IGF ends on a cautiously optimistic note

The first Internet Governance Forum has officially ended, and I think it’s fair to say that there’s a general atmosphere of optimism. Just after the final session, I spoke to Bertrand de La Chappelle, France’s special envoy for the information society, who said:

“The fact some participants were expecting concrete decisions from this Forum validates that multi-party discussion works. To me personally, that is a success.”

Many admitted to me that they had been very anxious about the new multi-stakeholder process. But, despite its time-consuming nature, even the business community appears to be relatively happy – possibly because it’s not legally binding!

And of course, there’s always the underlying financial imperative. As Masanobu Katoh, corporate vice-president of Fujitsu and ICANN former director put it:

“Companies in this century can no longer generate products without talking to users. That would be arrogant and a recipe for disaster. Content, new network standards, and the open access movement require conversations with the user community. The Forum gives that opportunity”.

The multi-stakeholder process has been fascinating to observe. A US lawyer I spoke to said:

“I lecture about intellectual property rights every week. People ask no questions. They take my expertise for granted. Here at this Forum, nothing is taken for granted. The process of analysing policies is amazing”.

I couldn’t agree more. People at the Forum boldly questioned governments, businesses and international agencies. Then again, we must remember that no actual decisions were taken - it was just an opportunity to get to know each other.

Perhaps what the Forum has underlined most clearly is that the user is as important as technologists and policymakers in deciding the future of the internet. An example from our recent history shows why participation in the IGF must not be limited to those who control the economy and technology…

When the infamous Dunkel Draft on trade was announced in 1991 there was hardly any debate in the mainstream media in developing countries. I was in India then, and I recall that the few opinion columns that did appear were highly technical and indigestible. As a result, many of the decisions made were not in favour of the poor, leading to a decade of ‘crisis management’ culminating in the Doha trade round.

In contrast this Forum presents an opportunity for awareness, understanding and negotiation, reducing the likelihood that such mistakes will happen in the internet governance world.

What’s more, the last four days have marked a revolution in the UN system. Civil society has at last been recognised as having an equal status, and given an opportunity to intervene when governments speak. It’s conceivable that the UN may be forced to apply a similar approach to other global policy discussions.

It’s not entirely clear how the process will be taken forward from now until next year's IGF in Rio. But there were voluntary proposals to form ‘dynamic coalitions’ on issues including internet governance, open standards and gender, and the fact that discussions are to continue is in itself important.

This may all sound a bit over-enthusiastic, but that’s the mood here in Athens. In reality everyone knows it’s just the beginning and that there’s a long way to go in these uncharted waters.