An Open Letter to the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for its 3rd Annual Meeting at Hyderabad, , from 3rd to 6th December, 2008

The IGF must ACT NOW against the threat to the public-ness and the egalitarian nature of the Internet

Issued on behalf of civil society organisations and individuals list at the end of the open letter

The undersigned wish to express their deep concern that the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), created by the World Summit on the Information Society in 2005 as an Internet ‘policy dialogue’ forum, is largely failing to address key public interest and policy issues in global Internet governance – including that of democratic deficit.

Who shapes the Internet, as the Internet shapes our new social context? The Internet represents the single most important technical advance of our society in a long time, so much so that it defines a new emerging social paradigm. The basic characteristics of the Internet determine the contours of the emerging social order in many important ways. The Internet was conceived as, and still largely is, an extensive communication system which is democratizing, and has little respect for established social hierarchies. Interactions and associations built over this new ‘techno­social’ system have, therefore, held the promise of a more egalitarian society.

The era of innocence of the Internet however appears to be fast approaching its end. Today, the Internet of the future – the very near future – is being shaped insidiously by dominant forces to further their interests. (See the fact­sheet on the following page for some illustrations of this.) Unfortunately, global policy forums have largely failed to articulate, much less act on, crucial Internet policy issues, which concern the democratic possibilities for our societies.

The IGF needs to act now! As the Internet Governance Forum convenes for its third annual meeting, between 3rd and 6th December, 2008, in Hyderabad, India, it must take immediate steps to anchor and discuss important global public interest and policy issues involved in Internet governance. If it does not act now, it may get seen as a space that only provides an illusion of a public policy dialogue, and, consequently, as being co­opted in furthering the agenda of dominant forces that are shaping the Internet as per their narrow interests. We therefore strongly urge the IGF to directly address the following key global public interest and policy issues:

1. Increasing corporatisation of the Internet 2. Increasing proprietisation of standards and code that go into building the Internet 3. Increasing points of control being embedded into the Internet in the name of security and intellectual property violations 4. Huge democratic deficit in global Internet governance We exhort the IGF to adopt clear directions for engaging with these crucial public policy issues. The IGF should come out with a clear work plan at its forthcoming meeting in Hyderabad to address the four key areas listed above.

The global community – comprising not only people who currently have access to the Internet, but also the un­connected billions who are being impacted by it nevertheless – will judge the meaningfulness and legitimacy of the IGF in terms of what progress it is able to make on these issues.

Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore Delhi Science Forum, Free Software Foundation ­ India IT for Change, Bangalore Knowledge Commons, New Delhi

Information Sheet

How the Public­ness and Egalitarian Nature of the Internet is Threatened – Some Examples Corporatisation of the Internet Largely unsuspected by most of its users, the Internet is rapidly changing from being a vast ‘public sphere’, with a fully public ownership and a non­proprietary nature, to a set of corporatised privately­owned networks. On the one hand, telecom companies are carving out the Internet into privately­owned networks – controlling the nature of transactions over these networks. They seek to differentially charge content providers, while also building wholly private networks offering exclusive content relay services. Developments like video/TV over Internet Protocol and the provision of controlled and selective Internet services over mobiles are contributing to increasing network­operators’ control over the Internet, with a corresponding erosion of its public­ness. On the other hand, the commons of the Internet is also being overwhelmed and squeezed out by a complete domination of a few privately owned mega­applications such as Google, Facebook, Youtube etc.

Proprietarisation of standards and code that build the Internet One of the main ways of appropriating the commons of the Internet is through the increasing use of proprietary and closed standards and code in building the Internet system. Such appropriation allows the extortion of illegitimate rent out of the many new forms of commons­based activities that are being made possible through the Internet.

Embedding control points in the Internet A growing confluence of corporatist and statist interests has led to the embedding of more and more means of control into the Internet in a manner that greatly compromises citizens’ rights and freedoms. Whether it is the pressure on Internet Service Providers to examine Internet traffic for ‘intellectual property’ violations; or imposition of cultural and political controls on the Internet by states within their boundaries; or ITU’s work on IP trace­back mechanisms; or the tightening of US control over the global Internet infrastructure in the name of securing the root zone file and the domain name system, these new forms of controlling the Internet are being negotiated among dominant interests away from public scrutiny and wider public interest­based engagements. Democratic deficit in global Internet governance The current global Internet governance regime – a new­age privatized governance system professing allegiance mostly to a single country, the US – has proven to be an active instrument of perpetuation of dominant commercial and geo­political interests. Lately, OECD countries have begun some work on developing public policy principles that, due to the inherently global nature of the Internet, can be expected to become globally applicable. It is quite unacceptable that OECD countries shirk from discussing the same public policy issues at global public policy forums like the IGF that they discuss among themselves at OECD meetings. Apparently, developing countries are expected to focus on finding ways to reach connectivity to their people, and not burden themselves with higher­level Internet governance issues! People’s and communities’ right to self­determination and participation in governance of issues that impact their lives should underpin global Internet governance.

Open Letter to IGF Signatories to the letter as of December 02 2008

1. Acorn Active Media Foundaton, USA 2. Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, Ecuador 3. Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India 4. Ambedkar Community Computing Center, Bangalore, India 5. Amman Madan, Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India 6. Anand Swaminathan, India 7. Antonio Díaz Andrade, Lecturer, Management and International Business Department, University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand 8. Anita Rampal, Professor, Delhi University, Delhi, India 9. NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC), Bangladesh 10. BytesforAll India 11. BytesforAll 12. CACIM ­ Indian Institute for Critical Action: Centre in Movement, New Delhi, India 13. Carolina Aguerre, Lecturer & Researcher, Universidad de San Andres, Argentina 14. Cecilia Maria Bacellar Sardenberg, Professor, Diretora do Núcleo de Estudos Interdisciplinares sobre a Mulher, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil 15. Centre African d'Echange Culturel (CAFEC), Democratic Republic of the Congo 16. Centre for Child and the Law, National Law School of India University, Bangalore, India 17. Center for Informal Education and Development Studies (CIEDS), Bangalore, India 18. Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India 19. Chinese Domain Name Users Alliance (CDNUA) 20. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA), New Delhi, India 21. Comet Media Foundation, India 22. Community Media Trust, India ­ Chinna Narsamma, Executive Trustee 23. CUWiN Foundation, USA 24. Danny Butt, New Zealand 25. D.Net, Bangladesh 26. Deccan Development Society, India ­ PV Satheesh, Director 27. Delhi Science Forum, New Delhi, India 28. Environment Support Group, India 29. Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines 30. Free Software Foundation, India 31. FreeNetworks.org 32. Fiorello Cortiana, Senator and IGF­Italy, Italy 33. Focus on the Global South, Thailand 34. Frieda Werden, WINGS: Women's International News Gathering Service, Canada 35. FSUG Bangalore, India 36. Hengasara Hakkina Sangha, Bangalore, India 37. Gora Mohanty, Research Fellow, Sarai, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, India 38. Graciela Selaime, Red de Información para el Tercer Sector (RITS), Brazil 39. Human Rights Coalition of South Australia, Australia 40. Imaginons un Réseau Internet Solidaire (IRIS), France 41. IP Justice, USA 42. ISIS International – Manila, Philippines 43. Isis Women's International Cross Cultural Exchange (Isis­WICCE), Uganda 44. Institute of Social Studies, New Delhi, India 45. Instituto del Tercer Mundo (ITeM), Urugay 46. Institute for Human Development, New Delhi, India 47. IT for Change, Bangalore, India 48. Jaijit Bhattacharya, /Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology,India 49. Jan Philipp Schmidt, Free Courseware Project, University of the Western Cape, South Africa 50. Janastu/Servelots, Bangalore, India 51. Jayati Ghosh, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India 52. Jeff Buderer, USA 53. Knowledge Commons, New Delhi, India 54. Kriti team, New Delhi 55. L. Muthoni Wanyeki, Executive Director, Kenya Human Rights Commission, Kenya 56. Lawrence Lessig, USA 57. Michael Gurstein, Centre for Community Informatics Research, Training and Development, Vancouver, Canada 58. Mike Powell, Director, IKM Emergent Programme 59. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, India 60. Meryem Marzouki, Senior Researcher, CNRS & Univ. Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris 6, France 61. Nayana Tara, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India 62. New America Foundation, USA 63. Oneworld , India 64. OpenSpace Bangalore, India 65. Pakistan ICT Policy Monitors Network, Pakistan 66. Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore, India 67. Rajeev Sharma, Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad 68. Ravi Subramaniam, Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, , India 69. Red de Información para el Tercer Sector /(RITS), Brazil 70. Salman Ansari, CEO, SATC, Pakistan 71. SchoolNet Foundation Bangladesh 72. Seán Ó Siochrú, NEXUS Research, Ireland 73. Srilatha Batliwala, Scholar Associate, Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID), Canada/Mexico/South Africa 74. Shohini Ghosh, Professor, Dr. Zakir Hussain Chair, AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islami,India 75. Suparna Diwakar, Centre for Leadership and Management in Public Services, Bangalore, India 76. Susanna George, Malaysia 77. Swatantra.Org, India 78. Swathantra Malayalam Computing, India 79. Telecommunities Canada 80. Technology for the People, Bangalore, India 81. TheHoot.org, New Delhi, India 82. The Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 83. The Ethos Group, USA 84. VIBE!AT, Verein für Internet­Benutzer Österreichs (the Austrian Association for Internet Users), Austria 85. Vibodh Parthasarathi, Reader, Centre for Culture, Media and Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia 86. VIMOCHANA, Forum for Women's Rights, Bangalore, India 87. Vidya Bhawan Soc iety, Udaipur, India 88. Vinod Pavarala, Professor, University of Hyderabad, India 89. Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (VOICE), Bangladesh 90. Vittorio Bertola, Italy 91. Women and Media Collective, Sri Lanka