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

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 OPENNESS. To go to other open-ended responses, click on the appropriate category below:


Open-ended response number four


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

Private organizations can limit what is on their Intranets; they own the connections since they built it and offer the service. Governments, because they are directed more by emotion than anything else should be completely banned.

Keep the multi-stakeholder processes open and strongly supported as an international public policy.

Possibility of domination and restriction to content based on government form/leadership and/or religion/faith-based values.

Countries’ regimes.

Freedom of expression; especially regarding political issues.

Authoritative governments might not give up the perceived control they have on the Internet.

I'm not sure it is the role of the Internet to take on the age-old social issue of freedom of speech. We have a UN Bill of Rights, yet countries continue to do what they want. If we consider the Bill of Rights as a mission statement that can be used to measure adherence or not, that is fine, but realistically it does not "ensure" anything. But civil rights groups are already measuring the amount of freedom of speech.

Governments not applying the multi-stakeholder principle in introducing new content regulation rules.

Governments increasingly trying to control and censor content.

Openness to all but local control of content. Concerned about pornography.

Concerns are regulations by government and international conventions.

Control over content.

Any regulations should be the line of action permanent preservation of the freedom of expression and the right individuals.

The extent to which Internet contents can be controlled.

Promotion of FOSS [Free and Open Source Software]. Involvement of people in policy making for openness.

Differing cultures and definitions in a space that is quickly becoming heterogeneous. A homogeneous solution cannot be applied to a complex space.

Different countries have different rules and cultures, and should respect the culture of others as much as they protect their own.

The issue here is to reach a balance among conflicted issues - pedophiles, crimes against women, etc., deserve a global police to help countries to approval local specific laws. Other issues shall never be controlled, but this is a matter of country policies - global policy shall define the framework.

One word: Censorship!

Keep ANY culture and nation free to decide what they need and want from their access to Internet. I meant the PEOPLE of any nation not the State or Government.
Proprietization of standards; lack of interoperability of standards.

Attempts by increasing number of countries to limit Internet/access.

It's a cultural thing. The people of a certain area, group, nation, can determine their own rules for what content is acceptable to that community. But there is no global standard. What is obscene for one is good for another. This cannot at all be legislated. Some communities are more open than others. We also cannot legislate openness in places where they don't have, use or necessarily want it.

I do believe on the freedom of expression, but where someone's freedom of expression is ending, my freedom as a viewer and user starts too. So, I believe a balance to fulfill both parties would be the goal.

The criminals use the openness of Internet to commit crimes.

Agreement about what can be on the Web and what cannot be. Freedom of speech must be a primary concern, but without doing harm to other people.

Intellectual property rights and the militant manners from its supporters.

Openness can co-exist with ban of Nazi sites and child pornography.

Freedom of expression should only be allowed to the extent that it does not infringe others. The West's perception of freedom of expression should not be imposed on the rest of the world. It is freedom of abuse not freedom of expression.

That decisions regarding Internet will not adequately involve citizens at all stages.
My concern is undercover pressure of commercial interests to prevent dissemination of information they feel opposed to them.

Self-regulation is the best policy, but if someone does not accept and takes undue advantage then the strict policy to control the contents should be there.

Any kind of censorship to web content may be used with political and business objectives. Control should not be used.

As it appears, it would take a long time to reach a global agreement on this issue.
My concern is too much control.

As far as possible Internet will be Internet if it has openness. However the level of openness is the critical issue that needs to fixed by the concerned.

Misuse; spam mustn’t undermine openness.

Maintaining freedom of expression as free as possible from both state and ISP control.

Ensure human rights compliance without censorship over contents.


No control should be applied.

Fragmentation, NAT [network address translation, modifying network address in a datagram packet for the purpose of remapping a given address space], walled gardens, limits of aging infrastructure, lack of trust in services.

Censorship and restrictions on content.

Need to ensure that there is a global agreement on the principle of openness and state responsibility to enforce it.

Openness can have adverse effects because of the corollary effacement of other cultures.

Internet neutrality, content filtering, privacy issues, GeoIP [geolocation], DRM [digital rights management, open standards x proprietary standards.

Policies should be aimed at empowering users.

Government and business censorship.

Only control if information is abusive, otherwise no control at all, otherwise no diversity.

That people try so hard to gain what they want the Internet to be that it stays being a flatiron for innovation.

Spam; overload with information; quality and credibility of information.

Two concerns: 1- Content control-free. 2- National policies and regulations.

Freedom of expression.

L'atteinte aux libertés individuelles. L'incapacité de lutter contre la cybercriminalité.
La liberte d'expression et la demoncratie peuvent etre limitees.

1- L'absence de la cooperation entre les nations d'une part et entre les nations et les fournisseurs d'acces Internet d'autre part; 2- Le developpement des egoismes a cause des gains enormes d'argent.

RAS [remote access services].

Aucen pays ne devait controler le contenu d'Internet poer permettre en access libse a tour.

Do not know.

Existence de contenus pas conseilles aux mimeurs.

C'est à la responsabilité et au sens critique de chacun que doit être livré les contenus disponibles sur Internet. On demande pas à l'internaute de tout prendre, lui seul doit décider de ce qui est bon ou pas bon pour lui. serait-ce une utopie ?

Si ouverture signifie accessibilite pour tous (par un financememt des actuers principaux) il nya pas a mon sens de gros risque si accessibilite signifie ce quon voit aujourd hui sans veritable controle des contenus (avec ce risque de perversion que l on commemce tous a regretter) alors le risque est grand les valeurs morales foutent le camp.

My concern is its use by criminals.

Concern is WHO is editing the content.

A project of the Elon University School of Communications
All rights reserved. Contact us at