Reflection on what was wrong and what was right with the Rio Internet Governance Forum is not waiting for the February 25 "stocktaking" session planned by the IGF's Secretariat. Civil society advisory group member Adam Peake has already opened an interesting dialogue on the governance list. I have some opinions about that...

Too much of the energy of the Forum and its participants is being thrown away on issues that are not global in scope, and have nothing to do with global governance of the Internet. We all must pay closer attention to the distinction between issues that are best addressed at the national, local or regional levels and those that truly require global coordination and global institutions. IGF should be restricted to the global. If the truly global governance issues are actually quite narrow and specialized, and don't include the issues that turn you on, so be it. Those who are fundamentally not interested in those issues should find a more appropriate venue for their activities. The disappointing thing about IGF 2 was that the dialogue was so cluttered with things that do not require or will never get international coordination or agreement that it was impossible to focus on the things that do.   more »

The Rio IGF has been a great venue for raising ideas and fostering dialogue. But the managers of the Forum will have to address some severe structural problems during the next two years. The basic problem is that all of the action at the Forum has gravitated to the "edges" -- i.e., to participant-defined workshops and dynamic coalitions -- while the "core" plenary sessions have become hollow. They were mostly stilted, boring one-way communication affairs; the speakers were selected more for their lowest common denominator political acceptability than for their ability to advance important ideas. Worse, there is almost no common processing of ideas and common deliberation on what transpires at the edges. In fact, due to the competition for attention created by scheduling many workshops at the same time as the plenary sessions, the workshop programs attracted far more people than the plenary itself during the second and third days. The result is a decentered trade-show or academic conference-like atmosphere. One can sense growing frustration with this among a variety of parties.   more »

Like Derrick (see prior post) I am in Rio at the UN’s Internet Governance Forum. Yesterday, IGP’s new paper on Net Neutrality as a global principle for Internet governance generated heated discussion when it was presented at the annual symposium of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet). One might think, with some justification, that the world doesn’t need another paper about net neutrality. But it is the global focus of this one that makes a difference. The GigaNet conference proved that the world is ready to discuss and explore this principle, and to analyze its implications for global Internet policy. Continue on to a list of some of the tough questions faced...   more »

The final of three panels at the 2007 GigaNet Annual Symposium was convened to address the distinct set of policy issues critical to the global Internet Governance debates. GigaNet Steering Committee member, Seiiti Arata, Jr., moderated the panel, and it consisted of four excellent papers (Ian Brown/Chris Marsden were not present).   more »

The 2nd Annual Symposium of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is now underway in the Windsor Barra Hotel in Rio de Janeiro Brazil. About 100 scholars and interested participants from around the world are participating in the all day meeting. Development was the focus of the first panel was on the creation of a "Development Agenda" for Internet Governance, one that draws upon previous relevant examples such as the WIPO Development Agenda, the WTO Doha Round Development Agenda, and other relevant processes. IGP Partner, Derrick Cogburn, served as moderator for the first panel, which included four outstanding papers/presentations (most of which are available on the GigaNet portal (http://www.igloo.org/giganet).    more »

As a contribution to the 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), IGP has released a new paper showing how network neutrality can serve as a globally applicable principle to guide Internet governance. The paper defines network neutrality as the right of Internet users to access content, services and applications on the Internet without interference from network operators or overbearing governments. It also encompasses the right of network operators to be reasonably free of liability for transmitting content and applications deemed illegal or undesirable by third parties. Those aspects of net neutrality are relevant in a growing number of countries and situations, as both public and private actors attempt to subject the Internet to more control.

An important part of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum is to develop globally applicable public policy principles for Internet governance. The paper contends that the principle of network neutrality combines and integrates concepts of universal access to the resources connected to the Internet, freedom of expression, economic innovation, and free trade in digital products and services.

Amidst all the drama surrounding ICANN’s Los Angeles meeting (Vint Cerf’s exit from the ICANN Board, protests over the free expression implications of its new gTLD policy, the Whois-privacy debate and steps toward new multilingual domain names) an important signal about the future of ICANN was almost lost in the shuffle. The U.S. Commerce Department announced a full-scale, public review of the global Internet governance regime’s status. Interested parties have until 15 February 2008 to submit their comments. This initiative must be perceived in combination with renewed signs of “enhanced cooperation” – the WSIS-inspired code words for European demands that the U.S. accommodate their concerns about unilateral U.S. control of the Internet’s root. Together it faintly signals some kind of movement on the thorniest issue in global internet governance. Movement in exactly which direction remains unclear, but pressure from BRIC countries in the UN Internet Governance Forum certainly plays role in it.   more »