This document discusses several challenges and approaches related to internet governance. It notes the existing ad hoc cooperation between organizations in this space and advocates avoiding overly structured solutions that could harm cooperation. It also addresses the need to map the internet governance landscape to better understand actors, policies, and issues in a dynamic way. Finally, it highlights the importance of inclusion, transparency, decision-making at the appropriate level, and using evidence and data to inform internet governance discussions and policies.

2. One Internet – many policy angles
 Existing ad hoc cooperation among international
organisations
 Nurture bottom-up cooperation – avoid ‘THE’ solution.
 If cooperation is too structured, it may harm de facto
cooperation
 Non-technical organisations still grapple with technical
aspects
 Develop IG toolbox (Swiss knife) which could include:
traditional tools (conventions), innovative solutions
(UDRP), bottom-up initiatives
Global policy silos are replicated on regional and
natoinal levels.

3. Mapping of the IG Landscape –
actors, policies, and issues
 There is a lack of IG mapping. Mapping is important to grasp
the IG field and avoid paralysis by complexity
 Mapping should be dynamic
 Need for simple (but not too simple) access to IG field for
many actors
 Use proven iterative approach: define the problem, identify
options to solve it, chose the best one, implement it, and then
evaluate

4. Same issues, different perspectives:
Overcoming policy silos in privacy and data
protection
 Two eras: Before and after Snowden revelations
 Major focus in human rights community; still low
coverage in trade and other policy spaces
 Problem in communication between engineers and
politicians or diplomats (language, different framing of
problems)
 Use examples such as Council of Europe that has most
of policy aspects under ‘one roof’: human rights, data
protection, cybercrime

5. Legal framework, jurisdiction, and
enforcement in IG
 (Il)legal online – (Il)legal offline
 ‘Enforcement is a nightmare and downright impossible’
 Existing law is not sufficient (data protection)
 Need for innovative solutions in implementation
(innovate with wisdom of legal profession)

6. Inclusion in digital policy:
e-participation and capacity development
 E-participation is not about technology, stupid!
 Ultimate criterion for inclusiveness is effective e-participation
 With e-participation, meetings are not the same any
more!
 Should ‘e’ and ‘in situ’ participants attend event on
‘equal footing’?
Everybody has to be invovled – yet, the key role of
chairperson and moderators

7. How do actors cope with complexity?
 Hard. Complexity often leads to policy paralysis
 But. Complexity is not necessary bad. It is reality
 How do we harness and harvest complexity?
 Difficult. Some emerging tendencies
 Shift of IG to premier league of global politics
 Shift to the highest national authorities (presidents and
prime minister)
 In business, IG emerges at board level - It matters!

8. Aim for full transparency –
accept exceptional translucency
 Transparency can lead towards ‘information overload’ and
potential paralysis by abundance of data
 Need translucency – transparency about not being
transparent in some cases
 Data transparency – Process transparency – Strategic
transparency – Transformational transparency
 Context is the king – you never know in what context
information will be interpreted – how to deal with it?
 Transparency must be institionalised and anchored in
robust processes

9. Subsidiarity: How to make IG decisions at
the appropriate level?
 Avoid unrealistic harmonisation of IG – aim for realistic
decentralisation
 Context is essential – adaptation to local is the key
 Simplify the message and adjust the language
 Can diversity on the edge be translated to diversity in
policy space?
 Subsidiarity will function if there is democracy,
participation, transparency and trust
 Thin line between subsidiarity and fragmentation

10. Evidence in Internet governance:
measurement and data-mining
 ‘More than defining the tools to measure data, it is
important to know what you want to collect and why’
 ‘We don’t know who knows what we need to know’
 Need for simple access to IG field for many actors