Home / Blogs

What Will Be the Outcome of the Internet Governance Forum Meeting in Athens?

Antonios Broumas

Since the Tunis WSIS mandate was given to the UN Secretary General to convene the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), interest on the new emerging entity and its possible effects on the IG debate has been allegedly high. But as time is approaching when the IGF inaugural meeting will start its activities in Athens, Greece, now, almost 10 days before its first — ever meeting, participation of all stakeholders and key actors in the meeting has proved to be even more than expected in the first place. Approximately 1300 participants are estimated to attend the workings of the meeting, one third of which are state representatives (84 different delegations of countries), while the other two thirds consist of representatives from the civil society and the private (business) sector.

Such interest in the IGF actually shows that after all the WGIG was initially right in proposing an open space of dialogue in the international level and that such an entity was missing from the contemporary IG regime. Wide participation from all stakeholder groups does not, however, guarantee that the meeting itself will be a success. Success mainly depends on the outcome. And either the outcome of the IGF in Athens or its general influence in the IG debate in the future is actually the point that creates the greatest controversy among stakeholders and key actors.

As far as the outcome of the Athens meeting is concerned, the picture is pretty much clear. The meeting will produce a final report, accompanied with the sectoral reports of the four main sessions in openness, security, diversity and access correspondingly. Then the chairman of the meeting, the Greek Minister of Transport and Communications, may wish to sum — up the meeting in a paper probably drafted by the IGF Advisory Group and Secretariat. A third possible outcome, as referred to in the IGF website, might be emerging coalitions between key players in the pursuance of agreed initiatives. As is obvious, in the absence of general consensus and taking into account the reluctance of many stakeholders, the Athens IGF will not produce any substantive documents, such as recommendations or declarations, which might shake the elegant balance of agreement, more of the type "we agree that we don't agree", that prevails in the IG debate.

What is still vague though, is the future outcome of the IGF process in general. The mandate of the IGF (para. 72 of the WSIS Tunis Agenda), which cannot be reviewed before 2011 (para 76), is clear to what the Forum is not. It is however purposefully vague on what the Forum actually is and what it can produce as substantive outcome of its workings. Even its structure is not defined, leaving pressing questions unanswered, such as what will be the fate of the IGF Advisory Group after the end of the Athens meeting. To proponents of the current IG regime the IGF is simply a platform of dialogue, which will enhance common understanding of central IG issues and coordination between existing organizations relevant to IG. To critics the Forum is the ideal means to narrow down the IG issues and help to proceed in a change of the current state of play in 2009, when the new US DoC — ICANN memorandum expires.

It is difficult to tell with surety which view will be realized. The IGF is definitely a big step in the internationalization of the IG debate and a great opportunity for the global community to sit down and construct the principles and norms of a widely accepted IG regime. Yet, the IG debate will only proceed in the right way if the maximum possible consensus for any changes is achieved. And what is missing right now is the procedures that will establish such consensus and trust among all stakeholders. Therefore, from my point of view, the failure or success of the Athens meeting lies there, in the development of those procedures that will accommodate the widest possible participation and transparency of all stakeholders on an equal footing, principles in which all of us more or less agree on.

By Antonios Broumas, Attorney

Related topics: DNS, ICANN, Internet Governance, Multilinguism, Security

WEEKLY WRAP — Get CircleID's Weekly Summary Report by Email:


Re: What Will Be the Outcome of the Internet Governance Forum Meeting in Athens? Kieren McCarthy  –  Oct 20, 2006 10:55 AM PDT

I'd say that was a pretty good summary Antonios.

The IGF even now remains amorphous. No one really knows what is going to happen, or what the outcome will be. Or even if it will survive past this year.

But if it doesn't prove it's worth, you'll see it played out at the ITU Plenipotientiary almost immediately afterwards. If it is deemed to be a success - and I think will largely come from the ongoing ICANN/USG situation *not* playing much of a role - then the fight will continue at the ITU and the IGF will survive, and hopefully prosper, over the next four years.

I also think a *massive* measure of the IGF's success will be on how much people get involved with it online. And I also think that alot of the missing elements can be pieced together online.

It is with that in mind that I and someone else closely following the IGF - Jeremy Malcolm - have set up the site http://igf2006.info.

The site is very open and very interactive. You can add events, comments, forums, chats, post documents, whatever. It can all be reviewed and then if you register - very simple - you get full interactive access, including an instant blog.

If people want to be heard or interact with the meeting or want to draw up plans for future IGF meetings, this is the place to do it: http://igf2006.info


Re: What Will Be the Outcome of the Internet Governance Forum Meeting in Athens? Jeremy Malcolm  –  Oct 21, 2006 5:10 PM PDT

I entirely agree that the IGF lacks the appropriate structures to enable it to make decisions, which is why I have claimed that it requires reform - also to increase its transparency and accountability which is lacking at present.  If it does not have the potential to produce agreed documents, then there is no point - but equally, there is not reason to be defeatist, because then the battle is over.

To post comments, please login or create an account.

Related Blogs

Related News

Explore Topics

Industry Updates – Sponsored Posts

Verisign Q1 2016 DDoS Trends: Attack Activity Increases 111 Percent Year Over Year

Is Your TLD Threat Mitigation Strategy up to Scratch?

Verisign Launches New gTLDs for the Korean Market, .닷컴 and .닷넷

Verisign Opens Landrush Program Period for .コム Domain Names

Domain Management Handbook from MarkMonitor

i2Coalition to Host First Ever Smarter Internet Forum

Encrypting Inbound and Outbound Email Connections with PowerMTA

US Court Grants DCA Trust's Motion for Preliminary Injunction on .Africa gTLD

Resilient Cybersecurity: Dealing with On-Premise, Cloud-Based and Hybrid Security Complexities

What Holds Firms Back from Choosing Cloud-Based External DNS?

United States Court Has Granted an Interim Relief for DCA Trust on .Africa gTLD

Verisign Releases Q4 2015 DDoS Trends - DDoS Attack Activity Increasing by 85% Year Over Year

Best Practices from Verizon - Proactively Mitigating Emerging Fraudulent Activities

Neustar Data Identifies Most Popular Times of Year for DDoS Attacks in 2015

The Framework for Resilient Cybersecurity (Webinar)

Priority Access Program for Verisign's First IDN New gTLD, .コム

Dyn Weighs In On Whois

Season's Greetings - 2015 End of Year Message from DotConnectAfrica

Data Volumes and Network Stress to Be Top IoT Concerns

DKIM for ESPs: The Struggle of Living Up to the Ideal

Sponsored Topics



Sponsored by


Sponsored by

DNS Security

Sponsored by
Afilias - Mobile & Web Services


Sponsored by
Afilias - Mobile & Web Services