Visionaries Multimedia

Internet Governance Policy Survey - November 2007

This Web page contains some of the qualitative written elaborations  gathered among the data in a survey of IGF participants that was fielded to measure attitudes about current and likely Internet governance policy initiatives. Responses were gathered from 206 IGF attendees, roughly 15 percent of Forum participants, representing 60 countries. The Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Nov. 12-15, 2007, was the second of five annual global events that attract stakeholders who come together to discuss issues tied to the future of information and communications technologies.  Respondents were asked to provide written elaborations about their concerns for the future of the Internet in open-ended response boxes on the survey; some chose not to reply to every question asked, so you will not find 206 responses to each question. The researchers express their thanks to survey respondents, some of whom spent up to an hour carefully considering and providing their input for this survey. The written responses were sometimes composed in a mix of languages and some were written with grammatical or syntax errors but had a discernible meaning; these have been edited to bring clarity for use on this site. Please address any inquiries about the data to predictions@elon.edu.

To return to the IGF Survey Statistics page, click here.

To return to the first IGF Rio Survey page, click here.

This page contains responses to the question on concerns about the future of DIVERSITY. To go to other open-ended responses, click on the appropriate category below:
OPENNESS
SECURITY
PUBLIC POLICY
EMERGING CONCERNS
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
CRITICAL INTERNET RESOURCES

ACCESS
REASON TO ATTEND IGF


THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL INTERNET POLICY
Open-ended response number three

REQUEST MADE OF RESPONDENTS:

List the most important future concern(s) you have about DIVERSITY and Internet governance.

Keeping government out of any operations concerning the Internet will ensure openness, diversity and accuracy. There is no such thing as "neutral, equitable” availability. What is "equitable" to you is not equitable to me.

If people find it useful, and can use it in their language and their script, they will create content. Quality of content cannot be legislated - as in all creative endeavours, quality is in the consumption. If it's good, it will rise to the top.

Just having Internet will not wipe out cultures. I think a show of appreciation for the positive effects of local culture would go a long way to helping the local people use the Internet to preserve the positive aspects of their culture.

More ability to use non-Roman characters in domain names, etc.

Misunderstanding by civil society and governments of the effectiveness of the existing IETF standards process.

Diversity is a non-issue, if there is a demand for the content, there will be providers for it. Content providers will continue to target their intended audience with the appropriate language, etc.

If there is true access, including education and connectivity, diversity will be developed by itself. We must achieve access first.

Increased diversity is more an issue for Microsoft and other software vendors, than the Internet.

All require combined efforts at all levels from all stakeholders - preservation of digital records - commoditization of resources.

I think freedom of speech is the most important factor that may guarantee the diversity of cultures in web.

Diversity is strongly related to access. If few people in a population have access to the Internet, it is normal to see this population under-represented on the Internet. But it is not a problem to be submerged in the flow, it's just an issue of representativeness.

The diversity on the Internet must be assured by the users themselves, as is the case aujourd'ui. The global public policy, public authorities, countries should assist communities to develop local content that is not commercially viable. Nothing prevents subsidizing the development of these contents. These initiatives are even encouraged.

1- [One concern is that] all of humanity will lose the cultures and languages of people who are marginalized in many other fields; 2 – [Another concern is] that English will crush the other languages and cultures of thought on the Internet and make it a disservice to this meme English if others disappear.

Each culture should be found on the Internet.

Internet must represent fairly in diversity of cultures and languages without exception and without political intervention.

It is not progressing as fast as it should have been.

Internationalized Domain Names.

Censorship.

My concern is that one day there would be a diverse content available in all possibly existing languages. However the Uniformity and translation would be the major issue! To accomplish diversity, a lot of computational linguistics research needs to be done.

Concerns are culture and access to classified information.

It's hard because the world is multicultural. But I think some issues can be dealt with locally.

Increasing the amount of content in all languages.

An accessible, multilingual Internet.

Many countries with languages using non-ASCII scripts do not have the human and financial resources to solve this problem - so diversity is hindered if no international public concern helps towards UNICODE-based solutions. (China, Japan, Korea, Thailand do have the resources, but many others don't).

1) Child protection against pedophiles. 2) IDNs - internationalized domain names - keep Internet stability as well as all script at DNS. 3) Any religious fanaticism.
The effort to let the disabled to use Internet is still very little.

My concerns are equal access; prices; educating people.

Walled gardens that will keep users out of an open Internet.

Keep the Internet neutral in relation to contents and content providers.

I don't think diversity is a big problem.

Language: computing applications need to be developed for most languages to facilitate; local communities must be given access and training to develop local content.

That multilingual content may actually fragmentize and disconnect users who use different languages. Try typing a URL in Cyrillic or Chinese.

Bottom-up, computer literacy.

This area requires action on the local and regional levels, and also on the global (but with less weight globally).

Guarantee integration among cultures/knowledge systems.

Promotion of local content is the issue in governance.

Potential fragmentation of the Internet; use of language as a tool to limit access to information; security threats posed by strings.

The value of local culture on the Internet.

Multilingualism. Local content development/capacity-building.

Ensuring diversity means ensuring access.

Ensuring diversity even within a single country is represented.

To ensure that there is complete openness in the Internet, ensuring that there are no linguistic, cultural or political barriers.

Keep and improve the multistakeholder policy.

Inclusion of less-developed nations and developing communities within developed countries AND inclusion/generation of related resources/content.

Languages.

Promotion of local content and multilingualism.

Language and cultural preservation.

Respect for the value of multiculturalism.

Intellectual-property rights; concerns over access for disabled people due to over-reliance on video and graphics-rich content.

Preserve the bottom-up approach regarding content: best guarantee for preserving content.

Yes, the Internet should strive to reflect further the diversity of local cultures and communities.

Equal access to Internet, promotion of regional and local culture.

Needs to be open and interoperable to promote free flow of information.

My concern is governmental domination.

If there is access and knowledge about sharing the information, the diversity will automatically follow.

My concern is that diversity gets confused with political control of critical resources.
Language barriers.

I like your question about diminishment of culture. It is a question of colonialism and assimilation.

1- Local languages; 2- Content type.

Authenticity of information.

Lack of controls.

Flow and content.

Access for the disabled.

Both can be their part.

The opportunity for each language in the world to be present on the Internet. The management unilaterally.

That technique allows the diversity of equitable way.

Pouncer see metilligence has to be a priority.

Indifference of some governments on the issue.

The disappearance of languages countries quin have failed to develop languages specials to promote their cultural diversity if it is not guaranteed minimalement by polotiques global public can be in danger on governance. It is essential that the players find common ground and minimum agreement to ensure cultural and linguistic diversity.

English hegemony.

It is possible for people to use dependent accessibility of the Internet.
A project of the Elon University School of Communications
All rights reserved. Contact us at predictions@elon.edu