[governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

[Nyangkwe Agien Aaron]

A wonderful move from you Robin. Kudos
After going through the report at first glance, some caught my
attention and I can be mute.
It is
"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"
I may add that and if some one comes out with a counter view, you hear
them barking in such an intimidating manner as to cow the gullible
ones out of the forum.
My fear is that Internet Governance will now be dominated by corporate
agenda(strategic partner) issues while social (boundary partners)
issues are left unattended.
Someone up there must do something.

Aaron


On 11/20/07, Nnenna <nne75 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks a million Robin for this link.  Been there since hours now.
> It is a great report, especially for those who could not be physically
> absent..
>
> Was good to 'see' you all
>
> Nnenna
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> To: a2k discuss list <a2k at lists.essential.org>; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org; Open
> Standards DCOS <Openstds at ipjustice.org>; expression at ipjustice.org;
> privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:08:39 AM
> Subject: [governance] IP Justice Report on 2007 Internet Governance Forum
> (IGF)
>
>
> Links to audio, video, photos on IGF 2007 ...
> http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/11/19/2007-igf-rio-wrap-up/
>
> apologies for cross-posting
>
> ------------------
>
>
> 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.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ________________________________
> Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team.
ASAFE
P.O.Box 5213
Douala-Cameroon
Tel. 237 3337 50 22
Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97
Fax. 237 3342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance