Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
IGF + NETmundial for Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

IGF + NETmundial for Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program

347

Published on

Prepared for Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program …

Prepared for Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
347
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The New Bylaws call for the establishment of a framework of local, regional, and global groups to promote structured involvement and informed participation of the global individual Internet user community (the “At-Large” community) in ICANN and the ICANN policy-development process.
    To build this framework, and to provide an “individual user perspective” on pending policy issues, the Interim ALAC was appointed by the Board earlier this year.
  • Transcript

    • 1. IGF, NETmundial and beyond? Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program Greater Noida, India Aug 3, 2014 Izumi Aizu iza@anr.org
    • 2. 3 In the beginning… (till early 1990s) Few people believed that ordinary people will use computers Very few people believed that people will use computers to communicate In the Telecom world…Internet was regarded as “dirty”, “not secure”, not suited to serious business Governments, Telco, ITU, Business, Academia - all main stream people were against the Internet Aug 3 2014 3
    • 3. Introduction The User is the center PC enabled people to control computers “Counter-culture” from West Coast “Hackers”, Steven Levy” “Tools for Thought”, Howard Rheingold Linking computers made users more powerful “Virtual Community”, H. Rheingold Internet empowering people & society Free communication, action, inter-action “Smart Mobs”, H. Rheingold Aug 3 2014 4
    • 4. Debate on Internet Governance It was there since around 1996 Who manages the DNS What if Jon Postel dies? IAHC proposed new international body based in Geneva ISOC, ITU and EU in agreement USG stopped this attempt in 1997, started Policy Process, Green & White Paper IFWP process: Jun - Oct 1998 DC, Geneva, Singapore and Buenos Aires Meetings ICANN was tentatively accepted by USG 5Aug 3 2014
    • 5. It became louder with the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)  Summit: United Nation’s high-level event with Head of States to discuss matters of mutual concerns, mostly global emerging issues  WSIS – proposed by ITU, adopted by GA  1st phase 2003 - in Geneva, 2nd 2005 in Tunis  Objective: Close the digital divide in developing countries Take advantage of digital economy for further development Address new issues of information society Aug 3 2014 6
    • 6. “Internet Governance” became the hottest issue Emerged during prep process in 2002, the hottest of all issues Developing countries wanted to change the international system around ICANN “Internet is a global public resource that requires governments to manage”, calling for formal intervention of governments in the management of the Domain Name System, under the UN System by international intergovernmental body “Replace ICANN with ITU”, “UN to take over ICANN”  USA and many Western countries argued for “No regulation” by governments, let private sector to manage Internet resources Long and winding debate continued among governments as well as business and civil society participants in the preparatory processAug 3 2014 7
    • 7. 08/03/14 8 What is “Internet Governance”? 1. Governance of Internet infrastructure Domain Name System, IP number allocation Standardization process (IETF vs. ITU etc.) Access – to close digital divide 1. Governance of Social activities over Internet Illegal & harmful content (for minors) Spam, cyber security 1. Governance of Information Society E-commerce, digital economy Digital culture Social inclusion – no one should be left behind Aug 3 2014 8
    • 8. 9 Working Definition of Internet Governance: “Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” from the WGIG Report accepted by WSIS Tunis AgendaAug 3 2014 9
    • 9. Why it became so hot? Facing new challenges with changing realities  From research network to global Public & Economic infrastructure Uneven framework with USG holds discretionary power  Historical legacy became political concern Inadequate current systems  “North” dominates the “South” – less participation in ICANN process from developing countries – appeal made by G8 DOT Force with no result  From governments to civil society Lack of proper understanding about Internet and ICANN (history, role and functions) Distrust created by politically motivated actors  ITU to regain control over “telecom”  “Politics” inside UN system  Internet empowers the users/individuals/citizens Aug 3 2014 10
    • 10. Politics behind Anti-US, anti globalization against US dominance in military, technology & economy Demonstration against WEF, IMF, WTO, G8 Summit… US invasion to Iraq after 911 Competition for world hegemony for digital economy Aug 3 2014 11
    • 11. Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) – 2004-05  Outcome of WSIS negotiation on IG  40 members, from South and North, governments, civil society and private sector  Open and closed meetings Sep 04, Nov 04, Feb, Apr, Jun & July 05  Online consultations Contributions, questionnaire and forum Webcast and real-time captures Aug 3 2014 12
    • 12. 2006 ~ Internet Governance Forum ( IGF ) A “Product” of WSIS Multi-stakeholder set-up Gov, Biz, Civil Society – on equal footing MAG ( appointed by SG) 5-year mandate, with scheduled review http://www.intgovforum.org// Aug 3 2014 13
    • 13. IGF 1st 5 years 2006 – Athens, Greece Many were skeptical, but relieved 2007 – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil CIR was put into main theme 2008 – Hyderabad, India Getting more “stabilized”, Remote Hubs introduced 2009 – Sharm el Shake, Egypt 1800 participants, 112 countries, 96 govts Many emphasized the usefulness of IGF as a platform for dialogue, free from the pressures of negotiations – positive for extension 2010 – Vilnius, Lithuania Aug 3 2014 14
    • 14. IGF Improvement after 5 years UN SG made a report with 5 year extension w/ improvements, UN GA agreed, Feb 2011 CSTD under EcoSoc formed WG to make report on IGF Improvement in 2011 (after hard negotiation) CSTD WG Report finalized, Mar 2012 (failed in 2011) CSTD adopted the Report, May 2012 Improve Outcome, Outreach, Support Developing countries’ participation No major change in nature and structure of IGF Adopted at UN GA, Dec 2012 Main issue: developing country participation, finance and outcomeAug 3 2014 15
    • 15. IGF after “improvement” 2011 – Nairobi, Kenya Chair/Executive Coordinator absent 2012 – Baku, Azerbaijan Controversy over host country politics 2013 – Bali, Indonesia Human rights became central issue together with privacy/surveillance NETmundial proposed 2014 – Istanbul, Turkey Aug 3 2014 16
    • 16. IGF Improvement after 5 years UN GA agreed to continue IGF for another 5 years with improvements EcoSoc, CSTD - formed WG to make report on IGF Improvement in 2011 (after negotiation) CSTD WG Report finalized in Mar 2012 Adopted at CSTD, May 2012 Improve Outcome Shaping, Outreach, Support Developing countries’ participation No major change in nature and structure of IGF Just adopted at UN GA, Dec 16? Aug 3 2014 17
    • 17. ITR at WCIT/ITU • ITR: International Telecommunications Regulation an International Treaty, revised since 1988 version • WCIT: World Conference on International Telecommunication, held in Dubai, Dec 2012 Aug 3 2014 18
    • 18. ITR Signatories Non-signatories Aug 3 2014 19
    • 19. Member States signed for ITR AFGHANISTAN ALGERIA AZERBAIJAN ANGOLA SAUDI ARABIA ARGENTINA BAHRAIN BANGLADESH BARBADOS BHUTAN BOTSWANA BRAZIL BELIZE BENIN BRUNEI DARUSSALAM BURKINA FASO BURUNDI CAPE VERDE CAMBODIA CENTRAL AFRICA CHINA COMOROS REPUBLIC OF CONGO COTE D'IVOIRE CUBA DJIBOUTI DOMINICA EL SALVADOR EGYPT GABON GHANA GUATEMALA GUYANA HAITI IRAN INDONESIA IRAQ JAMAICA JORDAN KAZAKHSTAN KOREA KYRGYZSTAN KUWAIT LEBANON LESOTHO LIBERIA LIBYA LUCIA MALAYSIA MALI MAURICE MEXICO MOROCCO MOZAMBIQUE NAMIBIA NEPAL NIGER NIGERIA OMAN PANAMA PAPUA NEW GUINEA PARAGUAY QATAR RUSSIAN FEDERATION RWANDA SENEGAL SIERRA LEONE SINGAPORE SOMALIA SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH SUDAN SRI LANKA SUDAN SWAZILAND TANZANIA THAILAND TOGO TUNISIA TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TURKEY UGANDA UKRAINE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES URUGUAY UZBEKISTAN YEMEN VENEZUELA VIET NAM ZIMBABWE www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html Aug 3 2014 20
    • 20. States not signed for ITR ALBANIA ANDORRA ARMENIA AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA BELARUS BELGIUM COLOMVIA BULGARIA COSTA RICA CANADA CHILE CROATIA CYPRUS CZECH REPUBLIC DENMARK ESTONIA FINLAND FRANCE GAMBIA GEORGIA GERMANY GREECE HUNGARY INDIA IRELAND ISRAEL ITALY JAPAN KENYA LATVIA LIECHTENSTEIN LITHUANIA LUXEMBOURG MALAWI MALTA MARSHALL ISLANDS MOLDOVA MONGOLIA MONTENEGRO NORWAY NETHERLANDS NEW ZEALAND PERU PHILIPPINES POLAND PORTUGAL SERBIA SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Aug 3 2014 21
    • 21. NETmundial Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance April 23/24, Sao Paulo, Brazil 22Aug 3 2014
    • 22. Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Proposed by ICANN, co-hosted by Government of Brazil Background: Snowden revelation on USG monitoring Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, UNGA speech severely criticized USG Question: the role of USG on IG ICANN needs new framework ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, Oct 2014 23Aug 3 2014
    • 23. NETmundial Process making outcome doc by all 24 Online process (Feb-Apr 2014) 1st Draft 189 Public Comments Editorial Group Final Drafting Meeting - Editing Aug 3 2014
    • 24. NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement Adopted by acclamation Russia and Cuba dissented India: “We need to consult with Capital” All(?) other governments accepted Some Civil Society put reservation, but others accepted 25Aug 3 2014
    • 25. NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement This is the non-binding outcome of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving thousands of people from governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world. The NETmundial conference was the first of its kind. It hopefully contributes to the evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. 1. Internet Governance Principles 2. Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem 26Aug 3 2014
    • 26. 1. INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values that contribute for an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework and recognized that the Internet is a global resource which should be managed in the public interest. 27Aug 3 2014
    • 27. HUMAN RIGHTS AND SHARED VALUES Human rights are universal as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that should underpin Internet governance principles. Rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in accordance with international human rights legal obligations, including the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Those rights include, but are not limited to: 28Aug 3 2014
    • 28. Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.  Freedom of association: Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and association online, including through social networks and platforms.  Privacy: The right to privacy must be protected. This includes not being subject to arbitrary or unlawful surveillance, collection, treatment and use of personal data. The right to the protection of the law against such interference should be ensured.  Procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection, should be reviewed, with a view to upholding the right to privacy by ensuring the full and effective implementation of all obligations under international human rights law. Aug 3 2014 29
    • 29.  Accessibility: persons with disabilities should enjoy full access to online resources Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information, technologies and systems on the internet. Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law. Development: all people have a right to development and the Internet has a vital role to play in helping to achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable development goals. It is a vital tool for giving people living in poverty the means to participate in development processes. 30Aug 3 2014
    • 30. PROTECTION OF INTERMEDIARIES Intermediary liability limitations should be implemented in a way that respects and promotes economic growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information. In this regard, cooperation among all stakeholders should be encouraged to address and deter illegal activity, consistent with fair process. 31 Softer wording with private sector “lobbying” vs “intermediary liablitiy” Aug 3 2014
    • 31. The draft language “in order to ensure that these rights (information and access rights) are available in practice, it is essential that internet intermediaries are protected from liability for the actions of their users within the limitations of law.” 32Aug 3 2014
    • 32. Network Neutrality No consensus reached, dropped off from the outcome document as a whole 33Aug 3 2014
    • 33. “We are disappointed because that outcome document fails to adequately reflect a number of our key concerns,” ten Oever said. “The lack of acknowledgement of net neutrality at NETmundial is deeply disappointing. Mass surveillance has not been sufficiently denounced as being inconsistent with human rights and the principle of proportionality. And although the addition of language on Internet intermediary liability is welcomed, the failure of the draft text to ensure due process safeguards could undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.” The intermediary liability subject is too much about business and not enough about human rights, said Robin Gross, executive director of IP Justice. 34Aug 3 2014
    • 34. CULTURE AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY Internet governance must respect, protect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity in all its forms. UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE Internet should continue to be a globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely end- to-end regardless of the lawful content. 35Aug 3 2014
    • 35. SECURITY, STABILITY AND RESILIENCE OF THE INTERNET OPEN AND DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE 36Aug 3 2014
    • 36. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. 37Aug 3 2014
    • 37.  Open, participative, consensus driven governance:  Transparent:  Accountable:  Inclusive and equitable:  Distributed:  Collaborative:  Enabling meaningful participation:  Access and low barriers: Agility  OPEN STANDARDS Aug 3 2014 38
    • 38. 2. ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE I. Issues that deserve attention of all stakeholders in the future evolution of Internet governance. 39Aug 3 2014
    • 39. It is important that multistakeholder decision-making and policy formulation are improved in order to ensure the full participation of all interested parties, recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders in different issues. 40Aug 3 2014
    • 40. Enhanced cooperation as referred to in the Tunis Agenda to address international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet must be implemented on a priority and consensual basis. Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open, democratic, and transparent processes. 41Aug 3 2014
    • 41. MSH at National Level There is a need to develop multistakeholder mechanisms at the national level owing to the fact that a good portion of Internet governance issues should be tackled at this level. National multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as a link between local discussions and regional and global instances. Therefore a fluent coordination and dialogue across those different dimensions is essential. 42Aug 3 2014
    • 42. Tunis Agenda: 98. We encourage strengthened and continuing cooperation between and among stakeholders to ensure effective implementation of the Geneva and Tunis outcomes, for instance through the promotion of national, regional and international multi- stakeholder partnerships including Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), and the promotion of national and regional multi-stakeholder thematic platforms, in a joint effort and dialogue with developing and less developed countries, development partners and actors in the ICT sector. In that respect, we welcome partnerships such as the ITU-led “Connect the World” initiative. 43Aug 3 2014
    • 43. There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties in Internet governance discussions and decision-making, with attention to geographic, stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries Enabling capacity building and empowerment All stakeholders should renew their commitment to build a people centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society as defined by the WSIS Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved communication and coordination between technical and non-technical communities 44Aug 3 2014
    • 44. II. Issues dealing with institutional improvements. 3. There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. It is suggested that these recommendations will be implemented by the end of 2015. 45Aug 3 2014
    • 45. Improvements should include inter-alia: a. Improved outcomes: Improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options; b. Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms; c. Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF, including through a broadened donor base, is essential; d. The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions between meetings through intersessional dialogues. 46Aug 3 2014
    • 46. An emerging issue? Rise of “Social Fabrication” 3D printer, Laser Cutting Machine and other digial machie tools, allowing open source hardware design and creation by global community of people. Do we need to “govern” them? 55Aug 3 2014
    • 47. SocialFab   2013 FabLabs expanding globally 500 FabLabs in Nov 2013; was 145 in Nov 2012 Many in developing world: India, Nepal, Indonesia, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Vietnam etc. http://fablabamersfoort.nl/nl/fablabs-globally Aug 3 2014 56
    • 48. FabLabs growing 20 % + a month 29% Similar to Internet growth in early 90s SocialFab   2013Aug 3 2014 57
    • 49. Thank you See you online! Izumi Aizu <iza@anr.org> Aug 3 2014 58

    ×