Replies to the Questionnaire
<< Start < Prev 4/5 Next > End >>

Comments on the Formal consultation with Forum participants In accordance with
Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society


Affiliation: Janna Anderson

Name: Imagining the Internet

Responses:

1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
IGF has inspired stakeholders from various sectors to share views and form coalitions and has thus facilitated discourse. It has been of value up to this point but, to meet the mandate in the future, it must cultivate more depth of discussion, more forward-looking assessment of the Internet's horizon and more focused energy, digging deeper to illuminate issues and encouraging global cooperation, indirectly but effectively influencing policy.

Especially important for stakeholders to address is IGF's lack of forward focus - this is required under section 72g - "identifying emerging issues." Internet evolution is rapid. Issues tied to "cloud" computing, the geoweb, social networks (including global crime and terror networks), real-time communication (think of tools such as Twitter), the mobile Internet and ubiquitous computing/hyperconnectivity are almost never discussed at IGF. Industry scientists and futurists know where we are headed and the issues and ethics tied to these developments that are already here must be given serious attention.

There should be more IGF participation by the people who are at the cutting edge of developing our networked communications FUTURE (the research scientists, not the executives or corporate figureheads) across the globe in the technology sector, and there should be more involvement of national and global policymakers, who are generally about a decade behind in understanding where our use of new technology is taking us.

2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.” While IGF is making an effort at accomplishing this, it is always a challenge to fulfill to the fullest extent and must continue to be a high priority. The process is only as good as its people and their level of participation.

3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
IGF has inspired stakeholders from various sectors to share views and form coalitions and has thus facilitated discourse. This discourse is of value for everyone and vital to the future of the Internet and global cooperation. It appears that other global organizations are now embracing participation by civil society more fully (OECD, for example), and this is at least partially due to the multistakeholder involvement facilitated by the Internet itself and carried out through processes and organizations such as IGF.

4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
Again, efforts are continuing as processes are evolving, and IGF is making an effort at accomplishing this, but it is always a challenge to fulfill to the fullest extent and must continue to be a high priority. The process is only as good as its people and their level of participation.

5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
IGF should continue beyond its five-year mandate. It is only just getting started. Remote participation tools are improving rapidly and IGF is developing new ways for people to make a difference together. IGF can inspire more people each year to discover and discuss vital policy issues in an open, cooperative setting. As long as the people in the power centers of industry and governments are wise enough to be willing participants and respondents to this multistakeholder process it will be of value.

6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
A focused first-day (or pre-IGF) "Emerging Issues" briefing led by the people who are truly the top developers and influencers of our future should always be the first agenda item at IGF, so participants go into the remaining discussions armed with a more realistic view of the near horizon.

And I reiterate that there should be more IGF participation by the people who are at the cutting edge of developing our networked communications FUTURE (the research scientists, not the executives or corporate figureheads) across the globe in the technology sector, and there should be more involvement of national and global policymakers, who are generally about a decade behind in understanding where our use of new technology is taking us.

7. Do you have any other comments?
No.?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009View&respcnt=4?>

Top of Page

 
Joomla Professional Work

Latest News

Popular

Copyright © 2005-2010 Internet Governance Forum. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Level A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0