Appendix 1 to 31 October Report: Internet Governance Forum, Athens, 30 October – 2 November 2006

Internet Governance Forum, Athens, 30 October – 2 November 2006

Opening sessions

The inaugural IGF meeting was well attended, with some 1,500 registrations. While some Senators, Ambassodors and Ministers were in attendance, in general they were from the countries who had previously expressed strong opinions on core issues of Internet governance. But in general terms, not as well supported by Govts as anticipated, and speculation on the reasons included that some Govts might think the multistakeholder dialogue may spill over into other aspects of UN deliberations (Good grief, we have to talk to our constituents and taxpayers!). Others possibly believed the forum was designed purely as a talk-fest and with no real conclusions in terms of drafting outcome policies likely, may have stayed away.

The Forum was run very much more along ICANN Public Forum lines, large panels of up to 20 people to debate a topic, with a moderator, fielding open microphone and on-line questions. Full scribing and web recordings of all main hall events occurred. Considerable work had gone into ensuring good quality panelists with divergent and strongly held views on the topics. As well as the main hall, there were 9 other break out rooms running a variety of workshops – 36 workshops in total.

Obviously not everyone has “got over it” in terms of the Tunis agreement that ICANN would continue to control the core Internet services and the IGF would be restricted to issues such as cybercrime, spam, digital divide etc. The opening speech from the ITU Secretary General (appended to this report), clearly indicates their continuing desire to gain control of some root aspects of the Internet.

In Milton Muellers summing up of the DNS workshop, again some comments were made that (maybe China) some are seeking to run their own Internet Root but that others argued on points relating to the single authjoritative root, and that political interference at the root would be undesirable for security and stability of the network.

The opening ceremony included an addresses from the Greek Prime Minister and Minister of Technology, as well as great addresses from Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn, all readable at

www.intgovforum.org/IGF-OpeningSession-301006.txt

Internet access for the Forum was very patchy, with the same problems ICANN meetings experience with open access. Some attendees were attempting to blog the sessions, but were unable to due to fickle connectivity.

Most of the “usual suspects” were in attendance, probably 300 – 350 of the ICANN community attending including at least 20 of the ICANN staff, and at least half the ICANN Board. The ccTLD community was strongly represented, as was ISOC. This was most useful, as much discussion with some of the less informed or mis-informed Government representatives helped clarify much of the myth and FUD around the root servers, IP addresses etc.

Multistakeholder session

Unchartered territory for UN, and perhaps this was taking some of the UN and ITU folks out of their comfort zone, for if this forum is successful, it may become the way of these bodies doing all of their business in the future.

Increasing capacity was seen as a key and recognized that it would require a multi stakeholder dedication to increase uptake.

Openness session

Revolved mainly around content, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the tests posed to existing laws in various ways – and impacts on human, social and economic rights. Increasing transparency and the balance between openness and protection of rights were key components. Copyright issues. Caling upon GOvts to allow free access to more information and knowledge. Open information ;software and standards. But complex security issues arise as a result. Need for private and public sectors to work together to combat security threats which are increasingly sophisticated. Best practice and multistakeholder participation being the keys.

Need to set clear expectations and principles for development of public policy. Issues of innovation and market based solutions countered.

IGF to collate and diseeminate best practice documents on security issues.

Diversity session

Seemed to dwell too long on the multi-lingual domain name issues, but also some recognition of the need for content changes, to preserve and protect minor languages, and the problems posed by purely oral languages on the Internet. But things like YouTube and Wikipedia seen as playing increasing and useful role in this regard.

Agreed a major challenge of establishing IDNs without threatening the security and stability of the DNS was critical (and likely to be an area the IGF wishes to move into). Suggestion for cooperation between IGF and other stakeholders like ICANN.

Access Session

Access remains one of the greatest challenges to stakeholders. Introduction of competition and removal of blocks viewed as crucial in excpanding access

Removal of monopolies, licensing of new players, establishment of interconnection agreements all seen as key requirements. Some discussion on regulatory regimes vs emerging local solutions. Better to not import regulatory frameworks from OECD countries, but examination of local conditions and development of local solutions seen as the key.

Investment in training and education seen as a key tenet to building capacity.

Wireless technologies will require spectrum regulatory and technical standard issue resolution to ensure useful contribution to capacity building, and likely to be the technology of choice for rural connectivity.

Likely that a number of the traditional ICANN issues, including DNS, Root Servers and IP addresses are likely to emerge onto the agenda of the next IGF meeting, most particularly as it remains a desire of the next host Govt, Brazil.

Workshop sessions

Some of the workshop sessions looked most useful, breaking into small panels, and with audiences of up to 100, the workshops were able to deliver highly specific information and debate to targeted audiences. I was one of the panelists for the PICISOC workshop on issues relating to IT for Island States in achieving Millennium Development Goals.

SUMMARY

The IGF was a major break from the traditional ways for the UN and ITU. The strong support from “ICANN” people in the organizing committee had significant impact in establishing the “new way”. The composition of the panels concentrated on amassing people with very strongly held and widely divergent opinions, but coupled with some very useful and neutral moderators. This lead to interesting and informative debate, and was quite informative and occasionally entertaining. My feeling is that most attendees would have come away from Athens considerably more informed on many issues, and with a better balance of what the issues are.

The concept of the panel discussions, followed by questions from the floor and on-line participants was much more the “ICANN” way, and was useful and balanced. The IGF was not designed to be a decision making forum, but rather an informational sharing forum, and to that end, I think the mission was achieved.

However the next meeting of the IGF is scheduled to be held in Brazil, and it is likely that the Brazilian Government may seek to influence the agenda setting to get issues relating to the root servers, IP address allocations etc onto the agenda.

I recommend that we continue to support and attend the IGF in the future.

Links

Panel Composition and Speakers:

www.intgovforum.org/list%20of%20panellists.php

Verbatim transcripts of the sessions:

www.intgovforum.org

Very humorous take by The Register:

www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/08/igf_in_pictures

Blog style commentary in The Register, by Kieren McCarthy:

www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/02/igd_blog_wed

BBC Report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6090394.stm