Internet Governance Forum: "is there really any power there"?

 Before going more in-depth within the definition, and aims and this entity I would like to start this point by quoting Hintz and Milan´s research, At the margins of Internet governance: grassroots tech groups and communication policy: "Policy fora such us the IGF are believed to have little actual impact and there is deep distrust in their outcomes and in the usefulness of engaging with them. Civil society participation is not expected to lead substantial change. As one of the respondents put it "it is a puppet theatre, internet governance is being decided somewhere else (Microsoft, Cisco, IP international regulation...)" (Interviewee 3 2007)" (1. Hintz, A.,& Milan, S.(2009), "At the margins of Internet governance: grassroots tech groups and communication policy". International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 5: 1&2, pp. 23-38)

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is the most prominent outcome of WISIS, it is defined as a new forum for a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the Internet policy. Its mandate has been to "discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet" (IGF 2006). It is also important to highlight that this institution does not have a decision-making role and cannot negotiate binding agreements but it can set policy agendas. The first meeting of the IGF took place in Athens (Greece) in 2006, and it allowed open debate, advanced WISIS practices and moved closer to "full participation". One innovation has been the establishment of "Dynamic Coalitions" in which members of all stakeholder groups discuss specific Internet policy sub-themes - such as spam, privacy, freedom of expression, linguistic diversity- and try to find common positions. Finally, the IGF Secretariat's activities are funded through extra-budgetary contributions paid into a multi-donor Trust Fund administered by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). All contributions are administered and accounted for in accordance with the United Nations Financial Regulations and Rules and other applicable directives, procedures and practices. The project expenditure is contained in the biennial Financial Report and audited Financial Statements of the United Nations.

We started this point by giving a critical approach towards the IGF as an institution that enables the empowerment of civil society in policy making issues and provides egalitarian debates hold by multistakeholders coming from different fields of society. In this sense, the research published by Hintz and Milan reflects on the fact that there is a lack of engagement and participation in policy advocacy manifested by what they agree to call "grassroots tech groups" (GTG), groups providing alternative communication infrastructure to civil society activists and citizens on a voluntary basis through collective organising principles, with the aim of counteracting commercial as well as state pressures on information content, media access and the privacy of media users. Grassroots tech groups usually offer web-based services such as website hosting, e-mail and mailing list services, chats and other tools such as anonymous re-mailers and instant messaging; or provide platforms for self-production of information. (5. Ídem) So, what it´s kind of contradictory is that although the Free and Open- Source Software (FOSS), which includes systems such as Linux and office software suites, was one of the interesting (and ambiguous) outcomes of the WISIS process, according to the conclusions of the already quoted research, grassroots tech groups trust more in achieving change through practical and technological development than through advocacy. Furthermore, when asked, these groups point to a variety of reasons why they do not participate in policy processes such us WISIS and IGF, in this sense, I would like to quote the following lines:

" The immediate answer of most interviewees (GTG) to the question on whether they would get involved in policy-making processes if invited to is a strong "no". Most suspect that that civil society participation is just "decorative" (Interviewee 3 2007), that the actual decisions are taken elsewhere, that is by corporate and government actors, and that "the invitation would be just for the record, so the institution or the body would gain political and cultural capital" (Interviewee 4 2007). Participation, in that sense, would "legitimize the decisions taken by other agents ( corporations, governments, lobbies, etc.)" (Interviewee 3 2007). Therefore, "we want to maintain a certain distance from this institutional and falsely "democratic" internet [regulation]" (Interviewee 7 2007)" (2. Ídem)