IGFWatch news

IGFWatch news

Search

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 - 17/11/2009 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.

Markus Kummer's hypocrisy
By terminus - 16/11/2009 Markus Kummer's official statement on the China censorship controversy at the IGF is that the banner in question was removed not because it was critical of China, but because promotional materials may not be displayed except in the IGF Village. Whilst this has already been conclusively rebutted, here is further visual proof.

What IGF is for? ONI Asia event rattled by UN Security Office
By Shahzad - 15/11/2009 - 3 Replies Our ONI reception was rattled by IGF security, who objected to a poster advertising "Access Controlled", the book to be introduced at this event. The poster was thrown on the floor and we were told to remove it because of the reference to China and Tibet. We refused, and security guards came and removed it. The incident was witnessed by many.

A new IGF begins
By terminus - 15/11/2009 On the first day of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, it is clear that if the IGF's mandate isn't renewed following its fifth meeting next year, at least it will go out in style. Like the host countries that preceded them, the Egyptian hosts have learned from the mistakes of the past, and insisted on raising the bar.

My pick of the programme at IGF 2009
By terminus - 13/11/2009 One of the first things that strikes the newcomer to the IGF, as it originally struck me in 2006, is how fragmented the programme is. If the IGF were intended to effectively fulfil its mandate as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, one might expect that all its participants would be given the opportunity to... er... engage in dialogue.

Pre-Sharm planning meeting - dynamic coalitions and remote participation
By terminus - 18/9/2009 I feel a little guilty to admit that as someone who has been quite deeply involved in the IGF from its inception, I find myself taking little interest in the open consultation meetings nowadays. After all, nothing ever seems to change... or if it does, so terribly slowly.

One step forward, two steps back
By terminus - 19/5/2009 - 3 Replies With a steady influx of new progressive civil society voices at every renewal (this time including Fouad Bajwa, and last time Graciela Saleiman), the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) cannot forever hold off the momentum towards the eventual achievement of its mandate from the Tunis Agenda.

China seeks to end the IGF
By terminus - 13/5/2009 The biggest bombshell out of yesterday's open consultation meeting came from China:We feel that the IGF has contributed a great deal in light of its historic mandate. ... But it's not enough for developing countries who don't have enough resources and don't have the capacities to participate in this kind of dialogue without further commitments being made, which is why the points of view of developing countries, especially when it comes to Internet governance, ... are not sufficiently reflected in our discussions, which is why we don't agree that the IGF should continue its mandate after the five years are up.

© 2017 Jeremy Malcolm and contributors. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licence. Powered by WebGUI.