igf + netmundial for asia pacific internet leadership program
DESCRIPTION
Prepared for Asia Pacific Internet Leadership ProgramTRANSCRIPT
IGF, NETmundial and beyond?
Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program
Greater Noida, India
Aug 3, 2014
Izumi Aizu
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
IntroductionThe 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
Debate onInternet Governance
It was there since around 1996Who manages the DNSWhat if Jon Postel dies?IAHC proposed new international body based in GenevaISOC, ITU and EU in agreementUSG stopped this attempt in 1997, started
Policy Process, Green & White PaperIFWP process: Jun - Oct 1998
DC, Geneva, Singapore and Buenos Aires Meetings ICANN was tentatively accepted by USG
5Aug 3 2014
It became louder withthe 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 countriesTake advantage of digital economy for further
developmentAddress new issues of information society
Aug 3 2014 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 resourcesLong and winding debate continued among
governments as well as business and civil society participants in the preparatory process Aug 3 2014 7
23/04/11 8
What is “Internet Governance”?
1. Governance of Internet infrastructureDomain Name System, IP number allocationStandardization process (IETF vs. ITU etc.)Access – to close digital divide
2. Governance of Social activities over InternetIllegal & harmful content (for minors)Spam, cyber security
3. Governance of Information SocietyE-commerce, digital economyDigital cultureSocial inclusion – no one should be left behind
Aug 3 2014 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 Reportaccepted by WSIS Tunis Agenda
Aug 3 2014 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 societyLack 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
Politics behind
Anti-US, anti globalizationagainst US dominance in military,
technology & economyDemonstration against WEF, IMF, WTO, G8
Summit…
US invasion to Iraq after 911Competition for world hegemony for digital economy
Aug 3 2014 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 consultationsContributions, questionnaire and forumWebcast and real-time captures
Aug 3 2014 12
2006 ～Internet Governance
Forum （ IGF ）
A “Product” of WSISMulti-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
IGF 1st 5 years2006 – Athens, Greece
Many were skeptical, but relieved2007 – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
CIR was put into main theme2008 – Hyderabad, India
Getting more “stabilized”, Remote Hubs introduced2009 – Sharm el Shake, Egypt
1800 participants, 112 countries, 96 govtsMany 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
IGF Improvementafter 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 IGFAdopted at UN GA, Dec 2012
Main issue: developing country participation, finance and outcome
Aug 3 2014 15
IGF after “improvement”
2011 – Nairobi, KenyaChair/Executive Coordinator absent
2012 – Baku, AzerbaijanControversy over host country politics
2013 – Bali, Indonesia Human rights became central issue together with privacy/surveillance
NETmundial proposed2014 – Istanbul, Turkey
Aug 3 2014 16
IGF Improvementafter 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 2012Adopted at CSTD, May 2012
Improve Outcome Shaping, Outreach, Support Developing countries’ participation
No major change in nature and structure of IGFJust adopted at UN GA, Dec 16?
Aug 3 2014 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
ITR SignatoriesNon-signatories
Aug 3 2014 19
Member States signed for ITRAFGHANISTAN 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.htmlAug 3 2014 20
States not signed for ITRALBANIA ANDORRA ARMENIA AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA BELARUS
BELGIUM COLOMVIA BULGARIA COSTA RICA CANADA CHILE
CROATIA CYPRUSCZECH 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 SWITZERLANDUNITED
KINGDOM
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
Aug 3 2014 21
NETmundialGlobal Multistakeholder Meeting
on the Future of Internet GovernanceApril 23/24, Sao Paulo, Brazil
22Aug 3 2014
Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance
Proposed by ICANN, co-hosted by Government of Brazil
Background:Snowden revelation on USG monitoringDilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, UNGA
speech severely criticized USGQuestion: the role of USG on IGICANN needs new frameworkITU Plenipotentiary Conference, Oct 2014
23Aug 3 2014
NETmundial Processmaking outcome doc by all
24
Online process (Feb-Apr 2014)1st Draft
189 Public CommentsEditorial GroupFinal Drafting Meeting -
Editing
Aug 3 2014
NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement
Adopted by acclamationRussia and Cuba dissentedIndia: “We need to consult with Capital”All(?) other governments accepted
Some Civil Society put reservation, but others accepted
25Aug 3 2014
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 Principles2. Roadmap for the future evolution of the
Internet Governance Ecosystem
26Aug 3 2014
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
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
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
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
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
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
Network Neutrality
No consensus reached, dropped off from the outcome document as a whole
33Aug 3 2014
“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
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
SECURITY, STABILITY AND RESILIENCE OF THE INTERNET
OPEN AND DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE
36Aug 3 2014
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
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
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
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
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
MSH at National LevelThere 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
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
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 empowermentAll 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
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
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
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
SocialFab 2013
FabLabs expanding globally500 FabLabs in Nov 2013; was 145 in Nov 2012Many in developing world: India, Nepal, Indonesia, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Vietnam etc.
http://fablabamersfoort.nl/nl/fablabs-globally
Aug 3 2014 56
FabLabs growing 20 ％ + a month
29%
Similar to Internet growth in early 90s
SocialFab 2013Aug 3 2014 57
