[Random-bits] Geneva: First day of consultations on Internet Governance Forum

[James Love]

Thiru can be reached at thiru@cptech.org, or +41.76.508.0997
----------
http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/02/first-day-of-
consultations_114011108863158197.html

FromGeneva
Thursday, February 16, 2006
First day of consultations on Internet Governance Forum

16 February 2006
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Morning session

Today in Geneva the UN is holding two days of open consultations on
convening an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which is mandated by the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This mandate calls
for the IGF to be a multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. The IGF is
chaired by the Secretary-General's Special Advisor for WSIS, Mr.
Nitin Desai. A live webcast of the proceedings can be viewed at:
http://streaming.polito.it/IGF-live.

Here is an official
transcript of the morning session.

According to the IGF website,


The aim of the consultations is to develop a common understanding
among all stakeholders on the nature and character of the IGF. The
meeting will address the IGF's scope of work and substantive
priorities as well as aspects related to its structure and
functioning. It will also discuss the convening of the inaugural
meeting including agenda and programme.
(http://www.intgovforum.org/)

Tentative dates for the IGF have been recommended by representatives
of the UN Secretary-General and the Greek government; they are 24-26
October 2006. A decision on the dates will be taken jointly by the
Secretary-General and the Greek government in light of the Geneva
open consultations of 16-17 2006.

The format of the first day was open to governments, inter-
governmental organizations, civil society, businesses, academics and
individuals. Unlike other UN meetings I have attended, there was no
hierarchy in terms of the order of statements. The statements of
governments, civil society, IGOs and others were all interspersed
during the day.

The main buzz words of the day seemed to be "multi-stakeholder" and
"multilingualism". However, it was not quite clear as to what
different parties meant by these terms.

Both the EU (represented by Austria) and Brazil called for spam to be
a discussion item at the Athens IGF.

Pakistan took the floor on behalf of the G-77 and China and called
for development-oriented clarity to the discussions of internet
governance.

Brazil noted that decision making internet public policy issues
should be taken by world community at large and not by number of
technical bodies or a single government.

They said that technical bodies were deciding upon public policy
issues. They warned that this awkward situation could go on forever
without causing serious trouble and as they had said before, things
that cannot go on forever don't.

They wanted the IGF to be a locus for the global community at large
to create the necessary international applicable legal framework for
internet-related pubic policy issues.

Brazil mentioned cyber-security, cybercrime, spam, consumer
protection, counterfeiting, and global public policies related to top
related domain names as possible substantive topics to be discussed
in the Athens meeting.

The chairman, Mr. Desai concluded the morning session on the
follwoing note


Everyone accepts multi-stakeholder participation. What does this mean
though? Should it be based on open consultations, however, that was a
simple process. The IGF should meet around 3 days once a year. What
type of structure is to be expected at Athens? Many have echoed that
IGF should have a development orientation. Development country
participation is important (not just govt-but CSOs as well). Can this
space be a forum to discuss the digital divide? The development
dimension of ICT should be there but it is much bigger-education, e-
health-governance and many other dimensions. We should not load
everything from Tunis process into IGF. What is that we are expecting
to see in IGF? We need flexibility, shared understanding of first IGF
to look like. IGF term is 5 years. My request; it's not our job to
fix outcomes, it's the job of the IGF to do this. What we need to
focus is how to structure the forum.

Here is a link to Georg Greve's blog of the discussions.

http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/
internet_governance_forum_day_1_many_discussions_few_conclusions

posted by Thiru Balasubramaniam @ 5:35 PM
<< Home

About Me
Name:Thiru Balasubramaniam
View my complete profile
Previous Posts
WIPO's open forum on the Draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT)
WIPO developments and upcoming meetings
WTO TRIPS Council meeting-Bad deal expected
Status of TRIPS and Public Health negotiations




---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton