The secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum, part of the United Nations, has updated its website to include all the session transcripts, plus Markus Kummer’s “informal summing-up” of them.
More interestingly though it has also stuck up an online form asking for feedback on the meeting, asking the broad questions: What worked well? and What worked less well? Plus asking for comments and suggestions for improvement.
And it has set up a page for the so-called “dynamic coalitions” that were formed during the meeting, which is good news as it provides a connection between the groups and the IGF – to both parties’ benefit.
I note that the webcasts are still not up though (have to be shifted into a non-Microsoft format) – and the site itself is still a mess, no more than tracts of text piled onto HTML pages. But that aside, if you went – or if you accessed the IGF online – here’s your chance to have your say. It will be interesting to see the results.
Wendy Leibowitz
November 20, 2006 at 9:11 pmOK, sue me, but I don’t see the significance of this forum, short- or long-term. I understand it’s not an American forum, and that’s enough for some people. But I don’t see how a large group that will meet irregularly can tackle subjects, from IDNs to spam, that require concerted efforts over time. Kieren, if there was something at the IGF that really looked promising, and was not provided already by many excellent Net societies and organizations, do tell.
I do think that more representation from the developing world and non-English speaking world is important–but it sure ain’t going to happen at a UN event, where credentials and “who do you know” permeate every aspect of the organization.
that said, the IGF might be better than other UN organizations, in that it includes businesses and civil advocacy groups, but…it’s a lot of expense and time and trouble for little gain as far as I can see.
If I’m missing something, please tell me.
–A skeptic (yes, with a K, because I’m an evil American)
Kieren
November 23, 2006 at 12:32 amHey Wendy,
I’ve been meaning to reply to this for days but have been caught up in 101 different things. So finally I have a second using the new Wi-Fi service on the London-Oxford bus.
Anyway, what is the point in the IGF? I think you are looking at this from the perspective that the Net’s problems can be dealt with through the various bodies that exist now – IETF, IAB, ICANN, ISOC and so on.
I think the Net is no much bigger than that and there’s no escaping the fact. Governments will have their say whether anyone likes it or not. And to be honest, once a medium become so widespread, so much a part of society, that is simply what happens. That is what governments do and exist for.
The IGF serves the very useful function of being the place where engineers, business and government can meet up and learn how to get on with one another. This first IGF meeting is hard to describe I think unless you were there. I think Nitin Desai did a good job when he said that normally you have breakfast and you see this group over there, and that group over here, but at the IGF there was a mix of people at every table.
That’s its value. The fact is that 70 percent of the irritation with the Internet comes from a lack of understanding – and people are too proud to go to someone and say ‘ I don’t get this, can you explain it’. But as soon as you have real, human interaction, the guards come down and you learn how to speak each other’s language.
I learnt a few things from the IGF. Everyone learnt a few things. And that’s why it felt somehow right. There’s a hell of a lot of people interested in this Internet thing and it’s nice to have everyone understanding it anchor points.
My only advice is: attend the next one. See what you think.
I still hold reservations of course but I think the IGF is a good step in the right direction. What’s more, without it, I am certain that the risk of things going horribly wrong will be 100 times greater.
It’s the same reason the UN exists. What does the UN *actually* do? It’s hard to pin down but the fact is that we haven’t had World Word III yet.
That’s my general feeling, loosely explained I know but hey…
Kieren