"Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on Internet governance"

Vint Cerf has sounded the alarm on a U.N. committee decision to restrict who can be part of a working group to improve the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Specifically, the U.N.'s Commission on Science & Technology for Development decided that the working group would consist exclusively of governments.

Vint Cerf "is recognized as one of the fathers of the Internet," and it's a fair bet that if he sees a problem regarding the Internet, it's real.

On the other hand, I haven't the faintest idea what the IGF is supposed to do. If, like me, you didn't know what the IGF was, its mission statement calls for it to do a lot of talking, and facilitating of talking.

Who's talking?

• "bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet"
• "appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions"
• "stakeholders"

What are they supposed to be talking about? As far as I can tell, "Internet governance."

What is that? Beats me.

It seems the IGF is supposed to implement the principles set out by the World Summit on the Information Society. Those principles are available in multiple languages. I will admit right up front that I was unable to parse the English-language version, though it is composed of valid English words. I think the problem was that I couldn't stay conscious long enough to finish any of the sentences.

Seriously, though, these principles are banal in the extreme, stating either the obvious or the unachievable. With these as the foundation, it's no wonder the IGF's mission statement is devoid of meaning.

There is another organization, the Internet Society, whose mission statement reads in part:

The Internet Society (ISOC) is a nonprofit organisation founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet related standards, education and policy. We are dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world.

ISOC has a brief word on Internet governance:

"Internet governance" is a broad term used in many different contexts, applying to activities as diverse as coordination of technical standards, operation of critical infrastructure, development, regulation, and legislation, among others. Internet governance is not restricted to the activities of governments. Many different types of stakeholders have a role in defining and carrying out Internet governance activities and ISOC has always been an active leader in such discussions.

(emphasis is mine)

As far as I can tell, ISOC's mission statement adequately sets forth the concrete goals hidden behind the WSIS's vaporous principles and the IGF's Platonically ideal mission statement. I'm therefore at a loss to see what the IGF could or should be doing that ISOC wasn't set up to do. And ISOC already understands, as the aforementioned U.N. committtee does not, that whatever "Internet governance" is, it involves more than just governments.

If you have a clearer idea of what the IGF is and why the CSTD's decision is a Bad Idea, or you just trust Vint Cerf, by all means, sign the petition to which he linked.

For myself, the IGF seems like a waste of time and money, and I'd rather see it gone.

I'm kind of cranky on this subject because to me the only "governance" required on the Internet is the oversight of technical standards provided by the IETF, the IESG, and the IAB.