Prepared for Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program

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