Previous advocacy activities of the Internet Governance Project are listed below.
Advocacy Archive
- Mueller and Hofmann selected by IGC-NomCom - 18 April 2006
Milton Mueller and Jeanette Hoffman were selected by the Internet Governance Caucus Nominating Committee to be considered as Civil Society candidates for the Internet Governance Forum's multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). They join a diverse and accomplished slate of advocates, from which a final group will be choosen to assist the Secretary-General in preparations for the first Forum, set to be held in Athens from 30 October - 2 November 2006. ...read the nomination - IGP nominates three Partners to MAG - 10 April 2006
The IGP is pleased to nominate Jeanette Hoffman, John Mathiason, and Milton Mueller to be considered as Civil Society candidates for the MAG, to be recommended by the Internet Governance Caucus nominating committee. The extensive records and diverse but complementary achievements and abilities of all three individuals are well-known by civil society. Their commitment to the successful conclusion of the first Internet Governance Forum is also unquestionable. ...read the IGP nomination - Free Expression, "Enhanced Cooperation" proposed as IG Forum themes - 30 March 2006
IGP joined with free-expression advocacy organizations, including Reporters Without Borders and Article 19, to include Internet censorship and filtering problems on the agenda of the first meeting of the new Internet Governance Forum. Noting that many of the governments participating in the process are more interested in finding new ways to control the Internet than with preserving and enhancing the freedom that made it a success, these groups are insisting that free expression be on the agenda in Athens. The Forum Secretariat is accepting suggestions from governments and the public as to which "themes" or topical areas it should consider.
IGP is also attempting to put the so-called "enhanced cooperation model" called for in the WSIS Tunis Agenda into the Athens Forum. This is a continuation of the dialogue over political oversight of ICANN, which was left unresolved by WSIS. IGP is concerned that the European and U.S. governments are attempting to settle this issue in private, without the open involvement of civil society and the private sector, and view the Forum as a more appropriate place to take it up. IGP has also supported a proposal to discuss affordable access issues. ...read the IGP theme proposals - Hofmann and Mueller intervene during IGF Consultation Sessions - 16-17 February 2006
Milton Mueller and Jeanette Hoffman made interventions on behalf of the IGP during the initial Internet Governance Forum Consulations held in Geneva, Switzerland. Mueller proposed a specific structure for the forthcoming IGF and pushed for a bottom-up process in determining the substantive agenda. ...read the transcripts - Internet Governance Forum takes shape after Geneva Consultations - 16 February 2006
The open consultation in Geneva on the emerging Internet Governance Forum managed to build consensus around a few features of the new institution, including open participation, a 4-day time span for the first meeting, and a structure that combines large plenaries with breakout groups. Chairman Nitin Desai concluded by issuing a call for participants to propose a structure for the "multistakeholder group" that would vet the Forum's agenda, and asked for more public input on the "themes" or discussion topics for the agenda of the first meeting in Athens. ...read the IGP summary of the event - An Inconclusive Summit - 18 November 2005
In Tunis at the conclusion of the World Summit on the Information Society, the Project issued a Statement acknowledging the Summit's inability to make immediate changes in ICANN's political oversight and constitution. But this occurred simply because no such changes could be made without the US government's agreement, and the US had indicated that it would not budge. Still, the Tunis Summit has set in motion long-term processes that will change the role of national governments in Internet policy broadly, and ICANN specifically. Almost all of the Internet governance issues raised by the Summit remain open and unresolved: U.S. unilateral control of the root, political oversight of ICANN, the role of governments in setting public policy for the Internet, etc. The main accomplishment of the Summit is the creation of a multistakeholder Forum that will continue these discussions. The Summit also will have the effect of shifting much of the activity back into ICANN itself, where the role of the GAC and of civil society will need to be reconsidered. Three IGP partners - Professors Milton Mueller, Hans Klein and Derrick Cogburn - attended the WSIS Summit. Dr. Mueller attended the ICANN Vancouver meeting. ...read the official IGP Statement here - WSIS Prepcom 3 Results - 30 September 2005
Prepcom 3 concluded inconclusively with a still-controversial "food for thought" paper by the Chair of the subcommittee on Internet governance calling for the creation of a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue and an "Inter-Governmental Council for global public policy and oversight of Internet governance" that would not permit full participation from civil society and the private sector. IGP partner Milton Mueller attended part of the sessions, and read a civil society intervention asking the US government to make a commitment not to unilaterally interfere with the contents of the DNS root zone file. ...read the IGP intervention statement here - IGP issues statement opposing political intervention in the Internet’s core technical functions - 25 August 2005
Concerned about the long-term implications of the Commerce Department's intervention in ICANN's policy making process, which was prompted by censorship advocates targeting the .xxx domain, the Internet Governance Project has issued a statement and a call for public support of its position. The statement, which was covered in the Washington Internet Daily, charges that the NTIA intervention "undermines assurances from the U.S. and from ICANN that it would never be used to shape policy but was only a means of protecting the stability of the organization and its processes." The statement notes that the concern is particularly strong in this case because "because of the open acknowledgement in the NTIA's letter of the influence of an organized campaign by domestic religious groups devoted to content regulation of the Internet." ...read the IGP statement here
