maanantai 20. syyskuuta 2010

Finnish Internet Forum

Following up on the Internet Governance Forum, held last week in Vilnius, there is a national IGF meeting in Helsinki this week (Sept 20-21). The event is called the Finnish Internet Forum. The first day still going on as I write this blog post. The session in progress at the moment is called Novel social platforms in peace mediation. The whole event is being webcast live.

The previous session  Internet Governance 2010 reflected the discussions in Vilnius last week. As panelists there were many of the key figures from the IGF meeting, like Markus Kummer (Executive Coordinator of the Internet Governance Secretariat), Peter Dengate Thrush (Chairman of ICANN’s Board of Directors), Lee Hibbard (Coordinator for Internet Governance and Information Society at the Council of Europe) and many others.

I had the opportunity to take part in this session representing ISOC Finland. Here's the text of my speech in response to the session moderator's (Yrjö Länsipuro) question about what has happened in the five years the IGF has existed, since the WSIS Tunis resolutions:

It could be argued that in the five years of IGF there has been a lot of talk and very little results. On the other hand, it could also be argued that internet governance is not a project that can have tangible results. Rather, it is an ongoing process that in some sense is a result into itself.

When we talk about the Internet it is in one aspect a network of interconnected networks and protocols that bind them together. There are fora that deal with the technical aspect of the Internet, like ICANN with the names and numbers and the IETF with the standards. But there are also other aspects that are more political than technical in nature. Things like content and access to it.

When we talk about access and content we can’t avoid bringing the politics into the debate. That is why fora like the Internet Governance Forum are needed. The IGF is a multi-stakeholder environment where all interested parties, including the end users, can come together and try form a vision of the future of the internet. The fact that the IGF does not make decisions means that all stakeholders can talk more openly and freely than they would in a negotiating forum.

Just as it is necessary to have fora to have the technical discussions, it is necessary to have fora for the political discussions. While reaching consensus, even a rough one, on such a large variety of issues is hard, it is necessary that we try. That is, after all, the Internet model of doing things. We need to create a healthy Internet ecosystem, where the needs of the various stakeholders are at a balance. For that we need a platform to have these discussions. That is why the Internet Society supports the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum.

Let me close by quoting from the end of Lynn St. Amour’s, the President and CEO of the Internet Society, IGF opening ceremony address: “We urge all stakeholders - governments, the private sector, civil society, the Internet community, and intergovernmental organizations - to come together to protect and preserve the open Internet and its collaborative development model, for the undeniable benefits it provides to all of us.”