Membership Survey

on Internet Governance
7 May 2010

Internet Society
InternetSociety.org
info@isoc.org

Galerie Jean-Malbuisson, 15
CH-1204 Geneva
Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 807 1444

Fax: +41 22 807 1445

1775 Wiehle Ave.

Suite 201
Reston, VA 20190, USA

Tel: +1 703 439 2120

Fax: +1 703 326 9881

The Internet Society (ISOC) conducted a survey of its members on the topic of
Internet Governance (IG) in April and May 2010. The objective of the survey is to
assist ISOC in addressing Internet Governance issues in the discussion leading
up to and including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Vilnius in September
2010. It is also designed to help ISOC contribute to the current discussions on
the desirability of the continuation of the Forum after 2010.
The IGF provides the framework for an institutionalized international dialogue on
the subject of Internet Governance. Following the two phases of the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS in 2003 in Geneva and 2005 in Tunis),
the United Nations planned to hold annual IGF meetings until 2010 to provide a
forum to discuss a range of important issues in the area of ICTs, the Internet and
economic development.
Since the very first Internet governance discussions, the Internet Society has
been fully engaged in the Internet Governance debate
(http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/wsis/IGF.shtml) and has been a firm
advocate of multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent participation.
The survey attracted 138 participants representing individuals and organization
members from 69 countries. Their participation has provided the Internet Society
with an understanding of the state current of the Internet governance debate in
their countries.

I. ISOC Members IGF experience

The survey results show that ISOC members continue to be highly involved in the
IGF, and that they put considerable effort into preparing for this event, especially
at the local level. The consultation shows that 30% of respondents participated in
past IGF meetings (Athens 2006, Rio 2007, Hyderabad 2008 and Sharm el
Sheikh 2009). More than 9% of the respondents participated as ISOC IGF
Ambassadors.
The proportion of IGF participants is expected to significantly increase (42%) for
the next Forum in Vilnius (September 2010). 12% of ISOC members responding
to the survey also indicated they were planning on organizing workshops. 70%
have met or are planning to meet with local policy makers to discuss Internet
Governance issues and prepare for Vilnius.

Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010

Members's participation in the IGF

80.00%

70%

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%

43%

42%

40.00%

30%

30.00%
20.00%

12%

9%

10.00%
0.00%
Meetings with local policy makers to discuss Internet governance issues
Participation in national or international preparatory meetings for the next IGF in Vilnius
Planning on attending IGF 2010 in Vilnius
Participation in past IGF meetings
Planning on organizing a workshop in Vilnius
ISOC IGF Ambassador

II. Topics for discussion in Vilnius

IGF 2010 developing the future together will be the overall theme for the
Vilnius meeting. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the key
themes of the IGF. Security, Openness and Privacy was selected as the most
critical theme (48%), followed by Access and Diversity.
Importance of IGF Themes in member countries

8%

Security, Oppenness and

Privacy

4%

Access and Diversity

9%
Internet Governance for
development (IG4D)
48%

9%

Taking stock of the Internet

Governance and the way forward
Managing critical Internet
resources

22%

Emerging issues: cloud

computing

Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010

Within these main themes the IGF Secretariats planning document outlines
issues. In anticipation of the next IGF in Vilnius, respondents were asked to
indicate which sub-issues were top priorities. Within the theme of Critical Internet
resources, 39% of respondents ranked Maintaining the Open architecture of
the Internet as the top priority. 28% of the respondents designated Status of
IPv6 availability around the world and 14% pointed to The internationalization of
critical Internet resources management as the top priorities. The other issues
were ranked well below.
Some respondents also made suggestions of additional issues to be examined,
such as discussions around the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and
Network Neutrality.

Top issues within Critical Internet resources

5%

Maintaining the open architecture

of the Internet

6%

Status of IPv6 availability around

the world

7%
39%

Internationalization of critical
Internet resources management
Enhanced cooperation

14%

Importance of new TLDs and

IDNs for development
Managing Internet services in
situations of disaster and crisis
28%

Within the theme of Security, Openness and Privacy among eleven issues,
Mobile telephony and Internet security was identified as the most critical
issue by 15% of participants. Three issues were ranked equally by 14% of
respondents as the top issue: Security, privacy in the Internet of things,
Freedom of expression and Maintaining the open architecture of the Internet.
In response to the question regarding possible additional issues to discuss in
Vilnius, one respondent noted that many of the proposed issues overlap. It was
suggested that, with a view to tighten and focus the discussion, the number of
issues discussed could be decreased instead of increased.

Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010

Top Priorities within Security, Openness and Privacy

Mobile telephony and Internet
security
2%
4% 2%

15%

5%

Security/privacy in the Internet

of things

5%
Freedom of expression
14%

11%

Maintain the open architecture

of the Internet
Open access to knowledge

13%

14%
14%

Open standards

Within the field of Access and Diversity, Public funding for broadband was
the most frequently selected (22%). Regulatory issues and frameworks that
encourage investments in these areas came second (15%).
One participant suggested that a supplementary issue to explore could be the
establishment of an internationally endorsed day of Internet Awareness in the
same spirit of OneWebDay - with a focus on education. It was also suggested
that UNESCO take the lead on this initiative.

Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010

Top Priorities within Access and Diversity

Public funding for broadband
5%

4%

Regulatory issues and frameworks

for investements in this area
Robustness and resilience of the
infrastructure once created
International and local connectivity
costs
Filter and blocking access to content
and services
Multilinguism of Internet

22%
8%

8%

9%

15%

9%
10%
10%

Rural wireless networking and

Internet culture
Maintaining Internet services in
situations of disaster and crisis
Issues with Internet and mobile
network
IXP as best practice

Regarding the theme of Internet Governance for Development (IG4D), among

eight issues, Innovations and knowledge economy was identified as the most
critical issue by 22% of participants. Development agenda for IG was selected
by 19% of respondents.

Top Priorities within Internet Governance for Development

(IG4D)
Innovations and knowledge
economy
6%

Development agenda for IG

8%

22%

The IG dimensions which impact

social and economic inclusion and
sustainability

9%

9%
19%

Starting at development and the

Millenium Development Goals and
working backwards towards IG
Creating multilingual knowledge
bases

12%
16%

Online cultural exchange

Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010

In the field of Taking stock of Internet Governance and the way forward, 41% of
respondents estimated that Capacity building: where were we five years ago
and where are we now? is the most important issue.

Top Priorities within Taking stock of Internet Governance and

the way forward

Capacity building; where were we

five years ago and where are we
now

27%

41%

How has IG globally advanced over

the five years of the IGF

Looking at where we were five years

ago on the main themes and where
we are now on those themes
32%

In response to the question regarding Emerging issues, the following sub-issues

were identified as top priority issues: Public policy and privacy issues in
cloud computing (47%), Access and development in cloud computing (27%)
and What happens to both data entered by consumers in the cloud but also data
transferred into the cloud by institutions and governments? (26%).
One respondent, in response to the question on possible issues to discuss in
Vilnius, mentioned Open-internetworking and user-centricity, two concepts that
are actively discussed in ISOC. Another respondent indicated however that the
IGF was not ready yet to address the issue of Cloud Computing.

Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010

Top Priorities within Emerging issues

26%

Public policy and privacy issues

in cloud computing

47%

27%

Access and development in

cloud computing

What happens to both data

entered by consumers and by
institutions and governments
into the cloud?

III. Taking stock and the way forward

Only a small portion considers that the IGF actually acts as a catalyst for tangible
change. A small majority of respondents considered that the IGF has had a direct
or an indirect impact on their stakeholder group, institution or government:
Raising national and regional awareness of global issues;
Sharing information and benchmarking national experiences;
Creating a space for debate of sensitive issues (e.g. Internet critical
resources);
Offering a multi-stakeholder model (governments, civil society, technical
community) for Internet policy formulation at all levels;
Creating a community, a social fabric of Internet stakeholders, and
opportunities to meet in person and learn to work together in other contexts
than the IGF;
Enhancing participation of developing countries in international discussions;
Encouraging developing countries participation in Internet-related discussions.
However, 87% of the respondents expressed their desire to continue the IGF
past its initial five-year mandate.
The following suggestions have been made to improve the Forum in the future:
Giving more weight to the national and regional IGFs: encouraging the
multiplication of local events, archiving their preparations and outcomes in a
way to use them and take them into account when preparing the global IGF.
Enhancing the bottom-up methodology of the IGF structure, organising
chronologically the discussion of issues at the national, then regional and
Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010

global level and keeping track of the history and the geographical parameters
of issues discussed.
Increasing the resources of the Secretariat: setting up an adequate and
sustainable funding mechanism to support and staff the IGF Secretariat
permanently, upgrading the IGF website and enriching it with comprehensive
archives of national and regional events, developing remote and
asynchronous (pre and post meeting) participation, developing on-line
systems to facilitate discussions in the community created around the IGF.
IGF-related meetings and outputs should also, in general, be better
advertised. Finally, it was recommended that a beginners guide to the IGF be
created, to encourage newcomers to join the process and participate in the
discussion.
Focussing the discussions: although the open, non-binding discussion
format is in general recognized as adequate, it was felt that too many issues
are being discussed, in too many sessions (sometime running at the same
time), with a lack of pragmatism, generating a feeling of confusion. Also, was
is noted by some participants that sessions are at a too rudimentary level.
Now that the Forum has reached a more mature level, sessions should not be
taken up with talking about the basics of an issue but, instead, should be used
to progress on unresolved and more complicated topics. Respondents
suggested that it would be helpful if session organizers could point to
introductory material beforehand via the web site for people prior to attending.
Encouraging participation: although a majority of respondents recognized
that the Forum offers an unprecedented multi-stakeholder and open platform,
a significant portion of participants felt it is necessary to develop sponsorships
and funding opportunities for developing countries (note: ISOC, again this
year, has opened an IGF Ambassadorship program to support the
participation of ten individuals). One participant also noted that the MAG
should be more transparent. Another respondent suggested that, in order to
encourage newcomers to participate and avoid capture of the debate, new
speakers in the plenary be preferred to former speakers.
If the IGF were to be continued, the United Nations Under-Secretary General has
identified possible focus areas. Among the five proposed issues, none was
clearly preferred to the others: International public policy issues (26%), Capacity
building (22%), Participation by developing countries (22%), followed by
Improved transparency (17%) and Improved communications (14%). This
suggests continuing support for a broad range of topics.

Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010

Top Priorities within UN Secretary General's priorities

14%
26%

International public policy

issues
Capacity-building

17%

Participation by developing
countries
Improved transparency

Improved communications
22%
22%

Finally, in response to questions as to whether there should be more visibility of

the IGF outcomes, and possibly the ability to make recommendations, a small
majority of respondents indicated it was not necessarily desirable because it
would lead to IGF becoming a less open platform. In the meantime, a significant
portion of respondents were firmly in favour of formalizing the outputs of the IGF,
e.g. creating non-binding, OECD-like recommendations. Some ISOC members
participating in the survey indicated it was a difficult question and could not
answer with certainty.

Note on Methodology
The survey of ISOC members was conducted using a web-based instrument over
a period of two weeks from 15 April 2010 to 3 May 2010. The results are
indicative, but are not considered statistically meaningful. The tables and data
presented in this report are compiled to present trends and proportions from the
survey intended to be useful in developing the 2010 Internet Governance Forum.
Percentages may not always add up to 100% due to rounding and selection of
categories.

About the Internet Society

The Internet Society is a non-profit organization founded in 1992 to provide
leadership in Internet related standards, education, and policy. With offices in
Washington, D.C., and Geneva, Switzerland, it is dedicated to ensuring the open
development, evolution, and use of the Internet for the benefit of people
throughout the world. More information is available at: http://InternetSociety.org
report-IntGovSurvey-20100505-en

Membership Survey on Internet Governance | 7 May 2010 10