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

ACCESS
DIVERSITY
OPENNESS
SECURITY
REASON TO ATTEND IGF


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

REQUEST MADE OF RESPONDENTS:

What is the ONE most immediate PUBLIC POLICY issue facing the Internet today?

Censorship.

Financing to bridge the digital divide internationally and within countries with large national disparities.

Standardization for accessibility that then translates to templates and training and inclusion in standard Internet programming practices.

Child pornography and individual identity.

Child Protection and Safety Online, because they are the future of Internet and World.

No mechanism has been made to govern the Internet multilaterally.

Access.

Critical Internet resources.

Signing the root with Domain Name System Security Extensions.

The future of ICANN in relation to the Domain Name System and addresses.

The switch from IPv4 TO IPv6.

Child pornography.

Multilingualism and internationalized domain names.

Censorship and freedom.

Equitable access and ability to use.

Self-regulation.

Internet Bill of Rights.

Access.

Improve low cost.

Net neutrality.

Who controls it?

Providing affordable access to everyone in different countries, especially where lower gross domestic product per head exists, where Internet is most needed for development, and where it is also least affordable.

Access.

Maintaining net neutrality.

Digital divide.

Protection of privacy (log, profiling).

Last-mile connectivity priority for developing countries.

Censorship.

Net neutrality.

Reducing digital divide.

The governance type and how to organize users to help elaborating and monitoring policies related to it.

SPAM.

Standards and openness.

Censorship and freedom of expression.

Threats to end-to-end model.

Make the Internet cheaper.

Security.

Access to the marginalised communities.

Internationalized domain names on ccTLDS.

Legislating for cross-border issues/crimes.

Ensure its openness.

National censorship.

Access.

Security.

Transborder co-operation of existing police forces so they can deal with offenders from outside their country.

Access.

Security.

An agreement that Internet governance is not concerned with regulating the content transmitted over the Internet.

Promotion of universal access.

Balance the Governments’ influence without jeopardizing the multistakeholder system.

Access.

Security and contents.

Child pornography.

Public access for everyone.

Monopoly from one country (USA).

Security.

Freedom of expression.

Security.

Child pornography and hate-crimes legislation.

There are many concerns. Child pornography is at the top, as well as hate websites.

Freedom of expression and the free flow of information, plus users' privacy rights.
Equitable allocation of IP addresses.

The proprietization of standards and content.

Absence of agreement on public/global vs. national policies supporting the Internet.
Terrorism.

Internet neutrality.

Access for next several billion users.

More security, respecting privacy.

Access.

Security.

Technology advocacy.

There is not ONE.

Universal access to resources.

Security.

Access; security.

Making it safer for children and young people.

Limited natural resources.

We need a way to enforce security measures to attenuate harmful content facilitated by those areas and countries that maliciously ignore the issues they are causing.

Equity of access and fair use.

Number-one is openness.

Security.

Removal of ICANN as management. This seems to me a very bad idea. It would put Internet governance into the hands of America haters.

IPv4 exhaustion.

Not sure.

Intellectual-property rights reform to support peer production.

A global response to Internet security threats including cyberterrorism, cybercrime and spam.

Security and protection of privacy.

Privacy.

How to achieve consistent idiosyncrasies of lso countries with attempts to achieve global politics. What is legal or illegal in one country may not be in another, but more importantly, what the local culture considers obscene, inappropriate or not in a country may not be so in another.

Digital inclusion.

Links broadband publishes and places of public access.

Public policy will always be a step behind.

Cybercrime.

Privacy/Permission.

That the big network operators use it for their own benefit, closing or closed spaces to protect their commercial benefits (eg AT&T and the agreement with iPhone).

Open access on Internet.

Access for all citizens.

Problems with our rights and international politics.

Network neutrality.

Security.

Scientific information on health. Understanding on the interactivity of information on the Internet.

Accessibility.

Security.

Neutrality.

Neutrality.

"Law enforcement" against "privacy."

Net neutrality

If you have less politics.

Cybercrimes.

Universal access.

Well with good and bad.

Equitable access and neutrality.

Internationalization, language diversity.

Access.

The security of States.

The inspection by one country of critical resources.

The digital divide.

The absence of dialogue and cooperation inter-nation.

The regulation.

Promonvoir in question multilateral impluquant tortes the entotis is necessary.

Development of access and cyberdelinguande.

Harmonization of laws between countries.

Dangers for children.

Ensuring a balance between freedom and security.

Access and authenticity of the information available on the net.

Non-mastery of technology.

Transparency and Access.

Protection of Personal Data.

Security because the HTTP protocol is not reliable to provide security exchanges and consultation.
A project of the Elon University School of Communications
All rights reserved. Contact us at predictions@elon.edu