[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 27
baudouin.schombe at gmail.com
Fri Aug 15 15:52:25 UTC 2014
2014-08-15 7:13 GMT+02:00 <discuss-request at 1net.org>:
> Without much capacity and resources, the IGF continues year after year,
> overwhelmed with a demand from the internet community it cannot come close
> to meet (e.g. no of workshop proposals that cannot be accommodated).
> Regional and national IGFs have their own trajectory too.. ups and downs
> there too.. but overall becoming more inclusive. The IGF process has not
> even begun to fulfill its potential. Particularly not at the level of
> interacting with other institutions and capturing and communicating the
> outcomes from IGF discussions effectively.
"*This means engaging those that are not yet part of the multi-stakeholder
internet governance 'in-crowd'. It requires working with national
governments. Regional intergovernmental bodies as well as international
onces, including those in the UN system.*
*Without much capacity and resources, the IGF continues year after year,
overwhelmed with a demand from the internet community it cannot come close
to meet (e.g. no of workshop proposals that cannot be accommodated).
Regional and national IGFs have their own trajectory too.. ups and downs
there too.. but overall becoming more inclusive. The IGF process has not
even begun to fulfill its potential. Particularly not at the level of
interacting with other institutions and capturing and communicating the
outcomes from IGF discussions effectively.*
*But is it the right space to establish something sustained, inclusive and
bottom up that can gradually lead the way in building the legitimacy and
inclusiveness needed to operationalise the NETmundial outcomes at global,
regional, and national levels? I don't think so.*"
To paraphrase Anriette's arguments above, I argue that the IGF is still the
appropriate framework for any discussion of the key and emerging issues of
the internet, even though governments still have a strong influence in this
It is true that the IGF has not yet realized its full potential. That is why
it is necessary that the IGF is fully seated at the national level to
involve members of different backgrounds:governments, academic, UN
institutions,Regional ans sub regional Organisations, private sectors,
entities of civil society etc ... Again I agree with Anriette.
NetMundial complements IGF because it has given new life by highlighting other
types of concern such as importance and relevance of multi-stakeholder
approach. This approach is certainly not new but it is becoming more
prominent with the consequences recorded on internet evolution.
The IGF is still a large mass at the regional and global level. It must take
root in countries where the real problems lie.
But the great difficulty lies in people who may have the ability to
materialize IGF nationally.
It would be important to build on run-actors who have acquired expertise in the
field of Internet governance.
The IGF yet its importance and to give a tone to the IGF, the NetMundial can
play the role of energizer.
There is still work to do.
*REPRESENTANT TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC*
*COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC COORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC*
email : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype : b.schombe
blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss