This is an excellent synthesis, and I urge everyone interested in IG to read it carefully, whether or not they are going to Hyderabad. There is an amazing array of ideas that in itself makes the process worthwhile. But what struck me most forcefully in today's reading was the stunning realization that ANY substantial contribution paper will be taken into account. There is no excuse for me to say "but they didn't ..." if I did not take the time and energy to research and prepare a contribution on the topic I want considered. Emerging Issues allows for new topics to be included as well. I would like to propose that we carefully study the remote participation process in Hyderabad, and start working on a contribution paper and workshop for NEXT YEAR--before we even leave Hyderabad, and including those who do not attend. Remote participation in the IGF is already underway. We must work to make it better and more effective every time, and then apply these lessons to other situations.
If remote participation is not your burning concern, what is? Can you start working on it now? Can you form a group here to help you be productive and effective? I am off to start a new Diplo Group on Remote Participation. Thanks for this excellent starting point, Seiiti!
Exactly. For all of you who are doing policy work, my personal recommendation is to keep a close eye on the IGF process and actively participate, by:
- participating (either physically or remotely) in the Open Consultations (next one will be in February/March)
- reading contributions from other stakeholders and getting in touch with like-minded folks and even those with different opinions for constructive debate
- sending contributions of your own
- checking whether your contributions are reflected appropriately in the Synthesis Papers
- broadcasting your participation by creating videos, blog texts, pdf articles
- finding local partners and multiply voices and start action
I know that IGF participation (Egypt will be the next one) is an issue on logistic/finance terms for everyone. If your organization or you as an individual is doing a consistent work by using this formula above, and keeping everything well documented... well, chances are that any fellowship committee that will have to choose between you or some other applicants who did not do the homework will give a preference to those who walk the talk.
All the tools are available, and this Community platform is the ideal space to find Diplo-spirit type of partners.
Hi all! Indeed, this synthesis is very relevant as a background document. I highly recommend it too.
There are many points I´d like to raise, but the ones that concerned me the most were:
1) Critical Internet resources and IG arrangements are on the same discussion branch. Both are very important themes, but I fear that the second can be shadowed by the first. For instance, the discussion of IG arrangements in this document is limited to the institutions that deal with critical resources. And the debate doesn´t innovate: it seems lost between the blind defense of the current model and the vague proposition of internationalization.
2) I see almost no advance on the topic "the way forward", compared to previous years. I mean, considering that these are suggestions made mostly by organizations that deal with IG issues for some time, is quite amazing such a disparity of (vague) opinions about which way to go. I´m not criticizing these organizations. The critics go to all of us, who have not being able to coordinate our thoughts and, generally, have given this topic less attention then it deserves.
The full text of the book An Introduction to Internet Governance (6th edition) is available here. The translated versions in Serbian/BCS, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, and Portuguese are also available for download.