IGF – Nairobi : voices from the blogosphere and beyond

The IGF in Nairobi was an important event. This article aims to summarise the voices from the blogosphere and the key issues leading up to the IGF

Background and Issues

The IGF is a United Nations led-activity initiated in 2006 as a global platform for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on prevailing and emerging issues on Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability, and development of the Internet. The forum is an outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The Sixth Annual IGF Meeting (The Internet Governance Forum)was held in Nairobi, Kenya on 27-30 September 2011 at the United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON). The theme of the meeting was: ‘Internet as a catalyst for change: access, development, freedoms and innovation‘. IGF Nairobi had over 2000 participants, 122 Workshops, Coalitions meetings and Open Fora.

The Internet is a catalyst for change and innovation. The key issues relating to Internet governance are:

- Critical Internet Resources (ICANN , IANA , the Domain Name System and IP number allocation.)

- The transition from IPv4 to IPv6

- Access

- Security

- Privacy and

- Openness

- Cloud computing

There are two different levels in the discussion: one level is focused on the issues and the other level is focused on the process of internet governance itself (“taking stock and the way forward”).

The IGF, as a self-regulated process, has triggered several initiatives worldwide, happening at different scales and levels: there are national IGFs (in the UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc…) and there are regional IGFs (in Europe we have EuroDIG). Similar initiatives are happening elsewhere in the

world. See the full list here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/regional-igfs. What we see, at least in Europe, is a lack of coordination mechanisms and structures between all these different fora.

The EU participated actively in this process through a high-level institutional presence. In addition to the EP Delegation of 3 MEPs, Vice-President Kroes was in Nairobi. The EC and the EP have worked in synergy to shape two workshops on cloud governance and the stability and resilience of the internet. For a more detailed feedback from the EIF at the IGF meeting see HERE

Peter Hellmonds of Nokia Siemens Networks summarised the significance of the Nairobi IGF and the events leading up to it. The following section is based on Peter Hellmond’s talk at EIF –European Internet Foundation

• On December 6 2010, a small group of governments proposed that a working group governing the Internet should be composed of governments only. This went against the sacrosanct ‘multistakeholder’ principle


• In September 2011, India, Brazil and South Africa, proposed a recommendation in which they suggested that “an appropriate body is urgently required in the UN system to coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies pertaining to the Internet.”


• In a letter addressed to the UN General Assembly on 12 September 2011, Russia, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan proposed a UN Code of Conduct for the Internet , which reaffirmed the key role and right of sovereign states in determining Internet-related public policy issues. This letter concentrated on assuring that states could protect themselves not only against criminals and terrorists who use the Internet to “incite terrorism, secessionism and extremism”, but also against other states who should not use the Internet to undermine states that have accepted the Code of Conduct.

These issues are echoed by a number of prominent blogs

Internet Society – ISOC’s blog on IGF

One of the fundamental characteristics of the IGF is that it is an open, non-binding, multi-stakeholder and bottom up forum. The Forum is unique due to its non-decision making format and its open and inclusive participatory structure, which continuously grows. This format is the fundamental basis of the Forum’s success, and this unique character of the IGF should be maintained.

The ‘no central authority’ and ‘self regulated’ approach in the Internet’s management has always been a key to its success and growth. This has allowed the Internet to become among many things, a vital tool and catalyst for exercising human rights and empowering citizens around the globe. In light of the Arab Spring developments, supporting the openness of the Internet management structure, among many things, empowers the democratisation of societies. Thus support for IGF in its current form is vital.

The Internet Governance Forum In Nairobi- The Main Points on the …

The future challenges blog summarises the key trends on the first day :

The state should be a protector and not a killer

Future growth and development depends largely on the Internet

Cyberattacks on governments, corporations, and individuals; Security

Multi-Stakeholder approachs

Climate Change

 

What it is and why it matters: Developing Internet Policy at the IGF …

Why should anyone care? Although there are several reasons why the IGF is important, none of them are particularly obvious. It’s still too obvious to dismiss the IGF as a talk-shop, a lobby factory or a house of cards. However all of these metaphors ignore what is actually going on at the IGF: it brings some of the best internet policy people in the world together for a week. Often it gets them to talk to each other and in the best situation they develop projects and initiatives together. Want to do something about ‘the Internet’ because you passionately care about how it is (or isn’t) developing? The IGF is a good to meet like-minded people who you can work together with to do something about it.

Why it matters I’ve been working on freedom of expression related issues for quite a while now and am astonished by the extent and speed to which the issue keeps changing on a constant basis. Having gone through a revolution, Tunisia decided to stop censoring anything – then again decided to start censoring some content. The UK discussed plans to filter all pornography in order to protect children while China and Iran keep thinking of more inventive ways to harass and cajole their own populations speech on the Internet. In the face of this pressure, I am shocked that there aren’t more people advocating for online freedom of expression and that there is little awareness what this will mean for the communications infrastructure we will one day inherit to our children. Last week in Nairobi, Lee Hibbart from the Council of Europe suggested “erring on the side of freedom.” I wonder if the Chinese Foreign Ministry – who were in the room at the time – were listening.

African voices

IGF being held in Kenya also had a robust coverage from African bloggers

 

Experts back formation of Africa Internet forum

Generation.africa on their high at the 6th International Governance …

MMU delegates attend IGF meeting

DCA Exclusive Commentary: A Travesty – The African Internet …

allAfrica.com: Africa: Experts Back Formation of Internet Forum

 

Perspectives

Here are some more perspectives on IGF emphasising specific aspects

Mobile: The Internet Governance Forum Comes To Nairobi: Some …

For me however, most telling were discussions on how the mobile Internet will be developed and governed in the future. Mobile Internet is becoming mainstream technology today

The IGF brought up these and other emerging issues. Ways in which ICT policies and governance of the Internet can address problematic issues regarding access and diversity were recurring themes. These discussions were balanced by the privacy and security concerns voiced as access issues are increasingly overcome

Youth: 2011 YCIG Statement | Youth Coalition on Internet Governance

As in 2010, the Youth Coalition made use of an etherpad document to collaboratively draft a statement to share in the closing plenary of this years IGF. The statement, which was unfortunately not read in full due to time constraints, is below:

Child safety: child online safety | UKIGF

Thoughts on IGF Nairobi by Emma Lowther, IWF

• There are massive differences in the international ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ of the internet world. Many workshops which focussed on improving the situations for the ‘haves’ very often migrated to the realisation that many countries and regions of the world do not even have access to the internet.


• Any internet developments should automatically consider young people and those who are impaired in some way in order that the internet grows to be automatically inclusive for all who wish to get the best from it.


• Young people should not be preached to but information should be delivered to them coming from the standpoint that the internet is a brilliant thing. (ie, don’t shock and scare young people about the dangers, talk about the positives with doses of safety information).

Big companies thin on the ground The Internet Governance Forum | Desiderata

21 people registered from Microsoft. That made them the largest single company delegation. Google registered 8, Facebook 1, Apple 0, Yahoo 0, BT 0, Telesonera 0. There’s a big list of 0s. I guess they could have had their lobbyists there looking out for them, but that sort of misses the whole object of the exercise.

Certainly it was the case that some of the major internet companies sent very senior people to represent them: I’m thinking in particular of Microsoft, Google, Nokia and Facebook. But, er, that was just about it. As far as I could tell from my own highly unscientific survey the rest were either top people from smaller companies or middle and lower management, or corporate affairs and PR people from the larger players. All important, all welcome, all with a contribution to make, but some can contribute a lot more than others.

Comparison to coverage from President Sarkozy Big companies thin on the ground The Internet Governance Forum | Desiderata

Whilst in Nairobi one was left with a feeling that there must be another meeting taking place in a different room. It is a room where all the key discussions are happening but no one has given us the address or sent an invite.

Just look at the acres of coverage President Sarkozy got when he intervened in the internet governance debate earlier this year around the meeting of the G8 and the G20. For all that Sarkozy was accused of grandstanding and playing to a domestic French audience, a substantial chunk of the final communiqué endorsed by all the Governments spoke directly to precisely the sorts of issues that were discussed in Nairobi’s many workshops. But to state the very obvious: Sarkozy was not in Nairobi. His speech was not delivered to the IGF.

Comparison to the coverage in the economist - The Internet Governance Forum | Desiderata

In the days immediately following the Nairobi IGF “The Economist” wrote a piece about it entitled“The plaything of powerful nations”. They reminded us that the IGF was a compromise designed to provide a route out of an impasse that was reached at the World Summit on the Information Society, (WSIS) held in Tunis in 2005.

In the run up to and at Tunis several powerful Governments expressed great dissatisfaction with the way the internet was being managed globally, and in particular they resented the enduring influence of the US Federal Government. Even to this day, through its ultimate ownership of and relationship with IANA, the US Government is in a singular position of authority.

Acknowledging the role the US Government played in helping with its early development, this situation might have been acceptable or tolerable for as long as the internet remained a minor or peripheral technology. But today the internet is centre stage in practically every country’s economic, social and political life. Peripheral it is not.

The next IGF event will be held in Baku Azerbaijan and will continue

IGF – Nairobi : voices from the blogosphere and beyond