The Evolution of Internet is more than what could be described, from the small room to the global revolution internet today is the process of Human adoption and innovation. It dynamic and growing where technology is evolving every second adapting the uses and need.
The number of internet users has increased tenfold from 1999 to 2013.
The first billion was reached in 2005. The second billion in 2010. The third billion in 2014.
The chart and table below show the number of global internet users per year since 1993
Internet Governance: Internet Governance(IG) is the overall process of managing and establishing an effective connection in between the various aspect of management and operation among various elements of internet ecosystems in the most effective and efficient way.
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a dynamic approach which gives opportunities to multi-stakeholders in overcoming the various aspects of net neutrality and the digital divide. It also helps in further accessing to establish a uniform mechanism addressing the needs of all the stakeholders from developed countries to developing and underdeveloped countries. Especially the vacuum between the developed and developing /underdeveloped countries needs a certain platform which would address their problems and issues. It would further help in highlighting the corporate or social responsibility prioritizing the rights of information access by completely abolishing discrimination. I strongly believe that IGF is an effective tool which needs to be reviewed as a weapon against irregularities and externalities where the developed nation should endorse it for future growth and prospects.
Internet Governance Forum (IGF):
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an open platform to discuss the internet governance process and issues relating to various practice and development around the globe. It further forwards its obligations for the intergovernmental process as mandated by the WSIS. From the past few years, the IGF has been lobbied as a platform of multistakeholder concept where the participation and contribution from the developing economies have increased tremendously which needs to grow at a steady pace. The major hurdle I see in overall IGF process are
1. How to Increase Participation
2. Expansion of regional IGF
3. Internet politics and leadership
4. Capacity building and policy making
5. Survey and research
6. Standardization
7. Communication
Advantages of IGF
- A board platform to address issues and problems
- A standard policy and mechanism to address the problems of world over
- Control over digital divide and net neutrality
- No bias system
- Equal opportunity of business and exposure
- Bilateral relationship
- Effectiveness in growth and monitoring of internet
- Issue like pornography, cyber crimes, hacking and exploitation can be easily overcome
- Better security policies
Disadvantages of IGF
- Hard to control and monitor due to number of countries
- Hard for developing and underdeveloped to keep up with developed countries in terms of technology and manpower
- Standard policies mean competition which would be hard for underdeveloped and developing countries
IGF MandateAccording to Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda:
72. We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process, to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The mandate of the Forum is to:
- Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;
- Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body;
- Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview;
- Facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities;
- Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world;
- Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries;
- Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;
- Contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;
- Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes;
- Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources;
- Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;
- Publish its proceedings
HISTORY
The first phase of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in Geneva in December 2003, failed to agree on the future of Internet governance, but did agree to continue the dialogue and requested the United Nations Secretary-General to establish a multi-stakeholder Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).
Following a series of open consultations in 2004 and 2005 and after reaching a clear consensus among its members the WGIG proposed the creation of the IGF as one of four proposals made in its final report. Paragraph 40 of the WGIG report stated:
"The WGIG identified a vacuum within the context of existing structures, since there is no global multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. It came to the conclusion that there would be merit in creating such a space for dialogue among all stakeholders. This space could address these issues, as well as emerging issues, that are cross-cutting and multidimensional and that either affect more than one institution, are not dealt with by any institution or are not addressed in a coordinated manner”.
The WGIG report was one of the inputs to the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society held in Tunis in 2005.
The idea of the Forum was also proposed by Argentina, as stated in its proposal made during the last Prepcom 3 in Tunis:
"In order to strengthen the global multistakeholder interaction and cooperation on public policy issues and developmental aspects relating to Internet governance we propose a forum. This forum should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions but should build on the existing structures on Internet governance, should contribute to the sustainability, stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues that are not otherwise being adequately addressed excluding any involvement in the day to day operation of the Internet. It should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues and make known its findings, to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to determine the need for its continuation.”
The second phase of WSIS, held in Tunis in November 2005, formally called for the creation of the IGF and set out its mandate. Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda called on the UN Secretary-General to convene a meeting with regards to the new multi-stakeholder forum to be known as the IGF.
The Tunis WSIS meeting did not reach an agreement on any of the other WGIG proposals that generally focused on new oversight functions for the Internet that would reduce or eliminate the special role that the United States plays with respect to Internet governance through its contractual oversight of ICANN. The US Government's position during the lead-up to the Tunis WSIS meeting was flexible on the principle of global involvement, very strong on the principle of multi-stakeholder participation, but inflexible on the need for US control to remain for the foreseeable future in order to ensure the "security and stability of the Internet".
2005 mandateThe mandate for the IGF is contained in the 2005 WSIS Tunis Agenda. The IGF was mandated to be principally a discussion forum for facilitating dialogue between the Forum's participants. The IGF may "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations," but does not have any direct decision-making authority. In this mandate, different stakeholders are encouraged to strengthen engagement, particularly those from developing countries. In paragraph 72(h), the mandate focused on capacity-building for developing countries and the drawing out of local resources. This particular effort, for instance, has been reinforced through Diplo Foundation’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) that allowed participants from different regions to benefit from valuable resources with the help of regional experts in Internet governance.
Formation of the IGF
The United Nations published its endorsement of a five-year mandate for the IGF in April 2006.
There were two rounds of consultations with regards to the convening of the first IGF:
16 – 17 of February 2006 – The first round of consultations was held in Geneva. The transcripts of the two-day consultations are available in the IGF site.
19 May 2006 – The second round of consultations was open to all stakeholders and was coordinated for the preparations of the inaugural IGF meeting. The meeting chairman was Nitin Desai who is the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Adviser for Internet Governance.
The convening of the IGF was announced on 18 July 2006, with the inaugural meeting of the Forum to be held in Athens, Greece from 30 October to 2 November 2006.
Internet Governance Forum
|
Location
|
2016 IGF
|
Guadalajara, Mexico
|
|
|
João Pessoa,
Brazil
|
|
|
Istanbul, Turkey
|
|
|
Bali, Indonesia
|
|
|
Baku, Azerbaijan
|
|
|
Nairobi, Kenya
|
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
|
|
|
Sharm El Sheikh,
Egypt
|
|
|
Hyderabad, India
|
|
|
Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
|
|
|
Athens, Greece
|
