|
Internet GovernanceISOC's blog on IGF 2007
Emerging issues …To follow up on the summary posted by Raj, I would like to add some thoughts on some of the issues raised in the last session. The issue of anonimity is a very sensitive one, as anonomity is something that is encouraged in one parts of the world and discoraged in other parts … but at the end of the day, Internet is nothing else than us, people, who are using it for whatever purposes we have. If in the real world we can walk down the streets with our faces being discovered and we are not afraid to say what our name are, why would we be afraid to do the same in the Internet?! The issues of Youth or the issue of having more women participation are not issues as such: this is something that would naturally happen if there are really good professionalists representing these groups. There is not need to ‘force’ participation but rather encourage and faciltiate participation of everyone based on the merits and professionalism. When you bring someone to the process, you bring them because they can effectively contribute to the problem solving and bringing several solutions for whatever problem is faced/discussed …
Posted: Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by veronicac@diplomacy.edu Emerging Issues session and the need for “IGF for Dummies”Much was said and debated at this session, and what was said covered a diverse range of issues. One observation: (as one would expect in a multi-stakeholder environment) different groups push different issues from technical to non-technical to social responsibility to policy to something somewhere in-between (and outside!). Talking to some IGF delegates who were “rookies” and some with non-technical as well technical backgrounds, they do get a bit bewildered/confused about what happens at IGF. I think what is missing is an “IGF for Dummies” session, run just prior to the official IGF start to bring folks up to date, as apart from the usual suspects at IGF there are also a whole bunch of people who tend to walk around in somewhat of a daze from room to room, and who may not see and hear what they thought they would. Some may say this can be done locally/regionally, and whilst this is important, the “IGF for Dummies” session is important for those people who actually end up attending IGF. Posted: Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by Rajnesh Singh ISOC Visibility @ IGF RioThis year ISOC was highly visible at IGF (and yes I am happy!). In the “Village Square” ISOC had the premium booth and was pretty much the first thing anyone entering the section saw. The 11 ISOC Ambassadors were given lanyards (good one Kevin) to hold their security IDs and this meant we stood out with our white lanyards with ISOC logos blazing on them. As far as I know, the ISOC Ambassador group has been active in various sessions, manning the ISOC booth, as well as networking and talking to people present here. Congratulations to ISOC HQ for the initiative, and I hope it was valuable to all concerned. Posted: Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by Rajnesh Singh Consumer Protection and Data Breach NotificationI was a Panellist for this session on Day 3. When I was first approached to be on this panel, I had some idea of the background surrounding the issue, but only when I read through some of the literature provided by the organisers did I get a real appreciation of how grave the issue is, indeed it is potentially a disaster waiting to happen. When we add the attempts to get the next 1 billion online to the mix, the ramifications are potentially even worse. As Hank Judy pointed out, there is a lot of software out there which is pirated and therefore unlikely to get security updates and these machines are highly susceptible to nasty use and abuse. This week the EU announced a new proposal for data breach notification, which applies to systems connected to publicly available networks. It goes without saying that the next billion coming online, a majority of which are from the developing world, will face substantial data breach issues as they embrace e-commerce and the use of online technology to effect financial and other transactions. It is possible that in the rush to embrace technology, and in the absence of appropriate legislation, some security measures may be overlooked, paving the way for massive data breaches and possible theft of financial and other information. This adds to my earlier stated security concerns with the next billion coming online. Its not only the next billion online, but also a new billion vulnerable online. I hope that the IGF pays attention to these wider issues related to Internet development, and more attention is paid to such “under the radar” issues. Kudos to David Satola and Henry (Hank) Judy for organising the session, and its a pity the IGF Secretariat allocated what was a lousy time slot (in the face of numerous open slots published in the agenda). I hope David and Hank continue to work on this for the IGF and further work is done at IGF Delhi and beyond. I also hope that consumer protection issues (related to electronic transactions, storage, etc. in particular) become an important part of national policy formulation in developing and emerging countries. This was also evident by comments from the audience. Posted: Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by Rajnesh Singh Fulifilling the Mandate of IGF …Today, one of the early morning sessions focused on the Mandate of IGF … It was an interesting session, that brought many excellent speakers and many comments from the audience …. There is no doubt about how important the IGF is … but where do we go from here? how do we take the outcomes forward? in what format? how do we bring them at the local level and to whom? Among the other issues raised were: - How to structure the current body so that it is constructive and effective and we don’t end up in sitting at the 5th IGF and listen to the same ideas and issues that have been discussed so many times already; - How to assure an adequate multistakeholder representation at the IGF and in the IGF process? - The need to change and improve the format of the sessions; - To avoid negotiated outcomes; - To continue having UN input; - To find out and discuss ways in which to promote the outcomes locally and involve the local goverments .. ; - others … There were several comments and suggestions from the floor … among which: - IGF should have some sort of conclusions and recommendations, so that it is easier for those who are not at the IGF to understand what has been discussed and what are the steps forward; - Inclusivity issue: when it says multistakeholder approach it should be multistakeholder approach; - The representation of the men vs. women in the panels should be balanced; - IGF still lacks from a long-term strategy and vision; - To increase the number of donors for the IGF; - It is up to everyone to experiment and try to promote locally the results of the IGF process; - There is a testing/pilot project in UK which aims to create a similar concept organization/forum – the results of this initiative might be really useful for the others … - others … My personal perspective on what can be improved in the current format of the IGF is the following: I think that some of the sessions can be organized in a more interactive way (may be by introducing a 2 faciltators model: 1 is an expert in faciltiation and the second is an expert in a certain IG issue – this will assure a much more interactive participation of everyone in the room); Second: As one of the expectations is to increase the number of the donor community, one way of doing that at the local level (so that more representatives from the developing countries are involved both locally and globally in the IG debate and initiatives) - when I talked to the representatives of the donor community in Moldova for e.g. – the reply I got was “it is too early for Moldova to discuss about IG” or ”we don’t know what IG means, so why would we spend money on this”? – that is why it is extremely important to have representatives of the donor community involved in any IG local and global events … so that the message is clearly understood by all the stakeholders involved. And the same applies to the local Governments … they should e invited as often as possible to any events and discussions related to the IG issues in the region/nationally and/or globally … There are certainly other many areas which can be further developed and improved …. and certainly there is a need for a clear vision and strategy behind the IGF, and a sustainability plan which can be further replicated at the local level … One of the mandates of the ISOC Ambassadors I think, is to also try to identify the areas which can be further developed and improved and even come with a proposal to the IGF secretariat … Posted: Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by veronicac@diplomacy.edu ISOC Open ForumI also want to echo Monica’s congradulations for ISOC’s presentation yesterday afternoon: it is extremely important for ISOC to promote widely its mission and values so that more and more people are aware of what it does and what benefits does it bring to the local communities. Congradulations for the ISOC Chapters on the presentations made as well as for the work they do back in their home countries. I come from Moldova, where the application for the Chapter has been just recently submitted, meaning that ISOC does not have a presence there still. But ISOC Ambassador Program is an excellent means for the late starters like us to learn from the already existent experiences and good practices and to catch up with the latest developments, so that in turn we bring at the local level the benefits of the Internet to all those who are still not benefiting of it … Thanks a lot for ISOC for the great initiative – ISOC Ambassador Program!!! Posted: Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by veronicac@diplomacy.edu Report of the Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Privacy and IdentityToday, I attended the meeting of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy and Identity, which was conformed as a result of the outcome of the two workshops held in Athens last year. The coalition currently has 70 members from a wide array of sectors. The members reported on some of the work being made through the wiki and the latest face o face meetings. Proposals were made so as to further collaboration with privacy and data protection commissioners and improve the scope of the work of the coalition in the areas of Internet privacy protection, digital identities, and the link between privacy and development. Posted: Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by cristosuofa@yahoo.com ISOC Session – Personal thoughtsI’d like congratulate to all for the presentations made by each Chapter’s representative today afternoon. A very interested labor is being made for each Chapter which involves a lot of work by each of you. I think that ISOC’s vision and mission are well-represented in each region by the work done. Congratulations once again and I hope for next IGF Argentina Chapter recently “re-born” (just one year and half) can be showing its improvement.
Posted: Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 by Monica Abalo Laforgia Governance Frameworks for Critical Internet ResourcesI was on the panel for this workshop and though, in my opinion, the theme of the workshop was quite clear, the discussions that ensued got fragmented into a discussion on the old ICANN debate. Of course some do say that the Critical Internet Resources theme is a veil for the old ICANN debate. My final comment on the panel was “The Internet is a dynamic beast and Organisations and debates must also be dynamic in nature. In response to the call for institutional competition for ICANN, I would really like to know how exactly this may be implemented, and I fear this will lead to yet another never-ending debate. I would rather we expend our energies on what already exists and try and make that better, rather than attempting to re-invent the wheel”. Posted: Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 by Rajnesh Singh Dynamic Coalition on Access & Connectivity for Remote, Rural and Dispersed CommunitiesI was involved in the organisation of this workshop and it turned out to be a rather good session, though we had some logistics problems in the beginning with Videos that did not start playing and microphones that did not work. The session started with a presentation by Janna Anderson from Imagining the Internet on a survey they carried out at IGF Athens and it was interesting to hear comments that were relevant then, and continue to be relevant now. This was followed by commentary from Dr. Vint Cerf on some of the Access & Connectivity challenges in different regions and some possible solutions. Dr Cerf’s comments led into a panel discussion on Digital Inclusion issues and the role Government, Private Sector and Civil Society can play. The Panellists were a diverse group representing Private Sector, Government and Civil Society. Examples of Government-Private Sector success stories were presented by Guillherme Saraiva from Comcast Brazil. We were honoured to have the Hon. Gunnar Hökmark, Member of the European Parliament, on the Panel and he offered some perspectives on the role of Governments in creating enabling environments and the value of regulatory reform. Hakikur Rahman from ISOC Bangladesh represented the Civil Society voice on the Panel, having been involved in ICT development for over 20 years. He presented some perspectives on how Civil Society is also an important part of delivering ICT for development, in particular in rural communities. The ensuing audience interaction was also very valuable with some great examples being provided of access and connectivity initiatives around the world. One example was of India deploying 100,000 ICT centres for e-Government initiatives, and efforts in the Dominican Republic to introduce computers to village communities which has led to an explosion of computer use with more villagers investing in computing technology. One other comment I found of interest was by Arun Mehta of India who said that technology exists for disabled access to ICT, and this in itself is a practical way in which to provide exposure to ICT for an illiterate population – people may not be able to read and write, but they can speak and understand speech, which is what systems developed for the blind do by delivering an oral version of what is on the screen. We had a peak headcount of around 85, and this was very encouraging. We hope to further build on the Dynamic Coalition and start planning early for IGF Delhi. Posted: Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 by Rajnesh Singh |
RSS feed
Atom feed
