The Global Internet Governance Forum and its host countries: do they pass the test?

Associated to the new challenges of negotiation between different actors to aim towards sustainability and growth of the Internet, the United Nations formally announced in 2006 the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Since then, under an unusual horizontal dialogue scheme which aims to include on equal terms governments, private sector, civil society and academia, the IGF has been held annually in eight different locations in the world. Next week (2-5 September) the Ninth edition of IGF will take place in Istanbul, the largest city in Turkey and one with the largest population in Europe.

Recently, Yaman Akdeniz and Kerem Altiparmak, Istanbul residents, experts in telecommunications and Internet defenders activists announced their decision to boycott the IGF in Turkey, given the political decisions that have pointed in this country, since last year, to restricting content on social networks, what they consider a clear act of censorship. One way to boycott has been the express decision not to join the IGF, for whose organization is responsible the highest authority of Information and Technology in Turkey. That is, the Forum seems to have absent this time two local civil society spokesmen with a profile that had been promising to raise the discussion of the role of governments on the issue of Internet governance. This has made ​​us think about the IGF and the contexts in which it has been developing for nearly a decade.

If we look at previous sites of the IGF, we can summarize a historical display of humanity expressed in each of the contexts of the cities, which gives the multicultural hue that bet on the issue of Internet governance. Athens (Greece, 2006), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil, 2007), Hyderabad (India, 2008), Sharn El Sheikh (Egypt, 2009), Vilnius (Lithuania, 2010), Nairobi (Kenya, 2011), Baku (Azerbaijan, 2012), Bali (Indonesia, 2013), and now the former Constantinople (Turkey), have been a rich repertoire of expressions representing the Eastern and Western world who have worn the IGF for almost a decade.

But beyond this cultural diversity that has surrounded the discussion atmosphere of each IGF, the host countries have not been, mostly, an even expression of great success in the infrastructure growth indicators to ensure a stable environment for accessing Internet: for example, only Lithuania, the only European country that had hosted the IGF, remains among the top fifty countries in Internet penetration, with 68.5% of its population with access to this service and also occupies a privileged position on the issue of download speed per second. Of the remainder, a large bulk is close to number one hundred on the issue of penetration, except for Indonesia and India, with faraway places that ranks them as the most depressed countries in the group on the subject of telecommunications infrastructure. The quality of service, measured by the average download speed of each country (Mbit/s) is itself a subject in which it is noted that the IGF local offices should make a greater effort: except Lithuania, only Brazil is among the first hundred posts in the world; the rest borders low rates.

These data are part of the recent Global Internet Report presented by the Internet Society, under which Turkey, imminent host country of IGF, has a penetration of 46.3%, ranking 82nd in the world; with a download speed of 8.72 Mbit/s, ranking at No. 63 in this regard. Not bad, on average, compared to the rest of the IGF host countries, but it still has a long way to go.

But beyond the organizational technical aspect that each country is able to achieve to promote the telecommunications sector, always with the premise of achieving a healthy options scenario that benefit end-users in terms of price and quality, there is the cultural field in each context that gives social meaning to technologies and is expressed as a transverse axis to define a system characterized by rules, laws, training programs, appropriation initiatives, to name a few. In a context of respect for democratic principles, the different actors (government, business, academia and civil society) strengthen what is called the Internet ecosystem, discussing, agreeing and identifying appropriate routes for more people to have Internet access and can make this a tool enabling individual and collective development.

But not everything is rosy. The distributed and open condition of the Internet has destabilized the centralized structure that once allowed the control of the production and distribution of information. It was this, an innovative way of empowering the voiceless taking it away from those who spoke very high in the old days, which in some ways has promoted new forms of democratic dialogue. In this sense, sometimes the Internet has been a thorn in the side for governments that seek to silence contrary versions to their interests. Social networks, with Facebook and Twitter boom have served as a collaborative mechanism for political expression of civil society, almost always activated when off line scenarios choke options for reporting. In this respect, Turkey, Egypt and India would be, for example, the IGF host countries with dark shadow on the political attempt to censor content circulating on Twitter, as recently summarized.

Obviously, the online world is nothing but a true manifestation of what is expressed in the real world, but before the interest of both the political and economic power, to take charge in monitoring protocols, technologies and Internet content, has so far been stronger the distributed technical and civilian force that successfully have been defending open, visible and transparent mechanisms. This is what Internet governance multi-actor dialogue is about, in which still are put on the table the various roles and responsibilities. Beyond the interest of governments to be seen as successful to the world on the issue of Internet governance, the IGF host countries have the need to clear the way to improve their own game, because these days everything is know. For this same reason, I would have liked to see Yaman Akdeniz and Kerem Altiparmak as representatives of civil society in Turkey, sitting with their heads high in the next IGF, giving a lesson to their leaders, characteristic of these new times.

Translation: Alicia Bohorquez 

Original Post in Spanish