Internet Society Frontpage

Events Membership
About the Internet Standards
Publications  Public Policy
About ISOC Education

About the Internet Society 

Become an ISOC Member

Board of Trustees

2008 Board Elections

Candidate Forum

Q10: ISOC’s involvement in the IGF

IGF is at its halfway point. ISOC is very involved in this forum. How do you see the involvement of ISOC and of ISOC chapters and members? What recommendations would you have regarding ISOC’s involvement or the evolution of the IGF?

This entry was posted by the ISOC Elections Committee on Friday, March 14th, 2008 at 6:42 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 or Atom 1.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

3 Responses to “Q10: ISOC’s involvement in the IGF”

  1. Comment by: Ganesh   
    March 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 am

    I personally think now it is time for us to move ahead from dialogue to policy implementation. Internet is changing faster then we are able to connect. ISOC should educate IGF participants on technological, sociological and policy issues.

    I believe, Hyderabad 2008 would be a pivotal point in IGF negotiations. ISOC should connect with Asian IT industry through its chapters and educate them about IGF dialogue. Unfortunately, ISOC penetration in India and many countries in Asia is not well enough. My recommendation would be collaborate with industry forums like Nasscom to reach out the industry & their employees.

  2. Comment by: Alejandro   
    March 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    The IGF is a condensation of many, often contradictory trends in which ISOC must act decisively and with prudence. The session in Hyderabad in 2009 provides its own set of opportunities and challenges.

    I see the main challenges in a continuing effort by some governments in trying to make the IGF a decision-making forum, and to shape those decisions in a way that gives governments alone a higher level of power of intervention on Internet affairs which is not symmetric to the growth in the capabilities of society to use and constantly re-create the Internet. Associated with this continuing push are some other social and academic groups for which the Internet governance debate continues to provide an exercise in which what is best for the Internet matters little; it is seen as a place to test political theories and to play some power games, not as a vital endeavor.

    ISOC’s many constituents include people interested in development and broad social benefit from the Internet, as much as those developing the technology and standardizing it, those actually building networks – commercial or non-commercial – and the many who operate networks, businesses and services upon it. The challenge of the IGF for ISOC is therefore to make sure that a balanced, multi-stakeholder view emerges which respects the fundamental need of interoperability of the Internet and thus lets it continue to be able to be of service to all.

    The opportunity of Hyderabad is that while the IGF must concentrate on governance, it also becomes very clear there that access, diversity, openness, and security and trust depend on far more fundamental issues than on Internet governance. To be able to debate and to divulge knowledge on how best to make progress in those four areas, without getting bogged in the challenges described above, and to contact companies, organization, and people who actually put in a huge effort for them, will be ISOC’s task in Hyderabad.

    For the further evolution of the IGF ISOC must contribute to keeping the IGF open, free from the ties of a global decision-making process in which it has still not become possible to involve all participants at equal levels of power and of information. ISOC can help channel experiences in the many instances in which Internet governance, as well as the four goals mentioned previously, depend on decisions make at regional, national, and local levels, and to show the paths – including education and training – to achieve progress.

    Keeping the technology field “flat” and fair for development of new technologies will necessitate a deep understanding; ISOC can and should provide much of this understanding, understanding of what the Internet actually is, how it is built and grown, to participants of the IGF before, during, and after the actual session in Hyderabad. And it must spearhead the Internet community in the dismission of risks against the Internet with decisive, clear action, in concert with organizations that share the understanding and the beliefs that keep the Internet free and available.

  3. Comment by: Laina   
    March 26th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Focus should continue to focus on ISOC’s key priority areas and achieving concrete deliverables that truly make a difference for the development of the Internet over the next 5-10 years. Given the urgency of certain issues such as cybercrimes, it is important that ISOC in its endeavour to position itself as a key player in Internet Governance, does not dilute its efforts by spreading itself too thin.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.