{"id":300,"date":"2019-07-31T14:13:08","date_gmt":"2019-07-31T17:13:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/?p=300"},"modified":"2019-08-02T15:44:21","modified_gmt":"2019-08-02T18:44:21","slug":"revision-del-lacigf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/revision-del-lacigf\/","title":{"rendered":"REVIEW OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM, LACIGF"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS, REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>By Ra\u00fal Echeberr\u00eda <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>1. Introduction and Background<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>LACIGF was one of the first regional\nInternet governance forums to be organized. The first edition was held in 2008\nat the initiative of three regional organizations: APC, LACNIC and RITS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In that context, the organization of the\nforum depended on the decisions of the organizing committee. In addition to\nproviding an innovative environment for the discussion of Internet governance\nissues, for the first few years the main goal was to build the LACIGF community\n\u2014&nbsp;which was initially quite small&nbsp;\u2014 and disseminate this emerging\nforum. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the following years, accompassing the\ngrowth of the LACIGF community and its positioning as a relevant regional\nforum, the Forum evolved towards a more complex governance scheme that led to\nthe creation and subsequent consolidation of a multistakeholder Program\nCommittee (Governments, Civil Society, Private Sector and Technical Community)\nresponsible its organization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For a few years, RITS (currently NUPEF)\ncontinued to host the discussion lists and website, and LACNIC has so far\nmaintained its role as logistics and operational Secretariat to complement the\nrole of the Program Committee. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The functions performed by LACNIC extend\nbeyond the mere organization of the event and include supporting the Program\nCommittee, fundraising, the administration of these funds, managing website\ncontent, communications and social media, as well as managing the fellowship\nprogram, among others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Program Committee is made up by members\nof the various interest groups, who organize themselves for the purpose of\nappointing their representatives, and currently includes three representatives\nof each of the four sectors it comprises (for a total of 12 representatives). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Over the past few months, several voices\nproposed a review of the LACIGF with the purpose of introducing improvements. A\nfeeling that LACIGF was losing relevance and that it needed an assessment began\nto grow among the community and among organized stakeholders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In late May, LACNIC presented to the LACIGF\nProgram Committee the idea of \u200b\u200bconducting a review study of the LACIFG that\nwould allow the generation of inputs that could be used for discussion. The\nProgram Committee understood the value of conducting this study, so LACNIC\nlaunched the project by providing resources to fund the first part of the\nreview. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>2. Participation in the Process <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Over the past two months, several\nparticipation channels were created: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Individual interviews with persons\nwho are part of the different stakeholder groups<\/li><li>An open call for discussion in\nthree different languages (Portuguese, English and Spanish) <\/li><li>Ad-hoc meetings taking\nadvantage of other events<\/li><li>Meetings at the request of the\nvarious stakeholders<\/li><li>Written inputs and\ncontributions submitted to <a href=\"procesoabierto@lacigf.org\">procesoabierto@lacigf.org<\/a><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>While it is impossible to speak with\neveryone, the universe of people we consulted or who proactively participated\nin the process is highly representative of the diversity of the regional\ncommunity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A total of 157 people participated: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>39 individual interviews (21 men, 18 women)<\/li><li>37 people during the first 3 open calls (7 in Portuguese, 23 in Spanish, 7 in English) <\/li><li>12 written comments were received<\/li><li>2 informal conversations with stakeholders<\/li><li>67 participants in different ad-hoc meetings (remote and face-to-face)<ul><li>7 at a meeting held in Cordoba during CLT, the Latin American Telecommunications Congress <\/li><li>22 during the visit to CGI.br, the Brazilian Internet Steering <br> Committee<\/li><li>15 in a conference with the LACTLD Policy Working Group<\/li><li>8 in a conference with the eLAC Internet Governance Working Group<\/li><li>13 in a conference with a group of active participants who are part of the Caribbean Internet community <\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In all, the 157 individuals who\nparticipated in the process in one way or another represent 22 different\ncountries of the region. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As a first positive conclusion, it is\nimportant to stress that the consultation process itself was a mobilizing\nprocess which brought greater attention to LACIGF and generated expectations\nregarding its future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This significant level of participation\nprovided plenty of valuable information: ideas, criticism, varied points of\nview, and many proposals. It is impossible to reflect all of this information\nin this report, which is purposefully brief so that it will be easy to read\nwill effectively become useful in moving forward. This is the reason why the\nreport focuses on the search for a common ground, which is ultimately the goal\nof collaborative construction work, one of the pillars of the multistakeholder\napproach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>3. Diagnosis<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The majority of those who participated in\nthe consultation process, including those who do not regularly participate in\nLACIGF, share the general view that LACIGF is a valuable forum\/mechanism that has\nbeen very successful and innovative, but that in recent years it has lost\nrelevance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Several issues have been identified as\ncauses of this loss of relevance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>A format based mostly on\npanels, which is not attractive and is not very interactive.<\/li><li>A lack of balance in the\nparticipation of the different stakeholder groups. Participation of the\ngovernment sector and the private sector is viewed as minor and a stronger\nparticipation of Civil Society is perceived. This may be considered either as a\ncause or a consequence. The low levels of participation of certain sectors may\nbe due to the fact that the forum is not attractive enough for such groups,\nwhile the lack of balance in the participation of the different sectors can reduce\nthe forum\u2019s appeal. <\/li><li>The same speakers and\nmoderators repeat their roles over several editions of the forum. <\/li><li>The non-production of tangible\nresults. <\/li><li>A lack of follow-up, which\nleads to the repetition of agenda items and discussions (the forum does not\nbuild on previous discussions), which is partly related to the previous item. <\/li><li>The lack of links with other\nregional forums and national IGFs. <\/li><li>The low impact of LACIGF\ndiscussions on public policy development, which mostly take place at a local\nlevel. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In addition, internal communications within\neach stakeholder group and the transparency of the work of the Program\nCommittee were mentioned as two areas with room for improvement to increase\nknowledge and interest in LACIGF within the region. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In summary, there is a very positive\nopinion regarding the emergence of LACIGF and the work that has been carried\nout in (and around) this forum, while at the same time there is a critical\nopinion of its current situation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This generalized critical view leads to the\nneed to specifically question whether efforts should be made to improve LACIGF\nor whether the Forum should only be maintained until the time when it is\nconcluded that its cycle has come to an end. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This question is particularly relevant in a\ncontext where multiple other forums related to more specific issues have\nemerged, as have many ad-hoc multistakeholder consultation mechanisms, some of\nthem originated by governments and others by private companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Faced with this key question of whether to\nmake the effort to improve LACIGF or not, the vast majority of individuals who\nparticipated in this analysis replied without hesitation that it should indeed\nbe improved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The main reason cited is that LACIGF is a\nunique space. A space that belongs to everyone and to no one at the same time,\nthe only place where all stakeholders can effectively participate on an even\nplaying field, even a space that is open to individuals and organizations that\nare not a formal part of any specific stakeholder group. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There is general consensus in the sense\nthat it is worth making the effort to maintain this forum or mechanism, but\nonly if improvements are introduced to preserve and increase its relevance, a\nrelevance that is seen mainly in terms of the impact of the discussions on the\nregional and local policy development processes (within the region). <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>4. Suggested Improvements<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In order not to guide the consultation, the\nprocess began with a blank page. The purpose was to find out what ideas and\nopinions the community itself would come up with. However, it quickly became\nclear that comments converged into what could be classified as six categories:\nPARTICIPATION, CONTENTS, MEETING FORMAT, INTERSESSIONAL WORK and LACIGF\nSTRUCTURE, FUNDING MODELS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>4.1\nParticipation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>One of the basic proposals in\nthis area is the need to increase <strong>dissemination\nwork<\/strong>. On numerous occasions respondents mentioned that there is a lack of\nknowledge of LACIGF in their environments, and that this makes it difficult for\nthem to manage their participation.<\/li><li>The possibility of <strong>knowing the details of the meeting in\nadvance, primarily the agendas and the list of speakers<\/strong>, stands out as an\nessential point. Particularly, government and private sector representatives\nmentioned the difficulty of internally \u201cselling\u201d the importance of LACIGF\nwithout this type of information. <\/li><li>Government representatives\nnoted that handling official communications, including invitations to the\nevent, through their foreign affairs ministries is very important, not only to\njustify their travel but also to justify dedicating more time and effort to\nLACIGF. This issue should not difficult to solve, either by involving the local\ngovernment of the country hosting the following meeting or even by having the\nsecretariat do this through national embassies. Likewise, in a manner\nconsistent with the multistakeholder approach, government involvement and\nwillingness to assume this role might even be included as a requirement for\nhosting the meeting. <\/li><li>As mentioned in section 2. of\nthis report, one of the pillars of multistakeholder work is the spirit of\nconstructive collaboration. Certain environments are more appropriate for\ndenouncing and antagonism, while others \u2014&nbsp;such as these forums&nbsp;\u2014 are\nexpected to focus on creating opportunities for collaboration and collective\nconstruction. <br>\nThe importance of recovering or <strong>strengthening\nthis collaborative\/constructive spirit to encourage the participation of all\nstakeholders<\/strong> so that everyone can feel that they are in a safe space was\nbrought up several times during this process. This requires that those whose\nturn it is to act as moderators feel prepared and supported in their role. <\/li><li>Many have also proposed the\norganization of a <strong>high-level session<\/strong>,\nnot in the style of the global IGF (which is merely a series of presentations),\nbut something more in line with the format used for NetMundial in 2014. This\ncould be included as a session on the last day of the LACIGF program, but it\ncould also be held the day after LACIGF if it were considered as something\nattached to \u2014&nbsp;but not an integral part of&nbsp;\u2014 the Forum. For example,\nin the case of EURODIG (the regional European Dialogue on Internet Governance),\na meeting of the High-Level Group on Internet Governance (HLIG), an initiative\norganized by the European Commission, takes place the day after the event. This is a formal group and its meeting consists of two\nsessions, one that is open to all stakeholders and another that is limited to\ngovernments and the European Commission. This group is merely an example and\nthere is no reason to replicate it, but it does show one way to implement this\nproposal.<\/li><li>The\nproduction of content, which we will analyze elsewhere in this document, was\nalso mentioned as a way to promote participation. Those who mentioned this\nargue that, if LACIGF were to produce tangible results, the various\nstakeholders would have increased interest in participating. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>4.2 Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The most\nwidespread opinion is that <strong>the LACIGF\nagenda should be more focused<\/strong> and that it is necessary to prioritize the issues\nthat are most relevant at each moment. There are several, possibly\ncomplementary proposals on how to address the few issues that are identified as\nrelevant, either by creating topic clusters or by having different sessions\naddress the same topic from different points of view. For example, the same\ntopic might be approached from a regulatory, an economic, a rights or\ntechnological point of view.<\/li><li>Although,\nas mentioned in the item above, there is a demand for more focused discussions,\nthis also poses a challenge, as there appears to be a contradiction between two\nother important suggestions: on the one hand, <strong>there has been a proposal to address the situation of those countries\nthat are advancing more slowly in the development of the Information Society<\/strong>\nand whose priorities may therefore not be relevant to the most advanced\ncountries of the region, while on the other hand it has been proposed that\nLACIGF should be the forum for addressing emerging issues to raise awareness\namong the regional community regarding current major challenges. These\ncontradictions are not really such, but they do mean that we should be able to\nprepare <strong>agendas that combine very\nfocused discussion spaces with spaces for addressing more general issues and\nthat consider the needs and priorities of different parts of our community<\/strong> who\nare experiencing different realities and living in countries in different\nstages of ICT development.<\/li><li>Over the\npast few years there have been changes in how the LACIGF agenda is prepared.\nOverall, respondents value very positively the possibility of participating in\nthe public consultation that takes place every year, and they also appreciate\nthe combination of this consultation with consultations with organized\nstakeholders. A recurring proposal was that <strong>the agenda should continue to be prepared based on this public\nconsultation and a consultation with organized stakeholders, while also\nrequesting contributions from national IGFs<\/strong> or other equivalent\nmultistakeholder participation processes. <\/li><li>There is\nfairly widespread consensus that it would be positive for <strong>LACIGF to produce more tangible results<\/strong>. Opinions vary as to what\nthese results should include, but there seems to be a convergence towards the\npossibility that they might include <strong>the\nmost important aspects of the debates, main positions, high-level consensus\nwhenever possible, as well as the points of dissent<\/strong>. It is important to stress\nthat nobody is proposing forcing consensus, but rather maintaining the Forum\u2019s\nnon-negotiation nature and recording consensus when it exists. Several options\nhave been discussed for how to prepare these reports, which should be taken\ninto consideration at the time of potentially implementing these recommendations.\n<\/li><li>A strong\ndemand regarding the contents of LACIGF is <strong>to\navoid repeating the same discussions<\/strong>. It is understood that sometimes\ncertain issues must remain on the agenda because of their continued relevance,\nbut new discussions should build on prior discussions and results and the same\ndebates should not be repeated. In this sense, it is important to consider the\nrecommendation included in the previous item, as a better documentation of the\ndiscussions would allow a better follow-up. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>4.3 Formats<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Few points\nachieve as much consensus as the need to <strong>continue\nexploring more interactive discussion formats<\/strong>. Formats exclusively based on\npanels have become obsolete. One of the persons we interviewed referred to this\nas the \u201cteaching format,\u201d where one or several specialists teach to the rest of\nthe audience. Usually there is limited time for audience interaction, and this\ngenerates frustration among participants. This, however, does not mean that panels\nand keynote presentations should be completely eliminated, as they are in fact\nimportant and can be inspiring. It is good to have the participation of\nspecialists who know more about a given topic, but this \u201cteaching format\u201d\ncannot be the usual form of debate. In this sense, multiple ideas were brought\nup during the consultation process: <ul><li>Debates among people with different positions<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>Histrionic discussion models <\/li><\/ul><ul><li>Sessions with a moderator but no panelists<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>Role-playing<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>Breakout sessions <\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>As noted in\nsection 3, having the same people repeatedly in the role of speakers or\nmoderators is seen as a problem, so the proposal is to <strong>increase the rotation and diversity of speakers and moderators<\/strong>\nwhere such roles exist. While it is obviously felt that gender equality is\npresent in these roles, there is a demand for other forms of diversity:\ncultural, geographic, language and a strong emphasis on generational balance,\nwhich involves offering more important roles to young people.<\/li><li><strong>Improving transparency when selecting panelists\nand speakers<\/strong> is another clear\nproposal, even offering opportunities for different people to proactively\naspire to occupy such roles. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>4.4\nIntersessional Work<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The opinion among those who participated in this\nconsultation is almost unanimous regarding the importance of changing LACIGF\u2019s\napproach and that <strong>it should no longer be\na yearly meeting but instead become something more permanent<\/strong>. More focused\non the topics than on the meeting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Several activities were mentioned which could\ncontinue throughout the year. Most of these ideas are complementary: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Virtual\nworking groups either to continue the discussions of the LACIGF meeting, to\nprepare the discussions prior to the meeting and\/or to manage the discussions\nthemselves throughout the year (similar to the global IGF&#8217;s Best Practice\nForums, BPF). <\/li><li>Identification\nof priority topics. <\/li><li>Coordination\nwith other national, regional and global forums. <\/li><li>Dissemination\nactivities.<\/li><li>Sending\nLACIGF materials to relevant regional stakeholders. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Strengthening this\nintersessional work requires improving the tools used to support it. Basically,\nthere is significant consensus that information repositories should be improved\nant that virtual collaboration platforms should be implemented. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>4.5 LACIGF Structure<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The community has a\nvery positive opinion of the contribution made so far by LACNIC in its role as\nLACIGF secretariat. LACNIC was not only one of the originators of this\ninitiative together with RITS\/NUPEF and APC, but the organization continues\nperforming this role which includes supporting the Program Committee, the\norganization of the event, fundraising work, and the operational implementation\nof the fellowship program, among other tasks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While there is a very\npositive view of the work carried out so far, the majority share the opinion\nthat there is a need to evolve these structures. The following proposals\nappeared most strongly: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The Program\nCommittee should have greater visibility and more clearly assume\nresponsibilities towards the community. <ul><li>All Program Committee members should be equally\ncommitted. <\/li><\/ul><ul><li>The Program Committee should have clearly\ndefined roles and responsibilities.<\/li><\/ul><ul><li>Greater transparency and better communication\nwill increase appreciation for the work of the Committee and more people will\nwant to volunteer for this position. <\/li><\/ul><ul><li>There should be more clarity on how to be part\nof the Committee. Greater clarity in eligibility criteria and processes. <\/li><\/ul><ul><li>Although this was not a unanimous\nrecommendation, several respondents mentioned that it would be good to create\nleadership positions within the Committee (a chairman, for example) to increase\nits visibility.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>There is\nsignificant support for the creation of a permanent LACIGF secretariat. Several\nof the recommendations mentioned in the previous sections require energy and\neffort. A permanent secretariat would be the way to successfully address these\nchallenges. We also perceived the need for something to operate between the\nProgram Committee and the operational-logistical secretariat currently operated\nby LACNIC. The consensus among those who support the creation of this\nsecretariat is that it should be \u201clight\u201d and non-bureaucratic. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>4.6 Funding. <\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The discussion of how\nLACIGF should be funded came up naturally during the discussions and interviews\nwe conducted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The proposed\nimprovements and evolution would clearly demand resources, which means that the\nfunding of LACIGF is not a trivial discussion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Faced with the specific\nquestion of whether the current funding model should change or remain the same,\nthe majority responded that the donation-based model is best and that, if\nLACIGF increases its relevance for all regional stakeholders, it will be easier\nto maintain current and attract new donors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Nevertheless, other\ncomplementary options were mentioned, among them the creation of a membership\nstructure, an attempt to hold self-funded meetings (where the host is\nresponsible for the costs) and separating the fellowship programs from the\noperating costs of LACIGF and its annual meeting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>5. Conclusions and Next Steps<\/strong><strong><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>As evidenced throughout\nthis report, LACIGF has earned a place within the regional Internet ecosystem.\nNumerous people from different sectors and from different parts of the region\nagree not only that this Forum has been innovative, successful and important,\nbut also that the future still holds a relevant place for LACIGF. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Likewise, there is a\nshared vision among the regional community about the need for this mechanism to\nevolve into a tool to properly address a challenging reality and future, with\nan impact on the development of Internet-related policies from a multistakeholder\nperspective. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As described in section\n3., LACIGF is a unique forum that belongs to everyone and to no one at the same\ntime. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The suggested changes\nare not minor changes and, in the event of moving forward in the proposed\ndirection, they will require effort and commitment from all the stakeholders\ninvolved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So, what should the\nnext steps be? <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If broad consensuses\nare achieved during the discussions at LACIGF 12 in La Paz, this will allow the\ndevelopment of a roadmap that should be implemented under the leadership of the\nProgram Committee. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There seems to be\nenough merit for a new stage of this project to advance not only in the\nimplementation of certain ideas that do not require much further analysis but\nalso, at the same time, to delve deeper into the analysis and develop proposals\nfor the implementation of other, more complex ideas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Pending the discussions\nthat will be held in La Paz and the considerations of the LACIGF Program\nCommittee, the next step would be to prepare a concrete proposal for the second\nstage of the project, including objectives, timelines, costs and funding\nschemes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Potentially, the goals\nof the next phase of this project might include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Articulating\nwith the host of LACIGF 13, the Secretariat and the Program Committee for the\nearly definition of the organizational details of the 2020 meeting. <\/li><li>Identifying\npriorities, public consultation and preparation of the agenda. <\/li><li>Suggesting\nprocesses for improving Program Committee communications. <\/li><li>Reviewing\nand preparing proposals for improving the website and information repository.<\/li><li>Formally\ncommunicating the results of LACIGF 12 and the preparations for LACIGF 13 to\nthe governments of the region and organized stakeholders.<\/li><li>An analysis\nof changes to the LACIGF structure, including a possible timeline for the\ncreation of a secretariat and medium-term funding models. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Comments<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Andr\u00e9 Fernandes, Brasil (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Andre-Fernandes-Relatorio-LACIGF.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Andr\u00e9 Fernandes, Brasil<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Azael Fern\u00e1ndez, M\u00e9xico (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/azael-fernandez.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Azael Fern\u00e1ndez, M\u00e9xico<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Carlos Guerrero, Per\u00fa\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/carlos-guerrero.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Carlos Guerrero, Per\u00fa<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"CGI.br\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Documento_consulta_LACIGF_CGIbr_201907.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">CGI.br<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Deirdre Williams, St. Lucia\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/deirdre-williams.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Deirdre Williams, St. Lucia<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Flavio Wagner, Brasil\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/flavio-wagner.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Flavio Wagner, Brasil<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Julian Casasbuenas, Colombia\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/julian-casasbuenas.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Julian Casasbuenas, Colombia<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Mara Destefanis\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/mara-destefanis.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Mara Destefanis<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Mariana Valente, Brasil\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/mariana-valente.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Mariana Valente, Brasil<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Nicol\u00e1s Fiumarelli, Uruguay\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/nicolas-fumarelli.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Nicol\u00e1s Fiumarelli, Uruguay<\/a><\/li><li><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Prof. Nora Moreno\u2028 (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\" href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/nora-moreno.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Prof. Nora Moreno<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/women-sig.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Women SIG, Internet Society (abre en una nueva pesta\u00f1a)\">Women SIG, Internet Society<\/a><\/li><\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS, REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS By Ra\u00fal Echeberr\u00eda 1. Introduction and Background LACIGF was one of the first regional Internet governance forums to be organized. The first edition was held in 2008 at the initiative of three regional organizations: APC, LACNIC and RITS. In that context, the organization of the forum depended on the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6563,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=300"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":371,"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300\/revisions\/371"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6563"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eventos.lacigf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}