IGFWatch news

IGFWatch news


My take away from Vilnius - if the IGF won't change itself, others will
By terminus - 18/9/2010 It's in my job description, as Official Bugbear to the IGF, to be grouchy. And I must express my appreciation to the MAG and Secretariat for making my job very easy. But I also try to be at least a little forward-looking and optimistic in my wrap-up blog post on each IGF meeting, even if that optimism is sometimes found buried in several layers of subtext.

My statement for civil society at IGF 2010's closing session
By terminus - 17/9/2010 Chairman, your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm going to begin my speech a little differently, by looking back into history - not very far, just to 2005 - when the Internet Governance Forum was first proposed, by an organisation called the Working Group on Internet Governance (or WGIG). WGIG was in many ways the predecessor of the IGF; it too was a multi-stakeholder body, and had several open consultation meetings that anyone could attend.

Mid-meeting impressions of IGF 2010
By terminus - 16/9/2010 Half-way through the 2010 Internet Governance Forum, it seems for the best that the assessment of its performance over the first term of its mandate has already been conducted, since this meeting is shaping up as a disappointment. A number of participants to whom I've spoken have been grumbling over miscommunications, the cost of food, and - most of all - the godawful venue.

TANSTAAFL at the IGF... or only for some?
By terminus - 13/9/2010 - 1 Replies The TANSTAAFL principle (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) has made its way to the IGF, with participants now being asked to pay 36 LT (a little over USD$13) for each meal, and 250 LT (over USD$92) for the shuttle service.

Recommendations on the extension of the IGF
By terminus - 12/5/2010 The original impetus for the formation of the Internet Governance Forum was to provide not only an open forum for discussion, but also a venue for all stakeholders to collaborate towards developing public policy for the Internet, through a process by which they would "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations."

UNDESA vs CSTD at the February 2010 open consultation
By terminus - 14/2/2010 - 2 Replies Since the last post here, I have been elected the co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (though I don't wear that hat while blogging here). So rather than submitting my own statement to the February open consultation meeting, I guided the development of a consensus statement, in which the IGC called for better accountability and transparency of the Secretariat, highlighted the need to ensure that the IGF's outputs are transmitted to relevant external institutions, and suggested the formation of thematic working groups to develop background material, synthesise discussion on major themes, and so on.

Transnationalisation of Internet Governance: The Way Forward
By terminus - 17/11/2009 I sat on the panel of one of the first workshops to be held on the opening morning of the IGF, on Transnationalisation of Internet Governance: The Way Forward, co-organised by the Internet Governance Caucus and the Pew Internet Project. I felt rather overshadowed by some of my illustrious co-panelists; Bob Kahn - co-inventor of TCP/IP, Professor Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Robert Pepper of Cisco, Janna Anderson of Pew Internet, and Anja Kovac from the Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

Why not scrap the UN IGF?
By terminus - 20/11/2009 Now, don't get me wrong. I've written to express my support for the continuation of the IGF's five-year mandate. So rather than scrap the IGF, I'd much prefer that it take on board the suggestions that I and others have made - for example, that it form working groups to produce recommendations for the consideration of the broader IGF, and release output documents that reflect the IGF's consensus (or lack thereof) on such recommendations, that the main sessions be more deliberative, and that participation in them not be fractured by too many redundant parallel workshops. Such suggestions have been made not only by me, but by others from civil society (IT for Change, APC) and even some governments (Brazil, France) in Sharm el Sheikh. And in Hyderabad. And in Rio. And in Athens.

The statement I would have made on the IGF's renewal
By terminus - 18/11/2009 My name is Jeremy Malcolm, and I work for Consumers International, a global federation of consumer organisations with around 220 members in 115 countries. Consumers International supports the extension of the IGF's mandate. After all, if the IGF did not continue, we would have no alternative but to establish a substitute for it. In 2005 in Tunis it was observed that there was a gap in the existing regime of Internet governance in that there were transnational policy issues that were not being addressed in any global forum, let alone a multi-stakeholder one. Well, that gap hasn't gone away.

Schedule fluctuation, platform confusion, and the invitation to speak that isn't
By terminus - 18/11/2009 Even leaving aside the poster debacle, which has soured many against the IGF perhaps for good, the Secretariat has made a real mess of this meeting.

© 2014 Jeremy Malcolm and contributors. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licence. Powered by WebGUI.