Indonesia IGF

Attachment Size
gw2017_specialnri_indonesia.pdf 1022.12 KB

NRI founding stories and development

What is the story of the founding of your NRI? What were its inspiration, its objectives?

The Indonesia Internet Governance Forum (ID-IGF) was founded in late 2012. The establishment of the ID-IGF was a significant step towards creating a genuine multistakeholder dialogue on governance of the internet in Indonesia. Founding members included representatives from the National ICT Council (Detiknas), Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT), the Indonesian Association of Internet Service Providers (APJII), the Indonesian Internet Domain Name Registry (PANDI), NGO ICT Watch, and many more. The establishment of the forum rapidly brought plans for Indonesia to host the Global IGF in 2013. IGF 2013 was organised and funded in the form of multistakeholder cooperation. Chaired by a member of Detiknas, the committee includes representatives from the MCIT, the internet business community, technical community and civil society. The main objective of the ID-IGF establishment is that key stakeholders of internet in Indonesia acknowledge the complexity of internet development and believe that there is urgent need to work across stakeholders in internet field.

How did it develop and what difficulties did you experience along the way?

The multistakeholder process in organising the 8th IGF was one of the main parts of the learning curve for the ID-IGF. The process was challenging yet an invaluable experience. The local host committee has learned about the leadership role of stewardship by collaborating with a wide array of stakeholders. Solidifying multistakeholder cooperation through the broad inclusion of stakeholders and a shared sense of commitment was crucial in completing the necessary work. Along the way, there were several challenging issues. Organisational development was the first issue the ID-IGF encountered, therefore developing a secretariat (including recruitment) and drafting a working mechanism procedure were two priorities after 2013. Ensuring continuous meaningful contribution (e.g. interest and attendance) from the ID-IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and other stakeholders is the second issue the ID-IGF needed to settle.

How do you imagine your NRI and its activities in the future?

There are two main focuses: reaching out and engaging with wider internet stakeholders and building capacity in internet governance issues through various collaborations with existing community groups, as well as analysing key issues need to be prioritised as ID-IGF concerns for further discussion with policy makers.

NRI internal governance and initiatives

Who are the people involved in your NRI and how do they contribute to it?

There are 25 Multistakeholder Advisory Group members at the ID-IGF and people who are involved in the beginning of this forum. There are two WhatsApp groups, one is for the MAG only and the second is more informal with members or volunteers of the ID-IGF. The nature of contributions varies according to participants’ interest but the most tangible contributions are in the form of giving ideas, volunteering in ID-IGF events, funding, disseminating information related to the ID-IGF and eventually attending.

Have you experienced difficulties in ensuring all stakeholder groups participate fully and more or less equally?

Yes, we are having this type of experience. Therefore, it is important for the ID-IGF to continuously make its activities and programmes more relevant to all stakeholders.

Do you measure gender balance in your NRI? Did you undertake measures to encourage gender balance?

The ID-IGF puts forward the issue of gender balance in all of its activities. In our national dialogues, gender balance counts as one of the key issues in the assessment process.

How was your last forum organised, what were the topics chosen and the outcomes of discussion? How was it financed?

The main topic in the 2016 ID-IGF Dialogue was “Towards Indonesia’s Digital Sovereignty and Resilience”. The topics were allocated in four baskets (infrastructure, laws and regulations, socio-culture and economy). A call for proposals was announced and various proposals were received by the committee. The event was attended by 400 participants. Funding came from different stakeholders and the report is online.1

Are there controversial topics that have been difficult in your NRI and if so, why?

Response provided to this question was “N/A”.

Perspectives on the role of NRIs in internet governance

What is your take about the role of your NRI in internet governance processes, at the level of your country, region and globally?

There are not many NRIs in our region. The ID-IGF can contribute to the growth of national IGFs in other countries by sharing its experiences on the advantages (both tangible and intangible) of having a national IGF.

How do you perceive your role and position towards other NRIs, the IGF and the IGF Secretariat?

The ID-IGF appreciates the role of IGF Secretariat, that keeps coordination among national and regional IGFs. As mentioned above, our role is that of sharing experiences and knowledge with other NRIs, that can be specifically in the Asia Pacific region or at global level.