Categories
Internet Governance

Towards Enhanced Cooperation on Human Rights

Some reflections on the IGF, the Internet and human rights

In a previous blog I argued how important it was holding the 2012 IGF meeting in Baku, as it provided an amplifier for discussing local and global human rights issues.

Further to the relevance of the IGF as a space to foster awareness and enhance discussions on human rights issues, the significant number of IGF sessions related to human rights at this year’s IGF and the diversity of stakeholders involved in those discussions also reflected an important trend towards considering online rights issues from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Human rights have traditionally concerned primarily Governments and civil society. However, this status quo is now changing with all actors of the Internet being fully sensitive towards human rights concerns. This further reflects an angle of enhanced cooperation that should not be taken lightly.

Technology fosters opportunities for expressing opinions and ideas on a global scale, but the same technical features can be used in ways that restrict or repress such expression. There are plenty of challenges for human rights online, also in countries with strong democratic traditions. Emin Milli, the Azeri blogger mentioned in my previous blog, as well as other local bloggers and activists made point that the issue is not only about restrictions of freedoms online, but also the risk of being persecuted following one’s online activities. This aspect was mentioned several times in Baku as the right for freedom of speech should not, fundamentally, stop at the level of expression, but should extend beyond expression, thus manifesting the importance of freedom “after” expression.

The respect of human rights in the online environment can be extremely complex and cover multiple dimensions, and the multistakeholder model is best suited to deal with complex issues. In this regard, the notion of enhanced cooperation within and between existing organizations of the Internet ecosystem is both relevant and pivotal in the context of human rights. Enhanced cooperation is about adopting shared approaches, it is about recognizing that each stakeholder has one piece of the puzzle and that we need to collaborate to complete the bigger picture. From this perspective, enhancing cooperation among relevant stakeholders reinforces human rights. To the extent, therefore, that human rights can be best promoted through a framework of enhanced cooperation, this can help inform more general discussions and frame new directions on the way enhanced cooperation should be interpreted within the wider Internet governance discussions.

The IGF is of course an ideal place to share opinions and best practices on human rights-related issues, providing a space for stakeholders to socialize and offering the opportunity to shed light on local challenges. It is essential, however, to extend and encourage cooperation beyond the IGF, and to identify new ways to collaborate and participate in other relevant processes (e.g. Human Rights Council, civil society and business initiatives, open standards development, etc.).

As we look forward to Bali for the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in 2013, let us use the year ahead of us to make progress in fostering a rights-respecting Internet.

– Markus Kummer

Categories
Internet Governance

From Tunis to Baku and Bali

Should the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) have gone to Baku? This question dominated discussions before and during the recent IGF and was an issue discussed widely among participants as well as in the blogoshpere. Many people, who I highly respect, held the view that hosting the IGF in countries, like Azerbaijan, was a mistake: “Azerbaijan is the wrong place to hold a forum on Internet freedom. The government has been vicious in its attacks on journalists and bloggers. The UN must choose more carefully next time.” [1]

I understand the reasoning behind these remarks, but I disagree. The same question was discussed when the second phase of WSIS was held in Tunis in 2005. During the first phase of WSIS, which was held in Geneva in 2003, I worked for the Swiss Government and it would be an exaggeration to say that we felt comfortable in our role as a co-host to be associated with a Government that was known for clamping down on freedom of expression. I recall the then Swiss President Samuel Schmid noting in his speech in Tunis that freedom of expression must be respected “inside and outside this conference hall” (a clear reference to the attempts by the Tunisian authorities to block Tunisian human rights activists joining an event held in down-town Tunis in the German Goethe Institute). His remarks were met with applause by delegates – unfortunately, what was justified as a ‘technical glitch’ by the State TV prevented a wider audience outside the conference hall from hearing this message. However, the call for freedom of expression and access to information was nevertheless heard outside, as it was in Egypt, where the 2009 IGF meeting was held. I am not claiming that there was a cause and effect between WSIS, the IGF and the Arab Spring – but freedom of information, access to information and the right to freedom of assembly and association were without any doubt at the heart of this awakening and these are also some of the core values at the heart of the IGF. This is in line with what I stated to a BBC journalist when asked to reflect on the IGF and its effectiveness: here

The BBC interview was held before our workshop on Internet and human rights, which came to confirm the importance of not only the IGF as a forum for the exchange of ideas, but for holding the IGF in such places like Azerbaijan. At this human rights workshop, the last word came from one of our participants, an Azeri blogger who had served a prison sentence in his country for having exercised his right to express opinions about his Government. . Emin Milli welcomed and applauded holding the IGF in Baku as it gave the Azeri civil society a global platform for talking about issues they would otherwise not be able to talk about. See here what he has to say about the IGF: here

Along the same lines, an Indonesian participant said it will be equally important for civil society when the 2013 IG is held in Bali. Irrespective of all academic arguments, hearing from people who are directly affected, like Emin Milli, validates bringing the message also to countries with a questionable human rights approach!

_____________________________

[1] Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, Guardian, London, 13 November 2012:

– Markus Kummer

Categories
Internet Governance

Internet Governance: Slice by Slice

The 7th IGF has been the first IGF for me. However, before joining this important global event in person, I did not expect it to be such a captivating and fruitful conference. Perhaps, having finished the NGL e-Learning course on “Internet Governance” in a time when YouTube has been blocked in my country, I hit the sessions right on time.

From the very first day I was keen on knowing how to tackle cross border content issues. Content which is acceptable in one country/culture might not be acceptable in another country/culture. How to make decisions about the legitimacy of content? Who will decide? Is hate speech tolerable as freedom of expression? These were some of the questions that I wanted to put forward at the IGF. The first person with whom I had the chance to seek for the answers is none other than Vint Cerf himself. He explained the situation with a metaphor saying that the Internet is a river that flows through many countries and if it gets polluted in one place it may affect people in other countries. It was eye opening to get his insight about the complexity of this trans-border issue.

Later on, I was drawn to one of the workshops titled “Law Enforcement via Domain Names: Caveats to DNS Neutrality”. This session highlighted the growing trend of law enforcement through blocking content at the DNS level. I found the panelists highly competent to talk about this issue covering all different aspects. In response to my question about dealing with cross border content that becomes a public order issue, I was totally mesmerized when the panelists said “You know that in the universal declaration of human rights, there are exceptions on the basis of public order….I can tell you that for platforms, they explained to you that they’re caught between a rock and a hard place. They want to be faithful to due process. They want to be faithful to their own values and at the same time they’re receiving requests that they don’t really know how to handle because they have to make a determination which is becoming closer to what a judge does. This is not what the platforms want to do.” This statement simply echoed what I was thinking . Surely, this is one of the unsolved issues and it will continue to be on the agenda of Internet Governance Forum in the coming days. After this successful workshop I joined another two workshop which touched down this issue. The title of one of these was “ Internet & Jurisdiction: What frameworks for cross-border online communities and services?” while the other one was “What is the Geography of Cyberspace?”. Both these sessions were extremely useful to me and shed some lights in my understanding of the issue.

One of the things I liked about the IGF is that it seemed to me as a melting place of ideas and people from different professional background and cultures. When I was not participating at the sessions/workshops I was busy meeting people whom I have never met before. Definitely, these contacts will be very helpful for me in the near future.

After coming back to my country with this stimulus and rich contacts, it seems to me that the sessions have not quite ended. As I read the local news today I found that the Government is going to implement a new system which will enable it to block content according to its own jurisdiction. However, the question remains the same: who is going to decide which content to block? Attending the IGF has clearly given me an edge over this issue. I know that it is not acceptable for the government to decide on their own which content should be filtered which is not. I am in a better position to advise the government that perhaps they should not resort to blocking, instead they should adopt a more holistic multi-stake holder approach to deal with this issue. Clearly, there should be more dialogue among the stake holders before making any Internet Governance decision. Perhaps, this is the essence of ‘enhanced co-operation’.

Categories
Building Trust Identity Internet Governance Privacy

Internet of Humans

On November 8, 2012, I stood in as moderator of an extraordinary workshop for a colleague who was unable to make it to this year’s IGF covering the topic: “The Internet of Humans – Online Human Behaviour & IG Policy Impacts”.

This was an interesting mashup of Sociology, Social Psychology, ICT and Internet Policy dimensions with several of the panelists dipping their toes into more than one of these areas to hammer home their point.

As background to this Workshop, if IG and ICT policy are to be effective, it is clear that we must cultivate a keen understanding of the ever-evolving human behaviours that accompany an Internet of individuals and communities; a human internet that shapes global society in ever more pervasive ways.

This workshop formed an intersection between research on emerging sociological and psychological trends in Global Human behavior on the Internet, and Internet Governance Policy and Practice.

With the evolution of the Internet, there are ever increasing opportunities and challenges for empowered participation regarding issues of Privacy, Security, Freedom of Expression and Openness. Tacit behaviour of everyday users forms a “Net Etiquette” of expectations, roles, responsibilities and rights that surround participation. These individual and community online actions lead to macro-effects on “virtual” and “real world” spaces. Our (cyber)security, freedom and knowledge as a society do not depend on theoretical abstraction but on real world actions.

The multi-stakeholder, global and interactive workshop assembled leading research in Sociology and Psychology of Ihe internet, social mediaphiles, policy practitioners, businesses, government, and youth to hold a fluid discussion with all stakeholders present to:

  • Discuss a range of research and perspectives in an attempt to demystify and unload the meanings that are embedded in concepts of Privacy, Trust, Freedom of Expression, Openness and Security; and
  • Apply the findings to ICT and IG Policy, and practice by considering:
    • ​- measures that can be taken to ensure freedom of expression, access to knowledge and privacy for all stakeholders including Youth;
    • – challenges encountered in protecting freedom of expression online Solutions to better empower citizen’s access to information and effective/empowered participation in digital age;
    • – “Net Etiquette” and the roles, responsibilities and rights of users as they relate to openness, privacy and security.

The workshop relied on an interactive, dialogue based approach with a primary aim of inclusion. A concrete outcome of this workshop is expected to be the creation a roadmap of next steps in furthering a research and evidence-based ICT and IG policy agenda which, based on the workshop discussions will seek to address the following considerations:

  • Use of real names online is desirable but we need to be careful of what is posted online and the law should be balanced in dispensing justice related to speech online and in the physical world.
  • Two rights that are neglected online are freedom of assembly and freedom of association. These rights are threatened by surveillance, censorship and erosion of anonymity.
  • Need for greater accountability by all stakeholders in what is shared online and generally how one behaves online. As well as the need for govts to understand the issues from a multi disciplinary, multistakeholder approach.
  • One approach suggested was to study/understand human behavior first then consider online behavior
  • Some questions raised include what steps are being taken by Policymakers /regulators to understand the behaviors are taking place on line and How do regulators determine what policies need to be implemented to address online behavior? It was recommended to use different specialist to analyzed this issue (experts on behavior, sociologist, technologist in addition to lawyers).
  • Privacy is an issue integrally related to security: users’ concerns revolves around non-authorized access to their systems or devices, identity theft, hijacked of their accounts, access to their financial information and unauthorized used of payment instruments.
  • Keeping user information safe and available is top priority for Google. It is important to ensure strong security and privacy protection by providing easy-to-use security and privacy tools to help users to protect themselves against spam, phishing and malware and to avoid unauthorized access to their accounts and personal information.
  • Users’ behavior alters traditional legal institutions: for example the raising need for users to have content available on demand, when, where and in the format they want is affecting traditional models of copyright and there is an increasing need that those models start to became more resilient to users’new demands.
  • Consideration needs to be given for how ICTs have changed our respective behaviours e.g constant use of email, impact on interpersonal communication skills (face to face)
  • There is a large population of users that see the internet as a source of information, but are unaware of the risks associated with the use of the internet. There is a need for greater awareness and capacity building in the area of privacy, security and ethics.
  • Laws need to be in place address cybercrime.
  • Based on an emprical study (by ChildNet) of 800 youths on 6 different continents, the following findings were pertinent:
    • – Youth are more inclined to be open if they were anonymous, Anonymity provides security, protection and allows them to be more expressive.
    • – One drawback was that aspects of communication (body language ) is lost, found it difficult to identify emotions even with the use of emoticons
    • – Sometimes their own freedom of expression had to be curtailed out of concern for their reputation
    • – The type of communication and the openness of it depends on the target audience
Overall, the workshop participants agreed that there is a need to have diversity in this kind of discussion and get experiences of different groups eg disabled, policymakers and ordinary end users. It was anticipated that this approach will show the different perspectives of how we behave online and allow for the creation of more informed policies. In the final analysis, there was a call for collaboration in order for the research agenda to be expanded.
Categories
Internet Governance

Four tips on teaching internet governance in developing countries

Prof. Kleinwaechter is the founder and chair of the “European Summer School on Internet Governance” (EURO-SSIG). In a workshop focusing on teaching internet governance in developing countries held at the 7th IGF in Baku, he  presented 4 lessons on teaching internet governance:

  • Curriculum has to be built around the needs of the fellows. It makes no sense to define a fixed program. What you teach should be done in a bottom up way by first identifying the needs of the fellows.
  • Be dynamic. Internet and Internet governance is a very dynamic field.  You have to look at what are the big issues in the last year so that you can adjust to it.
  • Be practical.  Big theories are needed. Nothing is more practical than a good theory. You should have a certain theoretical foundation for what you are teaching or studying, but this has to be done in a way that you come rather quickly to the real, practical problems, either in policy or technology or in business.
  • Provide a space for interactive communication and interactive learning. Teaching internet governance has to be like a network; it has to be peer to peer, end to end, very interactive, and not preaching
Categories
Internet Governance

Digital inclusion and Public Libraries

The workshop on digital inclusion and public libraries was organised by International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), the Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) and the Internet Society (ISOC). Stuart Hamilton of the IFLA introduced the workshop agenda and emphasized that the workshop format would be dialogue based.  He stated that for many access to Internet is still lagging. The workshop was intended to discuss the notion of libraries as agents for development, and to raise awareness within the IGF’s multistakeholder community that libraries are the ideal partner to solve the problem of digital inclusion. A small percentage of people are connected to the internet yet it is a powerful tool for accessing essential services. For those without Internet, public libraries as trusted institutions can play an important role in the development process by making information accessible.

Siri Oswald from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stated that the foundation believes access to information changes lives. The Internet opens many opportunities for people. In the US, elections are currently underway to elect a new president. Public libraries play a vital role in deepening democracy as they are a source of information and are crucial for accessing important services. Public libraries can become key players in government strategies to provide universal Internet access, promote civic engagement and economic empowerment.

Olivier Creplin-Leblond of Internet Society (ISOC) outlined the key services of libraries in the digital age
– Counselling
– Community building
– Skills development
– Physical access
– Access to basic services such as printing, faxing etc

Ari Katz, director of Beyond Access a coalition of nine organisations . Beyond Access sees the world’s 230,000 public libraries as hubs for development. The coalition has two goals:
1. Promote public libraries as partners in achieving development goals
2. Empower libraries so that they serve the purpose of being development
partners

For public libraries to establish and meet user expectations there is a need to conduct a local needs survey. In remote and rural areas, public libraries can provide basic services such as job searches, agricultural and farming information. The Executive Director of Tech Aid from Ghana shared the success story of providing access to information in remote areas of Ghana through the use of a solar powered mobile library.

Some of the challenges discussed :
– User perceptions towards public libraries
– Government / policy makers attitude towards libraries; viewing libraries as archaic institutions
– Lack of capacity of librarians/users to use technology

Recommendations:
– Sensitise policy makers on role of libraries in the development agenda /process
– Collaboration of all stakeholders in ensuring that libraries play a major role in attaining development goals
– Create content relevant to the end user
– Build capacity of librarians / users to increase levels of technological skills
– Raise the profile of public libraries so that there is a change in attitude and perception among the users and the information professionals

In conclusion, the workshop debunked the perception that libraries are archaic institutions. Libraries are untapped resources and are still relevant in providing key services for development, promote civic engagement and bridge the digital divide. Librarians were also encouraged to embrace technological developments such as cloud computing and view them as opportunities for promoting access to information.

Categories
Internet Governance

Africa roars in Baku: The Africa Internet Governance Forum

On 9 November 2012, I participated in the workshop on the Africa Internet Governance Forum. The workshop was coordinated United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and African Union Commission (AUC). Nermine Sadani, chair of the workshop introduced the panellists. She stated that the meeting provided an opportunity to facilitate exchange of ‘good practice’ between sub-regional IGFs on coordinating sub-regional IGFs, especially taking into account the multi-stakeholder dimension of IGF. Each sub-regional IGF presented on what has worked for them in organising their 2012 meetings and put forward key recommendations from their own experiences.

Nnenna Nwakanma presented on what has worked for the West African IGF:

  • The countries where government is actively engaged, internet governance discussions have been active: Senegal, Nigeria, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Sierra-Leone.
  • A Coordinator to support internet governance national resource persons
  • A website with a dedicated webmaster to assist with information collation helps support country activities. Webmaster is fluent in English and French which are spoken in West Africa.
  • Strong national IGFs lead to a stronger regional IGF
  • Transparency and openness in management, regular reporting and regular consultation to keep all West African IGF stakeholders informed
  • A viable social media network (Twitter and Facebook) has increased remote participation and engagement of people who might otherwise not be involved in discussions

Alice Munyua the convenor of the East African IGF (EAIGF) gave background of the EAIGF and outlined what has worked for region.

  • Kenya was the first national IGF to be established in Africa and in the whole world in 2008 (5 national IGFs have been held from 2008 – 2012)
  • The first East African IGF was held in Kenya and the model has been replicated in other parts of Africa
  • The EAIGF has a bottom up multi-stakeholder model where participants engage in online discussions and a face to face meeting
  • The participants do not tie themselves to the global IGF agenda but define for themselves issues to discuss. For the 2012 EAIGF the main focus was on the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12)

Ms Munyua also urged the participants to read the Internet Society (ISOC) report on internet governance in Kenya which was written by David Souter and Monica Kerretts – Makau for a deeper understanding of the EAIGF model.

I presented on the recommendations from a pre-event workshop held at the Africa IGF in Cairo on 2 October 2012. The workshop focused on World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) and International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) and addressed the following questions:

What do the WCIT, and proposed revisions to the ITRs mean for African internet governance stakeholders?

How are African member states involved? What are they proposing? Are they consulting stakeholders in their countries? How can non-governmental stakeholders participate?

In response to the questionon how civil society should respond to the ITR review and WCIT, participants made the following recommendations:

  • African governments should be urged to include civil society stakeholders in their delegations to the WCIT.
  • African governments should convene consultations nationally with other stakeholders before the WCIT and get their input into respective government positions on the ITRs.
  • African governments should convene report-back sessions early in 2013 to feedback on what happened at the WCIT.
  • Africans participating in the WCIT should consult as a region and develop strategies based on regional interests during the negotiation process; and civil society and business actors from Africa should be part of those consultations.

The workshop was well attended and had lively interventions from the participants who urged more collaboration and synergy among the regional IGFs so that Africa can claim its space in the Internet Governance discussions. Ms. Sadani concluded the workshop by noting that Africa IGF is not an event but a process hence the need to work together and share experiences.

Categories
Internet Governance

The youth at the IGF 2012 – contending perspectives

As the Baku Expo Center closesits doors following the last IGF-related event, it is now a good time to reflect on some of the aspects that were addressed between 6-9 November in Baku and the various attempts at making the IGF not only a platform for discussion, but also for cooperation and solution-building processes. In my opinion, several main topics took priority on the agenda: cybersecurity, human rights, intellectual property rights, and privacy, to which many workshops were dedicated throughout the 4-day long forum. To a large extent, these were sessions that called for enhanced dialogue and cooperation, but only a few of them employed an innovative format based on building a coalition or network bringing together very active people able to commit to additional capacity building, in particular in emerging economies. 

I recall one exciting session dealing with the ways in which the vulnerable groups across the world can be helped to reap off the benefits of the information society, based on a comprehensive approach to assess the needs of local communities and interaction with public authorities and public institutions, to extend and adjust the available local resources and make them sustainable. The discussion also highlighted the limited extent to which collaborative solutions and partnership are communicated to the vulnerable themselves, which makes the awareness raising campaigns both a means of spreading information and a concerted effort to  sharing best practices. Input was also given to the youth as a target group in a vulneable situation, and to the new ethos of an ‘engaged citizen’, revived in the example of the Arab Spring mass demonstrations, or the Occupy Wall Street  and Indignados movement. One feature that kept being being emphasized in the IGF meeting was the need to build more bridges and to run more effective programs with trusted institutions, non-governmental organizations and companies. 

As more and more people go online (more than 2 billion currently), we should be highly motivated to think ‘outside the box’ and outside of conventional frameworks to decrease the inequalities that our contemporary information society portrays. That also implies using evolving definitions for disadvantaged groups, which might reflect both those unable to benefit from the internet expansion, and those unable to participate on an equal footing in its governance. Right now, the youth seems to exhibit multiple vulnerabilities that can be spotted in the different entry points. As Markus Kummer put it, on the internet, the rules for the ‘digitally native’ are still made by the ‘digital immigrants’, and that might need to change very soon. At the IGF 2012 the youth presence was felt in the dynamic coalitions and networks of interest – with the involvement of initiatives such as the ISOC Ambassorship to the IGF- , but more remains to be done in the sphere of high-level politics. 

Categories
Internet Governance

Youth Participation Very Encouraging

I got the fortuitous privilege of being invited as a panelist by the DotAsia organisation to workshop 119- Defining the successful factors of different models for youth participation in Internet Governance. This workshop lived up to its name and was tremendously engaging.

Strictly speaking my current age lies outside the ambit of young people but comfortably within the definition of youth (depending on where you come from). Nonetheless, I took this opportunity to expatiate about the Internet Society Next Generation Leaders programme that seeks to prop up Internet leaders in the technical, policy and capacity building realms.

I shared the components and expectations of the Leadership programme; The fellowship to the IETF, the IGF ambassadorship, the OECD technology forum fellowship and the sponsorship to the World Bank Infodev. I stated that the programme is mainly targeted to working professionals within the age bracket of 20-40 years and that it may be unsuited for adolescent or post adolescent teens who are enthusiastic in attending an IGF.

Different panelists shared their perspectives on the successes so far of touting youth participation. Still a lot needs to be done especially in providing meaningful contribution by young people in the IGF process. This is really an arduous task as most young people may not have a predisposition to policy aspects of Internet Governance. Indeed one speaker during the concluding main session on taking stock and the way forward commented that the IGF still “suffers from youth showcasing”. This could probably be true as there do exist workshops that are crafted to target young people while at the same time these workshops seem to isolate them from the more coarser issues being addressed at the heart of the forum. I personally don’t imagine sufficient turnout by young people in revelling into challenging topics like new gTLDs however, more enlightenment and engagement on these issues by the youth, may actually bring a different perspective in such debates.

Regardless, panelists did see the need to make policy discussions more palatable to a younger audience and the ChildNet IGF project, the ISOC ambassadorship and the DotAsia sponsorship will go a long mile in making this possible

Categories
Internet Governance

Do you remember we met yesterday :)

Yep, the question is do you remember we met yesterday?

Human relationships can be quite complicated when it comes to getting people very close. This IGF Ambassaodrship has been quite something on its own. I still remmeber i got in on Sunday evening and met a few people who i never met before but exchanged a few emails with. Time and again at this point am at the Baku Airport having a thought of how this week and i can but just say it flew by so fast and it was very intense. I am at this point even wondering that it made sense to just leave and being able to say goodbye to a few.

Sometimes you wonder how relationships are really complicated but yet quite easy if you want things to happen. One can only judge his/her own approach in this whole thing. This five days or should i say few evenings as amabassadors we’ve mingled woth many people, networked and achieved what many would eventually take years to sit down and achieve across the life. To Nabil our thoughtful friend who despite being amazed with so many celebritities of the internet world has come to terms with them and am sure will have a framed edition of picture him and vint with his ortograhed card. Nabil my friend A+ for you. We’ve been able to network and become quite close friends although people you would note that we do not always accept people readily into our courtyard. But for me this year has been someting exceptional. Am not sure that i will be ever returning ambassador again but believe me with all and everything. It is a wonderful programme to really go for.

And please if anyone else is seriously reading this blog please ensure you really make the most of this programme if you apply and get it. You are literally transfered into a complete world. But again it depends what you want to achieve.

IGF is a great platform because you would see all the pioneers of internet and also those working to achieve the great things that the internet can bring to you.  It is also fun and i have to admit the staff from ISOC are also great people as well and Toral and Neil have been great in this adventure and guys keep the spirit it can only improve. Nothing is perfect but perfection is achieved over time.

I take this opporunity to share my feelings with all in how warm and enjoyable the whole experience in Azerbaijan has been and not the less memorable in all terms and those of you who would recognise the discussion… no we did not have “Boom Boom” 🙂  but as someone i met very shortly said TMI “Too much information” is sometimes a bit too much. I will keep it short then :  Love all of you and thanks again for this great opportunity.

PAUL, NABIL, ROXANA & ULCHAR – Here’s to the best last moments. 🙂 Dedicated to all.

Inshallah we shall meet again.

Kris

Categories
Internet Governance

Social sector in IGF

Social Sector in IGF:

Mr. Poncelet Ilejeli has give a vision of the role of communities and people to reach goals for solve several troubles that are affecting them, using Internet as a tool.

Ownership has to come from communities and the community have to be organized an engaged to themselves to reach goals related to their needs.

Categories
Internet Governance

The Emerging Language of Internet Diplomacy

Quote of IGF 2012: “By analyzing what is said, you can discover what is unsaid” – Jovan Kurbalija, Director, DiploFoundation

How did the use of the most important Internet governance concepts  evolve in the IGF’s language from the first IGF in 2006 to the sixth meeting in Nairobi in 2011? What word was most frequently at the IGF meetings to date? Who has been more talkative: men or women? Which countries were the most talkative? What does multistakeholderism look like through the IGF’s language?

The answers to these and many other questions were discussed during the session on The Emerging Language of Internet Diplomacy. This research project was made possible by verbatim reporting from the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which provides a written record of discussions at the meetings from 2006 to 2011. It is a unique data reservoir for research on Internet diplomacy, linguistics, and cognitive science. The research team presented the first results of the language used at on November 9 at the 2012 IGF in Baku.

graph depicting word frequencygraph depicting number of words contributed by gender

See more on this highly engaging topic at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/IGFLanguage

Follow me on Twitter: @thackshaw

and on Google+ : http://plus.ly/tracy