Theme: Multi-stakeholderism

Below is a video and transcript of the conclusions closing session of the Swedish Internet Forum on 19 April 2012. The presenter, Emily Taylor, also provided a written version of her summary for .Nxt.

In 2005, which in internet terms is really ancient history, I came across an article which was written in the New York Times about a funny little argument that was preoccupying those of us in our small circle of internet geeks and we were terribly worried about. Now the article is memorable for a couple of reasons. First of all, and this is unusual, believe me, in the internet space, it was short, cogent, humorous. And it sort of rose above the confusing detail and explained why this stuff was important. And the second surprise is that it was written by a politician. That politician was Carl Bildt.

Below is a video and transcript of the close of the Swedish Internet Forum on 19 April 2012.

Olof Ehrenkrona (OE): Can I start with asking all those who... In the team who are still standing on their feet to stand up. And there you are. Let's give the team a great big hand.

[applause]

OE: And can I then ask the moderators and the still living panelists to stand up. Some of you. Yeah, some of them. Let's also give them a big hand.

[applause]

And thanks to you, we have had such vibrant discussions and we have not been hesitating to take on also the most difficult questions. This is very, very much thanks to you and what you have done. This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. There will be a continuation and let me then ask Bela Szombati from Budapest to come here and present very, very shortly the next event, upcoming event in Budapest.

Bela Szombati: Well, thank you. Very shortly, though I can't exactly see the clock.

OE: I can.

BS: Alright. And you will let me know.

[laughter]

In 2005, I came across an article in the New York Times about a funny little battle that was going on in the Internet corner of the world that no one outside of the small circle of Internet geeks seemed to understand or care about.

This article was memorable for several reasons. First, it was cogent, humorous, it rose above the dirty, confused, detail and explained why this stuff was important for all of us. Secondly, it was written by a politician. That politician was Carl Bildt.

Fast forward to this week. I was asked to moderate a couple of sessions at the Stockholm Internet Forum, and to provide some reflections at the end of the conference. This article highlights some of the themes I picked up from the two days of discussion.

Taylor moderating one of the sessions. Credit: Swedish Internet Forum

The group tasked with deciding on changes to the annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has finally released its report, complete with 56 recommendations.

The Commission on Science and Technology for Development's Working Group (CSTDWG) improvements report is due to be discussed at the 15th Session of the CSTD on Tuesday 22 May at the United Nations in Geneva.

The working group began with a hostile and combative environment at its first meeting in Montreux, unable to bridge ideological differences separating initial proposals submitted to the WG. But skillful chairing, the movement of divisive discussions on "enhanced cooperation" to a separate venue, and increased levels of trust built between the stakeholder groups over six meetings finally helped produce recommendations that all members could live with.

This is the final report of the CSTD working group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. It was published in April 2012, having been approved in March 2012, and following three meetings in October 2011, January 2011 and February 2012

A/67/65–E/2012/48

General Assembly Economic and Social Council

General Assembly

Sixty-seventh session
Item 18 of the preliminary list*
Information and communication technologies for development

Economic and Social Council

Substantive session of 2012
New York
Item 13(b) of the provisional agenda**
Economic and environmental questions: Science and technology for development

Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum

Executive summary

This report has been prepared by the Chair on behalf of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum in response to the requests by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 2010/2 and by the General Assembly in its resolution A/RES/65/141.

It is rare that the verbose and determinedly unsexy world of Internet governance hits the mainstream press. So how has it happened twice in one month?

First, on 9 March, there was The Huffington Post warning us that "Internet freedom is again under fire".

Of course, the Huffington Post's editorial policy is based more on how important the author is than what they actually have to say (in this case Washington insider and high-end lobbyist Ed Black).

Internet governance issues hit the mainstream press

But then, in this month's Vanity Fair nothing less than a full and lengthy article titled World War 3.0 has appeared. Internet governance is about to enter the broader populace's minds.

[Copy of transcript and audio available on 12 March 2012 ICANN and the Internet Governance Landscape session page]

Bill Graham: I think we should get started, I’m very pleased to see such a large group here for this interesting, I hope, I’m sure will be an interesting session. I want to congratulate all of you who found the place, because I know there’s been confusion about the time and the room, and I truly apologize for that. But some last minute changes were required and that has been the result. But anyway you’re here and I’m very pleased to see you.

I am Bill Graham; I am a Director on the ICANN Board. Markus Kummer beside me is the Vice President of Public Policy for the Internet Society, and we will be co-chairing this event.

CHERINE CHALABY: Good afternoon, everyone.

This next session, we would like to bring the community up‐to‐date with
the work we're doing on conflict of interest and ethics.
With me here, we have two board members, and they are members of
the BGC as well, Bill Graham and Ray Plzak, and as well as our General
Counsel, J.J., otherwise known as John Jeffrey.

Okay. What's the agenda for this afternoon? Basically we want to
review our plans and make you familiar with them. We want to update
you on the work we are doing, specifically with outside reviews as well
as our internal work. And then we want to pause and take questions
from all of you.

Okay. So the first starting point goes back to where we were in Dakar.
J.J., can you move the slide?

We talked about conflicts and the work we were doing in Dakar, and we
said we would like to enhance our conflict or interest policy to more
clearly address the hard cases, and not only those that relate to actual
conflict but also those related to perception of conflicts. And I think the
most important thing here is to raise the bar to the highest possible
standard so that there's no perception of conflict at all.