ISOC statement at the IGF

Here is what Bill Graham on behalf of ISOC said during the open consultations today. Some really good stuff in there. I have put those things in bold.

ISOC: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking here on behalf of the Internet Society. First we would like to add our voice to those which have already congratulated Brazil for the conduct of the meeting in Rio. We feel that the Internet Governance Forum’s cross-cutting themes of capacity building and development plus the original four focus areas have continued to provide a foundation for the work that was done in Rio. The decision to build on the successful discussions of those themes and the positive interaction among stakeholders at the first IGF led to the addition of the topic of critical internet resources. That decision was clearly justified by stakeholders’ confidence in the able of the IGF to address various difficult topics. We think the success of the IGF precisely depends on the fact that the IGF remains multilateral, multistakeholder, democratic and transparent, and that it is neutral, nonduplicative and nonbinding consistent with the WSIS guidelines. ISOC believes it is essential to retain those characteristics in all future IGF meetings, but we must find ways for the IGF to become more practical and more useful to those interested in the practice of Internet governance. We believe it’s time now for the IGF to really draw out the concrete work and the concrete developments that have happened as a result of its work, and I speak here of all stakeholders’ experiences. I am not talking about concrete conclusions in typical United Nations terms, but in terms of the work that’s being done by various stakeholders and various communities. This work has not yet been adequately captured, and I think we don’t yet have a good picture of how successful the IGF has been to this point. We would also, therefore, recommend that moving forward to India, the IGF focus more on fostering contributions to Internet governance at the appropriate national, regional, and international levels. Successful multistakeholder Internet governance discussions at the local level are essential to progressing Internet governance at the global level, and this was recognized in Rio. There really is much to be done at the local level, and all stakeholders should contribute to encouraging the creation of suitable and sustainable local multistakeholder structures, including the technical and regulatory capacity building programs that are necessary here. Looking forward to the third IGF, ISOC would recommend that we really build on opportunities to expand the work by dynamic coalitions and others who are working together in formal and informal gatherings organized to progress that work. The increased interest in the workshops that we saw going into Rio, and the potential of those workshops for producing collaboration should be major goals for the third IGF. This can be facilitated by reducing the number of formal main sessions. We in ISOC believe the main sessions on the four major themes have really almost served their purpose now, and there should be fewer main sessions in Delhi. Perhaps only three, one on each day. Speakers in the opening session should be selected for their ability to focus attention on the urgent need to show real results from the meeting in terms of promoting access, security, diversity and openness. But concentrating on the needs of developing countries and capacity building. And I speak here of capacity building for Internet governance, not more generally on ICTs for development. The second main session should concentrate on a major new theme for the 2008 forum. ISOC recommends this session, and much of the work of the IGF going forward concentrate on the overarching issue of connecting the next billion and the billions after that. As we heard in Rio, getting the next billion online highlights many, many challenges for governance of the Internet itself, and not least among these are scalability and sustainability issues. Taking this very practical focus will allow us to include many facets of the themes discussed so far. It also will have direct and important linkages to development and capacity building. Focusing on the next billion gained prominence in Rio, and we believe it’s now time to better understand and to address the challenges that will face getting the next billion online. This is something the IGF is uniquely positioned to contribute to. Learning and collaboration are essential to identifying the challenges and highlighting the solutions of Internet governance. The Internet Governance Forum should serve primarily as a facilitator, providing opportunities for action oriented, formal and informal workshops and meetings. Thus in our contribution, which is on the Internet Governance Forum Web site, we outline that we believe that New Delhi should really – or, sorry, the India session should really provide a large networking and display space for all stakeholder groups to present their real-world experiences and their efforts to make Internet governance happen locally, nationally, regionally, and internationally. This space should be structured around the IGF themes. It should encourage dialogue and synergy among practitioners, and it really must include meeting areas for small and medium sized groups to get together, exchange experiences and plan future work. So in concluding, Mr. Chairman, we believe it’s time for the IGF to become a forum promoting action on the entire range of themes outlined in its mandates. Singly and in combination. The focus should be on capacity building for Internet governance. And we believe that the IGF has now established a degree of trust among its participants that should make that possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.