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 request for ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. To go to other open-ended responses, click on the appropriate category below:
DIVERSITY
OPENNESS
SECURITY
PUBLIC POLICY
EMERGING CONCERNS
CRITICAL INTERNET RESOURCES

ACCESS
REASON FOR ATTENDING IGF


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

REQUEST MADE OF RESPONDENTS:

Was there anything that we did not ask you about Internet governance that you would like to share with us?

The power of global search engines and the necessity to have them also under issues of public policy. A charter of what a global search engine should do/should be inspired from (principles).

The question of lawful interception is emerging in a lot of countries, and it will mean a disadvantage regarding the freedom of speech.

Technical and human resources, and financial, assistance, to enable non-ASCII script languages, UNICODE based (again: WSIS Geneva, Principle 1).

We should administrate the Internet, not govern the Internet. Separate politics from policies.

Whether national IGF forums would be one way of ensuring multi-stakeholder participation.

We are near a crisis point; it will be interesting to see if there IS anything like we have in five years.

The basic question: "Do you think there are public policy issues related to the Internet, and those will require global collaboration," and the answer is YES. Leaving it all to market dynamics doesn't always work for those where the market is not sustainable. Massive demand sure brings the costs down, but it cannot be reached with extremely high prices as compared to GDP/head.

I think I said everything.

Capacity-building issues.

No.

It seems this organization is oriented toward removing ICANN as "owner" of Internet governance. I think improving ICANN governance would be a much more productive approach than giving governance away to a political organization. Where does ICANN fail to measure up?

No.

Yes. Software monopoly x digital inclusion. Antitrust measures should be more effective against unfair concurrence on software market to grant access to the Internet and technology. Free software, open-source software and open standards should be adopted as a way to solve this problem as well.

What the key performance indicators (KPI) or performance metrics for the global IG process should be.

How can thematic concerns be more effectively integrated in the Internet governance debate?

Internet is the network of networks, there should be no boundaries globally, and all the countries should come ahead jointly in controlling spam, pornography and putting lot of emphasis on security.

The cost of the end-user hardware!

No.

Respect for cultural diversity and the taking into account of specific national culture in the architecture of the security system of the Internet. It is useful to consider what is forbidden in a country offline, what is prohibited online. This may solve a lot of problem in terms of human rights.

This survey is very disappointing. No look at the current model of Internet development and deployment, no consideration of the threats posed by governmental controls, very one-sided.

No.

Free software; open standards.

Localization and support to local languages, including the domain-name system.

ICANN status.

No.

The role of non-governmental organizations in the promotion of Internet.

There should be equitable policy around Internet governance that builds up justice and equity.

No.

No.

The implications from the deployment of Information Providers User Groups in developing countries.

Cross-border cybercrimes and the legislative concerns, keeping in mind the cultural differences.

Capacity-building/information literacy.

No.

What should be the form of international agreements on Internet governance and how the diverse stakeholders can be brought into the agreement process.

Not really but at least the whole world should own it and be part of it to make it more efficient and more productive to all citizens of the world.

The balance of security and freedom of speech and also if the freedom of speech provokes cultural/religious and other entities.

Development.

Role of civil society.

The importance of awareness building, capacity building and education - would put it among the top priorities.

No.

Nothing.

Civil society role.

The IGF will, at some point, not be considered sufficient to address governance issue. When? Your guess is as good as mine.

No.

I do not think so.

No, but some of your questions set up false opposites.

In general it is a fairly complete questionnaire and objective.

The impact of governance or no governance to the less developed/connected parts of the world.

No!

No :-)

The IGF must develop the capacity to produce non-binding recommendations, in accordance with its mandate.

No.

No - very comprehensive.

No.

No.

The IGF must develop the capacity to produce non-binding recommendations, in accordance with its mandate.

No.

No.

No, thanks.

What serious themes!

The regulation has to be done by volunteers!

No.

Criminalize the sharing of files (file sharing).

More resources, and information on the Internet property.

We should go into programming and security of software and networks? How to deal with these technologies.

No.

No.

No.

The importance of establishing behavioral patterns terms cryptographic systems, countries that have a strong control and use other terms with freedom of internal procedures. It is important to establish a rule that would make clear that what limits are going to appeal.

No I think it is a good investigation.

Cyber security and legal issues offshore.

The deadline for a global agreement on democratic governance of the Internet! Now!

Yes, you forget: the protection of enfantsm and combating pornography, and prostitution and retaining cultural diversity.

Non.

Internet will be a global resource accessible manner equitable to all countries. The developing countries should not pay more for the connectivity to this network. [Explore] why should the developed countries dictate a course of action for Internet true to Western culture; why public policies must also take into consideration the cultural particularity of some countries.

Non-content writing and interactive.

Routing areas.

Non.

Non.

Non.

Capacity of all countries had to create the innovation on the Internet and Attend the standardization of ICT in understanding the stakes.

Access to information should be free, but the content must be monitored. Moreover, the Americans are the biggest spammers of the world. It is time to control companies that are spam with excess. Spam is punishable in France, which does not seem to be the case in USA. Why?

A project of the Elon University School of Communications
All rights reserved. Contact us at predictions@elon.edu