跳至主要內容

IGF 2017 highlights need for greater dialogue



Recently I participated remotely in my first Internet Governance Forum — IGF 2017 — which was held at the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland from 18 to 21 December.

From the comfort of our offices and homes, I (along with 1,660 other remote participants) was able to listen to and participate in a range of multistakeholder discussions surrounding emerging technologies and Internet governance-related issues on the theme of Shape Your Digital Future!

Gaps between technical communities and policy makers

Dialogue is an important component of the multistakeholder model — multiple parties come together to contextualize a problem and resolve it through information exchange. That said, it is difficult for different groups to let go of preconceptions.

In some sessions, there were participants that were solely of the opinion that policy is the first priority, and that technical problems can’t be stated in the policy or explained to people.

These people need to think widely; they also need to have the ability to translate what people want in policies and adjust them accordingly. That said, it is difficult to translate opinions from technical communities to policy makers, which only strengthens the need for clear communication and dialogue.

Gaps between developed and developing economies

The Internet has become a commonplace utility for many. In my home, Taiwan, Internet penetration is among the highest and most affordable in the world. However, for many people the Internet is still a luxury.

I found from participating at the IGF that this gap, between developed and developing economies, brings with it varying priorities:
  • Developed economies talked about trust, cybersecurity, governance and policies, surveillance, ethical issues, and emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things and Blockchain.
  • Developing economies talked about infrastructure, rights to access the Internet, affordable Internet, quality education, as well as human rights and safety issues.
Needless to say, the discussion about the Internet has evolved from the haves and have-nots, which is why such multistakeholder mechanisms like the IGF are important for planning for the future development of the Internet. Different stakeholders sit together to discuss and find the solution, and people can learn from each other and consider other people’s perspectives, needs and experiences.

Language may be the largest barrier

More than 2,000 participants from 142 economies, representing all stakeholder groups and regions, attended IGF 2017 in person.

The IGF provides translation services to allow attendees — in person and remotely — to understand speakers so long as they speak in any of the six UN official languages: English, Chinese, French, Arabic, Spanish and Russian — most sessions were in English.

Although this allows a large majority of people to easily share and understand each other’s views, it does impact the experience of those whom such language is a second or third language, particularly those from Asia Pacific economies. Some topics are difficult enough to explain in your own language let alone trying to interpret their meaning for another language.

Obviously, it would be great to get more people adding to the dialogue in their native language, but how can we make it more convenient?

Besides inclusion of language, respect for religion, culture and customs is also important to encourage people to share their opinions.

I learned how to work on the Internet

IGF 2017 wasn’t all about listening to discussions. I was able to participate in working groups, including the NRIs working group. It was a great experience to collaborate with people (whom I’ve never met in different economies and time zones) on working documents, and discuss issues on mailing lists and in online meetings.


Wish for more people to join IGF

It is difficult for young people in Asian economies, particularly students, to sit with government officials and talk about Internet or government policies — it can be overwhelming and they may feel they do not have enough experience to share.

At the closing plenary, Jianne Soriano said, “Being young is not a disadvantage, it is a strength.” It’s great that the IGF understands the need to include the opinions and ideas of younger people in discussions that are ultimately shaping their future.

This message is something that I’m looking forward to taking back to and implementing at the Taiwan IGF, and to hopefully encourage more younger participants to IGF 2018.


This article is published on APNIC Blog. Robert Mitchell, the editor has edited it.

留言

此網誌的熱門文章

愛用Google Talk的七個理由

沒有在幫Google Talk打廣告,只是比起MSN起來,我比較喜歡使用它。比較熟的朋友都知道,我不太愛用IM軟體,因為一直覺得,如果真的忙,何必要在MSN暱稱上掛著忙碌?誰真的關心你有沒有在忙?誰真的關心你心情不好?有的公司為了防止員工把公司機密外洩(老闆是豬頭並不算是機密),也透過網管把這類通訊軟體的port給關掉。 在MSN、Yahoo Messenger很紅的時候,還有不少報章雜誌在稱讚這類即時通訊軟體可以減少溝通時的成本,可以直接和客戶做連繫溝通-可是,有多少人能夠透過「文字」來表達正確的語意?連面對面溝通都能詞不達意了,不是嗎?之後有人靠著畫這些通訊軟體所使用的小圖示發了財,從此一句話裡可能會出現一堆圖案。常常看不懂對方要表達的正確意思是什麼?這樣真的有裝到可愛嗎?正的比較貼近對話者嗎?最討厭的,是那三秒一跳的廣告真是種視覺上的干擾,網頁上不要看的廣告可以用Firefox用ABP擋掉,即時通訊軟體上的廣告好像沒得選擇。 MSN並不是我第一個使用的即時通訊軟體,五專時就開始用ICQ,不過也有很慘的經驗,我的電腦就這麼給人家開了後門。後來在大學時,MSN對我而言是一個工具,因為學校在淡水,不少同學是通勤生,有時候分組報告需要討論時,有的同學接下來還有課,有的同學早就離開學校,大家約一個時間一起上線討論,還算是個不錯的工具,但是,詞不達意是一回事,就算有群組討論,還是另開視窗和別人討論有的沒的事,更別說只要坐在電腦前就受不了網路其他的誘惑,有的人邊打電玩邊討論,有的人邊逛購物網站邊討論,有的人和其他人聊天打屁忘了在討論的主題…一點效率也沒有。悶在辦公室的時候,還準備了兩個MSN帳號,一個上班時用,一個在家裡用,也許我有迫害妄想症,我沒辦法相信辦公室的電腦,只要是「公用」電腦就會讓我疑點重重。 有兩年的時間我都不怎麼開MSN,真的非必要才會開,在 Skype還沒那麼紅的時候也曾裝過,通訊良好,不過那個年代還沒有那麼流行透過即使通訊來傳語音,而且影像和聲音通要傳遞的話,頻寬要夠。 不知不覺,即時通訊軟體已經變成辦公室必要軟體,還是有人堅持不使用IM,我算是被說服了,不過,我選擇了Google Talk,原因如下: 整合到自訂首頁裡 -Google的自訂首頁現是是我開啟瀏覽器後的首頁,在登入後就可以看到自己想要看的訊息,而且現在還可以自訂佈景主題哦!這比起P家亂七八...

為什麼我支持《數位中介服務法》草案

在經歷許多次反抗台灣政府所立的網路相關法案後,我其實沒想過除了《數位通傳法》草案外,我還會再支持另一部法律草案,雖然 《數位通傳法》草案還壓在某處,但如果有人讀過《數位通傳法》的草案,再讀這部《數位中介服務法》草案,就會知道這部草案的重要性,而且也可以顯示台灣網路使用者的成熟度,更重要的,這是我第一次看到引入國際網路治理多方利害關係人機制的法律草案,而且是用在正確的地方。 有興趣想知道我在讀法條時的筆記和當下的感想,可以看我這則  Tweet 。這篇不使用逐條讀法條的方式來寫,因為那會讓人昏昏欲睡,我也不去比對歐盟《數位服務法》,因為我在讀《數位服務法》草案時,該草案特別強調是加強歐盟 E-Commerce Directive  ,而不是取代它,而且更多著重在預防盜版、仿冒,保護消費者的法案。所以當有輿論提到參考自《數位服務法》的《數位中介服務法》草案限縮言論自由時,我其實是一頭問號的,但一直到今天我才有時間讀《數位中介服務法》草案,這篇文章出自於我的個人經驗和閱讀法案的心得,與擔任的職務無關。 如果最近注意一下網路的資訊,有幾件事該注意一下: 有許多人在社群平台,如Facebook或是其他網路看到一些廣告,而這些廣告可能是要你支持台灣農產品、台灣製的產品,結果你收到時,上面還寫著簡體字,通常這是所謂的一頁式廣告詐騙,而行政院的消費者保護會在 2019 年時就有新聞稿在警告「 一頁式廣告詐騙多 小心查證保障多 」,之後像公視或是其他單位都有相關的活動在提醒大家小心這類廣告。但目前這些廣告其實多數不易處理,因為不容易取證、保留證據,等到追查到時已經找不到對方了。 有不少親密照片與影片在情侶分手後,被報復性的上傳到情色網站或透過即時通訊傳到親友的帳號裡,或是被洩露個資,遭到公開的霸凌。 之前有一個專題:「 青春煉獄:網路獵騙性私密影像事件簿 」,光是讀完這個專題報導我就覺得受傷。 有人使用 Deep Fake 把台灣名人的臉部照片合成至色情影片再上傳至色情影片平台,今年 7 月才被判刑。 還有許多創作者藉由網路分享作品時,被人盜用,甚至有國外的使用者修改台灣人的作品去參與比賽還獲獎。 有一次打電話問某個部會,如果消費者在國外電子商務平台買東西,但資料被外洩怎麼辦?雖然政府願意協助,但衡量至國外打官司的時間和成本,就會讓人卻步。 有些行為在現實世界裡有法...

美好的一日(1)-第16屆國際書展

第十六屆台北國際書展 日期:02/13至02/18 網頁連結: 第十六屆台北國際書展 照片: 20080214台北國際書展 對於國際書展的唯一印象就是又吵又熱又悶,和資訊展一樣,雖然從第七屆國際書展開始參加,但這兩年都沒有參加的記錄,還記得去年是看到新聞播報書展結束才想起來有這回事。由於現在買書的管道很多,所以在書展買書的慾望並不高。今年想去的原因其實不是書展,而是可以見到很久不見的朋友優狗。 大概是十二點多買票進入展場,今年的票多了個看似仿偽的貼紙之類的東西,很特別,我也很喜歡票上的娃娃。進展場後第一個吸引到目光的是主題館之一的「最美麗的書」,陳列許多難得見到的裝訂本,最吸引我的是兩本繪有曼陀羅藏文書籍和朱禧千字文,仔細看千字文的封面,那是木刻的文字,而且是反的,也就是可印刷。 之後是旁邊的「旅行文學主題館」裡面展示的是攝影作品和歐洲地區的漫畫,但我逛得心不在焉,主要是因為很久沒見到優狗,所以也嘰哩呱啦的說個沒停,只有最後一個區域的投影書引起了我的注意。 逛著逛著到了主題廣場,優狗在書林的攤位看書,而我則去主題廣場看座談會,主講者是《偷書賊》的作者馬格斯‧朱薩克(Markus Zusak)和郝譽翔,另外有一位翻譯和主持人。大多數的人都在問朱薩克關於寫《偷書賊》的心路歷程,最有趣的是台下有位聽眾問他如果遇到死神會說什麼?印象最深刻的是作者提到在創造了這個溫柔的死神角色後,家鄉的老人看了這本書後覺得死神似乎也不是那麼恐怖的了。但由於現場的光線很熱,幾乎都打在台上,偶爾可以見到作者疲憊的眼神。中間也有服務人員在問聽眾有沒有人要讓作者簽書,可惜我沒有注意到今天有他的座談,不然再重也會帶去。由於多數人都向《偷書賊》的作者提問,最後主持人出面轉由郝譽翔開始講她個人的寫作經驗。基於之前中時那支扔《追憶似水年華》的短片,雖然是劇情需要,但我還是轉頭對身旁的優狗說:「我們走吧!」 中間幾次曾經分開逛,後來我逛到電影館,裡面正在播放開幕片《 羅浮宮謎情 》。問我會不會後悔花錢去電影看片?一點也不會,在現場的座位並不是那麼舒服,而且一旁C209攤位還有人拿著大聲公在促銷,非常差勁。 與優狗碰面後,我們前往三館,原本是想看看繪本和文具,結果一入場看到的都屬於幼兒童書,三館的攤位人員拉人拉的比一館還兇,已經到了令人反感的地步。三館有些主題很不錯,在文具區裡有看到台灣本土的文具品牌,雄獅和利...