Japan IGF Bimonthly Event: Jan 2017
Date and time : Thu 26th Jan 2017 18:00-20:00 JSTVenue: JPNIC office meeting room, Tokyo, Japan
Participants : 23 onsite, 3 online
Survey: 20 responses- Gender: Male 70%, Female 15%, No Response 15%- Stakeholders: Internet operations related 47%, Business 16%, Government10%,
Others 11% No Response 16%- Satisfaction : Satisfied 30%, Generally Satisfied 50%, Average 15%, Slightly
Unsatisfied 0%, Unsatisfied 0%, No Response 5%
Program:
1. Reflection of Internet Governance Forum Japan (IGCJ) in 2016
2. Discussion on Future of IGCJ
Summary:
A presentation was made by a member of IGCJ Coordination Team on key reflections,followed by discussions by participants. The presentation slides are available at (InJapanese): http://igcj.jp/meetings/2017/0126/igcj-review-2016.pdf
On reflection of IGCJ in 2016:
 Recap of the original conceptA) To construct a firm base in Japan for well-informed considerations of Internet
Governance issues
B) As appropriate, to make recommendations on Internet Governance issues for incountry stakeholders and global arena
 Coverage of themes-Themes covered in past meetings and requests from participants were shared forreview and feedback.

-A suggestion was made to invite more experts from different arena, and let themshare how they see the Internet, form their respective area of expertise.

 Stakeholder Participation-

Some observations were made about the need to accommodate more non-technicalparticipants to the forum, for wider participation-

On the other hand, there was strong support for IGCJ to have in depth discussions
1

based on expertise, and to continue with the current direction-An observation was made on the challenges to attract participation from businesses
in Japan. A suggestion was made to invite a business speaker from overseas to share
why they engage in Internet Governance discussions.

 Future role of IGCJ-A question was asked whether IGCJ should continue in the current form or to havemore proactive role in collecting feedback in the Japanese community, and provide
inputs to various call for comments, within and outside Japan. This lead to further
discussions on the goal of IGCJ.

-A request was expressed for IGCJ to have more proactive role in submittingcomments for policy measures in Japan. On the other hand, comments wereexpressed that this may change the role of IGCJ. It serves to have open discussions
from a diversity of views, without negotiated outcomes. It would be up to eachindividual stakeholders to take it up to their group, to take further actions as needed.

-

An observation was made that contributions from the Japanese community such as
to Best Practices Forum in the global IGF would be a good way to contribute to theglobal forum.

 Future actions-

Increase interested participants for a more wide range of themes, to enrichdiscussions in the community-Consider to provide basic introduction/a glossary of terms for new comers to thetopic-

Use more simple, comprehensible vocabulary, without using the word “InternetGovernance”-Provide a short update on global trends on regular basis-

Enhance collaboration with other communities and organisations: There is no needto try to cover all themes at IGCJ as long as there is good collaboration with otherexisting communities and IGCJ to act as a hub.

-Have regularity in the meeting schedule, for easier planning for attendance: Every
4th Thursday of odd number month (May change on certain months)-Measure the ratio of new comers at every meetings, to observe how IGCJ expands
as the community-Participants are also requested to think about the themes of their interest and tohave discussions at IGCJ2