jueves, junio 24, 2010

Internet Governance - panel in the ICANN meeting, Brussels, June 24, 2010

Quick notes from a panel on the Internet Governance Forum taking place in the ICANN meeting in Brussels, June 24, 2010.

(AP = Alejandro Pisanty)


WSIS, WGIG history
Issues of Internet Governance do not have a natural home in UN organizations
Analogy of World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos was used to create new platform, the Internet Governance Forum


Time lag and organizational complexity preclude IGF from becoming decision-maker, even recommender; enhance value of discussion then taken elsewhere


Present circumsatance CSTD, ECOSOC, then General Assembly. Risk that process may lean to more governmental weight. IGF will continue, doubtless; uncertainty is only on how it will be organized.

Jeff Bruegemann

Industry is usually cautious with government and regulation. IGF multistakeholder has engendered trust. It is critical to continue; if there begins to be more governmental/intergovernmental control trust, and openness may recede.

Bill Graham

Survey of ISOC members.

Need for more attention to regional input, increased participation and representation from developing world, no decision-making, more focus by issue and more use of results.

Role of Internet technical community

Funding: need to increase funding continuing voluntary funding model, reach out to organizations that can provide it.

Nick Thorne

Importance of multistakeholder model. Sadly in NY the decisions will be made only by governments. All stakeholders need to be influencing your governments for this decision.

Stefano Trumpy

Concurs with recommendation of sensitizing governments to the better way to make decision re IGF in ECOSOC and General Assembly.

In Europe he senses consensus for continuing IGF in “improved statu quo”, not changing present character of Forum. All countries in European Union are confronting on prevailing opinion.

Concludes with renewed concurring with Amb. Thorne.

Ayesha Hassan

Has heard question “is IGF competitor to ICANN”? her response: no, IGF is “watering hole” where we can hear from OECD, ICANN, all others.

People who don’t meet elsewhere meet at IGF. Industry has benefitted from the exchanges, information.

Companies and people go from IGF with new strengths into other organizations and forums (like ICANN.) Business supports the continuation of IGF with founding principles intact.

Frank March

Going to forums all over the world difficult for many.

Regional forums are important (as well as national ones.)

Would like to see more support from the UN for IGF.


Questions March on “more support from UN”.


More support from better coordination is what he asks for, more support for the model of discussion forum, no decision-making.


To be avoided: IGF being sucked into intergovernmental fray.


National and regional IGFs are organized spontaneously; the only condition he stresses is true multistakeholder nature.

National and regional IGFs will be given more space and time in IGF-Vilnius.

Bruegemann and Thorne congratulate Markus Kummer for the way he has conducted the Secretariat, in true open, sensitive, multistakeholder way.

Fouad Bajwa

Regional IGFs have started based on local needs; they filter out issues which can be discussed globally, identify cross-cutting issues.

South Asian IGF in works; small Pakistan delegation but powerful

Nii Quaynor

There is great potential for learning in the IGF due to the variety, depth of dealing with issues.

Capacity building is enacted, not only discussed in IGF.

Martin Boyle (Nominet)

UK IGF, national and regional IGFs: need to get the ideas out, engage with people who don’t know of IGF or think it’s relevant for them.

Question to Bill Graham/response: people who organized regional and national IGFs felt need; those attending were somewhat unexpected, and built momentum for the global forum too.


Relation between multistakeholder ICANN and multistakeholder IGF; way to building bridges between both?

Yrjo Laansipuro

Finland’s first IGF will take place this year just after the Vilnius IGF; will look for cross-fertilization (Monday, September 20, 2010).

Ayesha Hassan

To question on ICANN-IGF cross-pollination: open forums are one useful way.

Second way: taking ICANN issues to IGF.


Do NOT try to abuse IGF participation by leveraging against ICANN policy-development; enrich them, yes, but don’t use this leveraging to distort them.

Time to extract lessons from ICANN’s own governance.


Useful to expand knowledge about what ICANN does and how it works.


Also useful to explain what ICANN does not do.


Cross-fertilization important

Attracts attention to “enhanced cooperation”; de facto good results, but future questioned.

Different sets of people discuss Internet Governance in Brussels and Geneva-ITU.

Izumi Aizu

On IGF Asia in Hong Kong. Significant participation from ICANN, gave exposure before people from countries like Myanmar. Outreach but also “inreach”, listening to the people who don’t go to ICANN meetings.


Do not mix ICANN and IGF, one is an organization, the other a discussion forum.

Re “enhanced cooperation” – clarifies mandate by UN SG.

History of “enhanced cooperation”: there was push for “new model of cooperation” which was rejected for being unworkable.

Need to compromise led to “start a process toward ‘enhanced cooperation’”. Present discussions are whether it should be a centralized or a decentralized process. It seems there will be a long way before reaching agreement.

May need a new World Summit.

Bill Drake

Disagreement with Pisanty – re “protecting” ICANN from distortions of leverage, not really useful. Actually openness in the IGF has been useful in opening up ICANN, reducing suspicion-based views.

ICANN should be using opportunities of IGF to reach out to developing countries.

Fouad Bajwa

Outreach has been effectively enhanced by ICANN Fellowships progams.

He participated in this program and now is an effective participant, through “invisible link” between IGF and ICANN.

Also has a good word for ISOC New Generation Leaders Program.

The important parts are: cross-pollinization, distinction between ICANN (making key critical decisions), IGF (open discussion, where the issues can be discussed further.)

Look at where the Internet will be in 10 years; the young people in capacity building will be the leaders.


Praises Fouad’s narrative of how he came into ICANN through IGF-related (Diplo Foundation) capacity building and networking.

Issues people discuss in IGF are the issues people want to discuss about the Internet in general. These issues would continue to creep into ICANN if they were not discussed in the IGF.

Without the IGF all these discussions would not be multistakeholder.

Alla Ulgur (Moldova)

Fellow of ICANN, first time at ICANN meeting.

There is a huge need for raising awareness. The talk should be about instruments for this outreach, instruments that help understand ICANN in developing countries.

Zaid Ali

Points out to lengthy discussions about ICANN MoU/JPA/AoC in the IGF.

People at ICANN should use the IGF more to explain how accountability and transparency are being implemented, dispel misperceptions.


ICANN can withstand criticism, IGF is a place to set ourselves

Olga Cavalli

South School of Internet Governance – can grant fellowships to students in program, will rotate countries, next one in 2011 will take place in Mexico

Jaime Wagnon – GNSO, Brazil (private sector rep in CGI-Brazil)

ICANN is not only governance, it is mainly a market. When we talk about awareness for developing countries, we should focus on private-sector, business people from developing countries.

Bill Drake

Hundreds of students have been trained now in the schools of Internet Governance.

Get some people from ICANN to participate in IGF in order that they learn what is happening and how the organization and issues are seen outside.

Need to be aware of what is of concern to governments and many others.

Learning goes in both directions.

Bill Graham

There is both need to raise awareness but also a responsibility for all organizations to do their part in their field. ISOC programs provide good example.


Business people do need to be sensitive; no silver-bullet approach, both IGF and ICANN have done creative processes. Business is working with Diplo to study the regional and national IGFs.


Agree with Drake re benefits of openness. And indeed those who want to use the IGF instead of contributing are being weeded out by the IGF MAG.

Reports from regional and national IGFs will provide example of negotiating text of minutes and outcomes and show how this process closes minds and discussions.


Underlines need to avoid negotiating outcomes of the meetings. That will be the end of the Forum.

Also, need to find more funding for attendees from developing countries.


There is a need to make views known to governments in order to have a better-informed vote.

No hay comentarios.:

Publicar un comentario