own corporate or
national agendas.
3. Main sessions dominated by established players
In stark contrast to the robust dialogue in workshops and other non-main
sessions, the IGF-Rio main session discussions was largely insignificant
in substance. More must be done to include a diversity of viewpoints,
instead of the same speakers and the same perspectives on all the main
panels.
Main session speakers tended to be the same voices we heard at last
year's main sessions. A number of speakers were panelists on several
main sessions this year, but there are many qualified experts who hold a
wide range of views and expertise on ICT policy issues.
The main session on "Critical Internet Resources"
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Critical%20Internet%20Resources-12NOV07.txt>
(CIR), the most controversial topic for many IGF participants,
unfortunately resulted in a missed opportunity. Only one panelist on
that session, Professor Milton Mueller openly confronted the problems
with the current management structure of the Internet. Professor Mueller
made several interventions on the meaning on Critical Internet Resources
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Mueller-Global-Governance.mp3>, on the
role of governments at ICANN
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Mueller-GAC2.MP3>, the dominance of the
United States Government at ICANN
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Mueller-GAC.mp3>, the future of ICANN
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Mueller-Future-ICANN.MP3>, and the
future of global governance
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Mueller-Future-Global-Governance.MP3>.
The other note-worthy intervention
<http://www.ipjustice.org/Audio/Carlos-Afonso-IGF2007.MP3> during the
CIR session came from Carlos Afonso of cgi.br who provided a possible
framework for redistributing ICANN's functions among several linked
entities with his /"Jack the Ripper"/ proposal. So while it was a step
forward to even permit the controversial CIR topic on the agenda (unlike
IGF 2006), the dominance of established players and current management
insiders resulted in a controlled discussion which barely touched upon
the concerns of those seeking improvement in the Internet's management.
Another example: 4 people who have served as ICANN board members and 2
representatives from the same company (Cisco Systems) spoke on the
"Emerging Issues" main session. Nearly every speaker on that session was
also a main session speaker at last year's IGF … yawn … another missed
opportunity. The list of examples could go on, but I think you get the
point.
We will do better in Delhi.
____________________________________________________________
I received this message as a subscriber on the list:
[log in to unmask]
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
www.peoplewho.org
|
