Published on
Page last updated on
"IGF is a process," said Natasha Primo during her speech at the opening ceremony of the first (of three) Internet Governance Forum. What she means by this, is that "Athens will not be the a one-time show. The discussions and debates around how the internet is to be governed will continue way beyond and we don’t want to have this huge down-time in between the three IGFs," later explained Avri Doria of the civil society internet governance caucus.
"IGF is a process," said Natasha Primo during her speech at the opening ceremony of the first (of three) Internet Governance Forum. Primo is president of the board of APC and executive director of APC-member Women’sNet. As only representative from the civil society perspective on that opening panel, she was certainly the most vocal in trying to position the discussions that are to unfold in the next three days here in Athens, in the form of something is open-ended.
What she means by this, is that "Athens will not be the a one-time show. The discussions and debates around how the internet is to be governed will continue way beyond and we don’t want to have this huge down-time in between the three IGFs," later explained Avri Doria of the civil society internet governance caucus. Research consultant Doria has been involved in civil society’s participation in WSIS and other such internet governance fora over last couple of years. She explains how this IGF is only the start of what is to become a process in which self-organised coalitions can build.
During the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) four-year-long process, more formal working groups were set-up to give a chance to those civil servants, corporate lobbyists and civil society advocates to pre-masticate the complex issues that are to determine where the internet is headed to. "It now seems that the IGF wants to be much more an open space in which self-organised coalitions get underway," says Willie Currie, policy manager at APC. In a way, it remains to be seen what will be more effective in terms of advancing civil societies’ different perspectives.
The advantage of working groups is that they are generally truly multistakeholder environments where resistance and debate are sensed from the first meeting on. They are tough but often productive and produce well-informed discussions. The self-organised coalitions are at risk of not being listened too as much, of being marginalised, in part because of their nature. These are generally more clearly defined, possess a strong voice and a easily attributable to a specific stakeholder group.
But whether stakeholders organise in the way or another, the challenge is to keep the debates going from now until Rio (IGF II) and Cairo (IGF III). We’ll be able to see during the Athens IGF meeting if the positioning of forces operates well enough for long-term discussion spaces to form.
Comment this blog post.
