Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]

(No.186) Internet Governance in a Sustainable World

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

Question 3a

Concise Description of Workshop: 

To start -- Internet Governance matters!  Now is gets hard --to establish a sustainable Internet Governance structure, a number of significant challenges need to be addressed. We need to address these problems through the adoption of domestic and international agreements to mitigate the harms that can arise from a globally connected world. We need to explore social and legal norms that protect users and institutions from harm, while preserving freedoms.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Global Information Infrastructure Commission (GIIC) World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA)

Previous Workshop(s): 

A Practical & Pragmatic Look at Making Cloud Successful in Developing World 2011 IGF Workshop Hosted by GIIC and WITSA IGF 2010 Workshop 136: Engendering Confidence in the Cloud – Addressing Questions of Security and Privacy in Developed and Developing Countries 2009 IGF Workshop #207: Ensuring Continued Investment and Digital Growth In A Climate of Global Economic Challenges IGF 2008: “ICTs and an Environmentally Sustainable Internet: Another Challenge of Connecting the Next Billion Internet Users”. IGF 2007: IGF WORKSHOP SUMMARY: “QUALIFYING, QUANTIFYING, AND MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF INTERNET ACCESS COSTS” (November 13, 2007) IGF 2006: IGF 2006: “Enhancing Multi-Stakeholder Participation in ICT Policy Making” - An Exploration of Effective Policy Processes That Enhance Access to ICTs and the Internet

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Mr. Alex Mora, Camtic (Costa Rica)
Mr. Nizar Zakka, PCA & ijma3 (Lebanon) (confirmed)
Dr. Jimson Olufuye, ITAN (Nigeria) (confirmed)
Mr. Waudo Siganga, CSK (Kenya) Vice Minister of Costa Rica (confirmed)
Mrs Omobola Johnson, Nigerian Minister of Communication Technology
Heather Creech, Director of Knowledge Communications, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Ian Osborne, Director, Cloud Program, IntellectUK

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Anders Halvorsen, World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA)
Report
Reported by: 
..
Additional documents: 

(No.182) Innovator Roundtable: An Intergenerational Dialog with Internet Entrepreneurs

Go to Report
Status: 
Rejected
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

What does it take to attract investment in infrastructure and encourage innovation and growth of ICT services, including mobile

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The triangle of youth, entrepreneurship, and development has emerged as an important topic in Internet governance debate. The aspects of youth and development have been particularly salient on the IGF agenda, but the entrepreneurial aspect has yet to receive its due attention. This workshop will operate under the broad question: What aspects of Internet governance help or hinder an entrepreneur’s (particularly young entrepreneur’s) chance to succeed?

Organiser(s) Name: 

Jonathan Zuck, The Association for Competitive Technology, Brussels, Business
Dimitry Epstein, Cornell University, USA, Academia
Tim Vorley, Cambridge University, UK, Academia
Gbenga Sesan, Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, NGO
We are in discussion with other organizers from the region

Previous Workshop(s): 

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...
The innovators roundtable was an interactive multigenerational roundtable discussion about creating an environment conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship. Held in the main conference room (2), the session attracted nearly 150 participants, despite changes to the schedule. Well over the session average at the IGF, this level of delegate participation suggests a high interest in hearing from “front lines,” as it were, of innovation. There were 6 entrepreneurs from around the world on the “panel” of this pilot roundtable with many more in the audience. Topics of discussion included: cutting regulatory red tape, legal standardization to facilitate access to broader markets, intellectual property protection, organic versus top-down standardization and environmental policies that lead to greater investment.

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

TBC

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
TBC

(No.170) Developing a National/Regional Framework of Principles for Internet Governance

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

What does it take in terms of IG policy, legal and regulatory approaches?

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The workshop will address the idea of having a national or a regional framework of principles on Internet Governance as a mean to address internet issues. The framework can be a flexible approach suitable to address Internet related issues rather than using regulation measures and mechanisms. The workshop will focused around the following questions:• Is a framework of principles for internet governance is needed on national/regional levels and how it can plays a role in improving internet usage to all relevant stakeholders.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Kuwait Information Technology Society (Civil Society)

Previous Workshop(s): 

Participation in the following:• Moderated two best practice forums during the Rio meeting (Senegal and Bulgaria) • During The Hyderabad Third Internet Governance Forum:i. National multi-stakeholder processes and their relation to the IGFii. Steps toward an Internet that is multilingual, yet remains globaliii. Governance for gatekeepers – shaping access to the Internet.• During the Nairobi Meeting: The Role of Policy Maker: Regulators in Better Governance of Internet

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

• Representative from civil society.• Representative from government.• Representative from private sector.• Representative from intergovernmental organizations.• Representative from the academic community.• Representative from the technical community.We will ensure that the panelist are geographically and gender balanced.

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Remote moderator: Qusai AlShatti

(No.167) Understanding multistakeholderism and IG capacity building in quasi-democratic or authoritarian countries

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

Question 5

Concise Description of Workshop: 

It is very difficult to translate the term "multistakeholderism" into different languages. It is not only linguistic problem, but also cultural, historical, economical, and, finally, political one.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Oksana Prykhodko, director of the iNGO European Media Platform (with head-quarter in Ukraine)

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Denmark, University of Aarhus (confirmed)
Olga Cavalli, Argentina's GAC representative at ICANN (confirmed)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr, vice-chair of the ICANN's ALAC,Australia (confirmed)
Naveed Ul-Haq, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) (confirmed -  remotely)
Sebastien Bacholet, France, ICANN director (confirmed)
Paul Rendek, Netherlands, RIPE (confirmed)
Martin Boyle, Nominet, UK (confirmed)
 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Valery Trufanau, Belarus
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Oksana Prykhodko
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

The main purpose of the workshop was to discuss, if multistakeholder (MSH) model is unique for Internet Governance issues, what makes any structure or process really multistakeholder one, what is the situation with multistakeholder laboratories (such as national IGFs and ccTLD administrators)in developing countries.
In developed countries (such as France, for example) there are a lot of examples MSH structures in non-IG spheres, which are not called as MSH, but in which governments, business and civil society act together, in their respective roles. But in quazi-democratic countries even such MSH laboratories as national IGFs or ccTLD administrators lack key elements of MSH. In authoritarian countries the role of governmental regime is extreme, but in quazi-democratic countries there are examples of governmental vacuum, with lack of transparency and accountability.

Conclusions and further comments: 

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

Awareness raising, literacy, education are extremely important IG capacity building, but there is also the need for some binding mechanisms, which can provide the minimal standards of MSH. It is not about creation of new international structure or about taking the control on Internet by ITU, for example. It is about more active role of OECD, Council of Europe, European Union and other international organizations in IG issues.
EuroSSIG, DiploFoundation, ICANN Fellowship program have to be used more actively in developing countries to create the strong network of personal contacts, to ensure trust in MSH, to avoid faking the concept.

 

(No.166) The Impact of the Internet on Sustainable Social and Economic Development

Go to Report
Status: 
Withdrawn
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

IG4D: What does it take in terms of IG policy, legal and regulatory approaches? What are the challenges to and opportunities?

Concise Description of Workshop: 

2012 is the 20th year since the global community committed to a plan of action to move the world towards sustainable social and economic development. In June 2012, world leaders will have met to discuss progress on commitments made 20 years earlier, on how the world was to meet the economic development needs of the present, without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. But during those 20 years, the Internet became the defining technology of our day, connecting us in unprecedented ways, at unprecedented speeds.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Heather Creech, Director, Global Connectivity, International Institute for Sustainable Development (international independent research institute)
Anriette Esterhausen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications (International NGO)
Tim Kelly, Senior ICT specialist, World Bank (Multilateral)

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Sha Zukang, Under Secretary General, UN DESA or representative attending the IGF, on the RIO+20 outcomes
Mark Halle, Vice President International, IISD, and advisor to Achim Steiner, Under Secretary General, United Nations Environment Programme, on whether and how Rio may have fallen short
Anriette Esterhausen/Heather Creech: Report on how Internet governance and policy issues were addressed during Rio, including the Secretary General's High Level Panel recommendations
Tamam Bayatly, BP, Baku: on the role of the Internet in monitoring responsible economic development -- the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
George Varughese, President, Development Alternatives, India -- on national Internet policy and its impact on economic policy [by video]
Ben Akoh, West African Internet Governance Forum and IISD -- on the Internet and adaptation in Africa
David Souter, ICT Development Associates and London School of Economics -- on finding a new coherence between the Internet and sustainable development

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
TBD

(No.142) Inclusive innovation for development: The contribution of the Internet and related ICTs

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

IG4D Thematic Cluster 2 “Enabling Environment”, Question 1 and IG4D Thematic Cluster 3 “Infrastructure”, Question 1

Concise Description of Workshop: 

Innovation including in the area of the Internet economy plays a central role for development. A challenge many governments face, however, is to ensure that innovation is inclusive, i.e. to ensure that the benefits are shared more evenly across different societal groups and different geographical regions to improve overall social wellbeing. Concerns of widening inequalities are at the top of many governments’ agendas, with poverty more acute in developing countries.

Organiser(s) Name: 

OECD together with The Internet Society (ISOC), The Business and Industry Advisory Committee
to the OECD (BIAC) and with contributions from the Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council (CSISAC)

Previous Workshop(s): 

Organisation of several workshops and the OECD Open Fora during the last years.
Overview and reports: http://www.oecd.org/sti/interneteconomy/oecdresourcesoninternetgovernance.htm

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 
  • Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications, Civil Society (confirmed)
  • Anne-Rachel Inne, COO, AfriNIC(confirmed)
  • Alice Munyua, Chair, Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee, Government of Kenya (confirmed)
  • Siri Oswald, Program Officer- Global Development/Global Libraries, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (confirmed)
  • Rohan Samarjiva, founding Chair and CEO of LIRNEasia (confirmed)
  • Representative from business working on innovative Internet and ICT solutions for inclusive development (confirmation pending but expected soon)
  • Verena Weber, Economist/Policy Analyst, OECD (Moderator) (confirmed)

 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Taylor Reynolds, Senior Economist, OECD (confirmed)
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
The majority of participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was mentioned briefly in the presentations and discussions
Report
Reported by: 
Verena Weber, OECD, verena.weber@oecd.org
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

Summary of workshop no. 142 on Inclusive innovation for development: The contribution of the Internet and related ICTs"
The OECD invited experts and stakeholders to discuss the contribution of the Internet and related information and communication technologies (ICTs) to inclusive innovation for development. This workshop (no. 142) was held on 6 November at 4.30 pm. The background information is available at http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no142-inclusive-innovation-development-contribution-internet-and-related-icts.
The expert panel included:

  • Wesley Chi Cheng, Director, Huawei Consulting, Central Asia and Caucasia Region
  • Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, Association for Progressive Communications, Civil Society
  • Anne-Rachel Inne, COO, AfriNIC
  • Siri Oswald, Program Officer- Global Development/Global Libraries, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Rohan Samarajiva, founding Chair and CEO of LIRNEasia

Verena Weber from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) moderated the session.
The OECD introduced the workshop with the presentation of recent findings of an OECD report that has monitored developments in the deployment and use of the Internet and related ICTs in emerging and developing countries since 2008.[1] In terms of inclusive innovation, there are two important categories of tools that support inclusive innovation:  infrastructure including networks but also equipment operating on the network and applications.
 
Developments on the infrastructure and device layer: Fast growth in mobile subscriptions
On the infrastructure layer, significant progress has been made to equip people with mobile communication. There were only 700 million mobile subscribers worldwide in 2000 but this number grew to 6 billion in 2011. This growth has helped narrow the digital divide with respect to access to mobile phones. When it comes to access to mobile broadband, however, emerging and developing countries fall behind. Although the number of subscriptions to mobile broadband is rising in emerging and developing countries, people in developed countries are picking up subscriptions at a much higher rate than in developing economies which means that the digital divide is growing in terms of access to mobile broadband. As a consequence, potential innovators in developing economies have fewer tools such as mobile broadband connectivity available to them, and just as importantly, a much smaller market to address that includes people with mobile broadband.
 
Developments on the application layer: Although multiple new applications have been launched during the past years, many do not survive in the medium or long run and there are problems with scaling existing applications
On the application layer, multiple applications in areas such as health, education and agriculture have developed over the past years. Findings of the report indicate that the main benefit coming out of these applications is the provision of access to information that especially disadvantaged groups did not have before. Although diverse innovative applications have appeared over the past years, there are some challenges that must be addressed in order to promote inclusive innovation. First, many of these projects start well but do not survive over the medium to long term. The second challenge relates to scale. Many interesting applications are tied to a specific region or need but start small and remain small. Small scale projects are still good but scale should be increased in order to amplify the impact of successful applications. Based on these findings of the report, expert panelists reported on their experience, both on the infrastructure and the application layer before starting a discussion about policy needs.

[1] The report will be shortly available on the OECD website: www.oecd.org/sti/ict

 

Conclusions and further comments: 

Affordable Internet access key for inclusive growth
Panelists highlighted that affordable Internet access was a key to inclusiveness. On the application layer, many small projects failed in Indonesia because access was 48 times more expensive than, for instance, in India. When people have more access to the Internet, more initiatives and innovation can develop which is correlated with economic growth. Participants also pointed out that affordability needs to be considered along the whole value chain, from access to networks to the cost of devices. In addition, costs can be further brought down if servers are directly located in emerging and developing countries avoiding expensive transmission costs across long distances.
 
Local content and the replication of successful small projects crucial for access to information and inclusive development
On the application side, experts emphasized that improving access to information is one of the key levers for more inclusive development and pointed to the important role public libraries have in these areas. Local content is also a key factor for inclusive access to information. Participants pointed out that developing countries could benefit a lot from online content already available in developed countries but that the translation of this content is pivotal for its dissemination, in particular for disadvantaged groups of the society. Regarding the challenge of scaling up projects, experts noted that up-scaling might not always work and proposed that successful small projects should be replicated rather than scaled up. In addition, pilot projects should be given enough time to develop which has to be considered when funding such projects.
 
Main roles for policy makers: from “e-government to good government”
When it comes to infrastructure, panelists proposed that policy priorities should be the allocation of spectrum, spurring low-budget mobile broadband pricing models and the deployment of IPv6. On the application layer, panelists highlighted the importance of private-public partnerships to increase the uptake of services and the access to information. In addition, governments should look at the content already available online and in libraries. Overall, panelists concluded that a holistic approach targeting the whole Internet ecosystem is necessary to spur inclusive innovation and pointed out that governments have to move from “e-government” to “good government” which also includes fighting corruption, ensuring accountability and providing resources for education.

(No.122) New gTLDs: Implications and Potential for Community Engagement, advocacy and Development

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

Question 2 of IG4D Thematic Cluster 1 "Pending Expansion of the Top Level Domain Space"

Concise Description of Workshop: 

Workshop Description:

Organiser(s) Name: 

Asia, Australasia and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization of ICANN (APRALO) and DotKids Foundation, Asia Pacific

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Moderator:
Rinalia Abdul Rahim, ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Asia, Australasia and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization of ICANN (APRALO) (Confirmed)
 
Panelists:
·       Fouad Bajwa, Internet Policy Research Group at Oi2, Pakistan (Confirmed)
·       Olga Cavali, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina (Confirmed)
·       Edmon Chung, DotAsia Organisation, Asia Pacific (Confirmed) 
·       Scott Seitz, DotGay, America (Confirmed)
·       Koffi Fabrice Djossou, DotAfrica, Africa (Confirmed)
·       Andrei Kolesnikov, Coordination Centre for TLD RU, Russia (Confirmed)
·       Cheryl Langdon-Orr, .au Domain Administration Ltd, Australia (Confirmed)
·       Yannis Li, DotKids Foundation, Asia (Confirmed)
Remote Moderator: Ms. Bianco Ho, NetMission Ambassador, Asia Pacific (Confirmed)
Feeder Workshop Rapporteur to Main Session:  Rinalia Abdul Rahim, ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Asia, Australasia and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization of ICANN (APRALO) (Confirmed)

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Ms. Bianca Ho, NetMission Ambassador, Asia Pacific (Confirmed)
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
Report
Reported by: 
Yannis Li
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

 
In the pending expansion of the Top Level Domain Space, ICANN has received close to 2000 new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) applications.  Of note is the low number of applications categorized as “community”-related (i.e., 84 community applications representing 4% of total applications).  Various contributing factors have been discussed to explain the phenomenon such as the problem of general awareness attributed to insufficient outreach efforts.  For communities, especially those from the developing world, few measures have been taken to facilitate their participation and engagement.
There is still a lack of awareness and understanding about the value of new gTLDs for communities and there are also specific challenges and barriers that serve to limit community adoption.
The workshop explored the following questions towards identifying the opportunities and challenges presented by new gTLDs for communities:
1.     What is the value proposition of new TLDs for communities (i.e., the opportunities)?
2.     What are the challenges in the uptake and sustainability of new TLDs for communities?
3.     What type of support is needed to increase uptake and ensure sustainability?
4.     What are the unique issues that apply for cross-border communities?
 

Conclusions and further comments: 

 
The workshop discussion involved approximately 30 people and featured perspectives from representatives of communities that have applied for new gTLDs as well as views from regions around the world.  Highlights and main points are as follows:
 
*Opportunities/Value Proposition of new GTLDs for Communities*
  - Raises awareness about the community (i.e., makes communities visible with the identity that they choose);
  - Builds the community (i.e., allows the community to connect and to be found by others who share the same or similar identity, which enhances community ties and network);
  - Supports community advocacy (i.e., raises awareness about the community’s interests, issues and concerns), which has implications for mobilization of support/resources;
  - Supports the safety needs of vulnerable communities (e.g., children and the gay community);
  - Allows for the development and provision of services specifically for the community and in particular those with special needs; and
 - Surplus revenue can be channeled to support community-development via Foundations.
 
*Adoption/Uptake Challenges for Communities*
  - Complicated application process with high start-up cost (technical, marketing, advertising, community consultations, etc.);
  - Application process requires community endorsement, which is difficult to obtain without substantial prior engagement, consultation and mobilization of support;
  - Information about financial assistance was not widely circulated and financial support requirement is premised on demonstration of financial stability, which defeats the purpose of financial assistance;
  - Community-names taken up by companies, which requires dispute resolution; and
  - Availability of Second Level Domain Name opportunities.
 
*Support Needed for Sustainability*
  - Availability of local registrars/partners to distribute names
  - vertical integration as a solution for this appears to be controversial;
  - Strategies for dealing with abuse of community domains; and
  - Partnerships that bring in critical components needed for successful application and implementation (technical expertise, financial support, outreach support, sustainable business models, etc), before, during and post delegation of TLDs.
 
*Unique Issues for Cross-Border Communities*
 - Difficulty in identifying the boundary of cross-border communities that are global; and
  - Difficulty in obtaining financial support for community applications that are trying to serve a global community of people that reside in both developed and developing countries
 
*Recommendations for a new gTLD Remedial Round Targeted at Developing
Countries and Under-Served Communities*
  - Initiate an experimental fast track round with approximately 25 new gTLDs;
  - Revise the application process and guidebook based on weaknesses already identified by the community;
 - Provide for a sunset policy and process where new gTLDs can fail gracefully;
  - Adjust the requirement for financial stability in evaluating the need for financial support; and
  - Ensure that the community evaluation process allows for community consultation and mobilization to happen after the application has been approved.

(No.120) How to engage users on Internet Policies?

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

Thematic Cluster 2 "Enabling Environment"

Concise Description of Workshop: 

Gradually and slowly as we merge the digital divide, it is possible to envision the Internet as an ultimate leveler, representing one playing field, where, theoretically, everybody has the potential to interact. But how to engage users on political debates? How to use the net to bring them to the negotiation table?

Backgroung Paper: 
Organiser(s) Name: 

Center for Technology and Society at Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Part of the Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School in Rio de Janeiro, CTS is the only research center in Brazil specifically aimed at dealing with the interplay of law, technology and society. It is engaged in different research and education projects, and committed to interdisciplinary approach. Its collaborations include anthropologists, computer scientists, economists, and media executives.
Among its different projects, the CTS is responsible for helping Brazilian Ministry of Justice to create an online consultation process to debate the privacy law, the internet civil rights framework and is also leading a research to use cybercafes as a platform to implement surveys on public policies assessments at low income communities. CTS also acts as a consultant to several branches of the Brazilian government such as the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, the National Institute of Technology and the Ministry of Education. It is engaged in developing projects to promote access to knowledge, protect digital rights and study the democratization of cultural production through technology.
Access
Access is a NGO premised on the belief that political participation and the realization of human rights in the 21st century is increasingly dependent on access to the internet and other forms of technology. Founded in the wake of the 2009 Iranian post-election crackdown, Access teams with digital activists and civil society groups internationally to build their technical capacity and to help them advocate globally for their digital rights. Access provides thought leadership and practical policy recommendations in the broader field of internet freedom, and based on that expertise mobilizes its global movement of citizens to campaign for an open internet accessible to all.
Access' Global Movement for Digital Freedom is made up of ordinary people from all over the world. Many of them are normal internet users without much experience in either human rights or technology, but understanding that technology can be a powerful platform which gives us all additional strength to achieve greater participation, accountability and transparency.

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Jochai Ben-Avie, Director of Operations at Access (NGO, WEOG, confirmed)
Max Senges, Google Inc., US( WEOG, to be confirmed)
Joana Varon, researcher from the Center of Technology and Society, Brazil (Academia, GRULAC, confirmed)
Smàri MacCarthy, innovator and information activist, Iceland (Civil Society, WEOG, remote participation confirmed)
Farid Alakbarov, Wikipedia Azerbaijan (Civil Society, Eastern Europe, confirmed)
João Carlos Caribé, Meganão movement, Brazil (Academia, GRULAC, confirmed)
Jillian York, Director of International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Civil Society, WEOG, confirmed)
 
 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Please include any comments or recommendations you have on how to improve the inclusion of issues related to gender equality and: 

I just wasn't the focus of the panel, even though it was composed by two women, there wasn't enough time to discuss engagement according to minorities and gender issues.

Report
Reported by: 
Joana Varon
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

Final Participants:

  • Jochai Ben-Avie, Director of Operations at Access (NGO, WEO) - moderator
  • Max Senges, Google’s Policy Team in Berlin (WEOG)
  • Joana Varon, researcher from the Center of Technology and Society – CTS/FGV, Brazil (Academia, GRULAC)
  • João Carlos Caribé, Meganão movement, Brazil (Academia, GRULAC)
  • Jillian York, Director of International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Civil Society, WEOG)

The workshop started with a short introduction from Joana Varon, researcher from the Center for Technology and Society, who made an exhibition of a 4min video teaser from the collaborative documentary film project, freenet? film, accessible at http://www.freenetfilm.org/the-project
This short film translate the main concerns of internet freedom defenders into the audio-visual language, willing to engage regular internet users in the debate. It specifically addresses the growing challenges that internet users have been facing to guarantee access to a fast and affordable connectivity, to ensure an open and diverse access to knowledge through online content, to secure privacy rights and freedom of expression online. Presenting such challenges as threats to fundamental human rights, it was the kicking start for the debate about how to engage users about such violations.
Then Max Senges - Google’s Policy Team, made some contributions for the debate bringing examples of some tools that Google have been providing to enable some sort of “user governance” in terms of the company’s actions and freedom of expression. But he also highlighted that users also have the responsibility to respect other people’s right, reason why there is also a need to implement tools for dispute settlement, other ways of settlement in a public arena involving users as citizens in that particular environment.
João Caribé, Brazilian activist who has been working against harmful internet bills stressed that mobilization against the cybercrime bill was stronger than the mobilization in favour of the bill of rights for the internet – for him it is easier to mobilise people against something than in favour of someone’s rights. In order to reach wider approval, it might be important to split the agenda into different points of view just to fit different needs, identify different points of interest to each niche. Also take into consideration that Digital natives and digital immigrants use and understand the internet differently. Watch our the potential we have in hands as Internet turns mobilization easy.
Then Jochai posed the question: Do we have to use different tactics engaging users in a positive or a negative agenda? Twitter has a quick answer approach, so it s easy to start a mobilization. Facebook is a walled Garden, so it is harder to engage.
Jillian York, from EFF, stressed the fact that people won’t care about censorship until it personally affects them.
People mobilized against SOPA and PIPA not because their freedom was in risk, but because their content was in risk. She also addressed the issue of generation, mentioning the term “Napster generation” – different access to content when compared to our parents. In other context, there were other reasons for engagement, but all of them always related to the fear of being directly affected. E.g. Jordan: user’s fear was to be left out of internet access.
Discuss censorship is always very controversial, because, theoretically, governments have the coercive power to implement decisions on censorship, which, in democratic countries would happen after court orders. But it is different when a website, like Youtube, block itself the content, in this case, there is no prior engagement with civil society.
Then there was an interesting antagonism between EFF and Google’s position, as Max Senges stressed that when talking about public policies and freedom of expression we need to think about how to deal with the consequences of this freedom of expression and how it will be taken differently by some groups, which will think that content is funny or some other group that will find it extremely offensive.  He has mentioned that Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have created the Global Network Initiative – rules and practices to be designed. But Jillian highlighted the fact that the problem is that Global Network Initiative deals with governments and not users. So the question that remained through out the debate was weather if western-based companies should have the power to decide what is a offensive form of expression for other cultures. 

Conclusions and further comments: 

It was an interesting debate that, besides all the questions and challenges to secure online digital rights, endend up focused on the challenges to engage users against violations on the right to freedom of expression online, and the consequences of the lack of such engagement, mainly related to the lack of transparency about how companies proceed regarding decisions about what to block or not. Unfortunately, the panel lost a bit of regional/multistakeholder diversity as there was two unpredicted absences.
 

(No.119) Defining the Successful Factors of Different Models for Youth Participation in Internet Governance

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

Question 2 of IG4D (Cluster 2 “Enabling Environment”)

Concise Description of Workshop: 

With the introduction of various programs and approaches for Youth Participation in the past IGF workshops, now is the time to evaluate the effectiveness of them and how they have or have not be able to enlightened or created a youth Internet leader. In short, our proposed workshop aims to map out a set of common factors of the successful models from different region by real case sharing and discussion. To develop a guidebook from the collaborative ideas based on the experiences around the world is our ultimate goal.

Organiser(s) Name: 

- NetMission Ambassadors, Asia (Youth Stakeholder Group)
- NetY Ambassadors, Asia (NGO)

Previous Workshop(s): 

If so, please provide the link(s) to the report(s):
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Moderator:
Ms. Bianca Ho, NetMission Ambassador  (Confirmed)
Ms. Desiree Ho, NetMission Ambassador (Confirmed)
Panelists:
Paul Muchene, Returning IGF Ambassador, ISOC Fellowship Programme, US - Civil Society(Confirmed)
Emilar Gandhi, IGF Ambassador, ISOC Fellowship Programme, US - Civil Society(Confirmed)
Nabil Benamar,IGF Ambassador, ISOC Fellowship Programme, US - Civil Society(Confirmed)
Ms. Siranush Vardanyan, ICANN Fellowship Program Alumna, ICANN 2012 Nomination Committee member, Republic of Armenia (Remote - Confirmed)
Mr. Jack Passmore, Childnet International, UK (Confirmed)
Ms. Rebecca Cawthorne, Childnet International, UK (Confirmed)
Ms. Nicola Douglas, Childnet International, UK (Confirmed)
Mr. Matthew Jackman, Childnet International, UK (Confirmed)
Representatives, NetY Amabassadors, Asia (Confirmed)
Mr. William J. Drake, International Fellow & Lecturer of Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland – Academic (Confirmed)
Mr. Edmon Chung, DotAsia Organisation, Asia (Confirmed)

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Ms. Yannis Li
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
The majority of participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Reporter
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

The panel tried to analyze youth participation from 2 different perspectives - both the organizers' and participants point of view. The floor were being actively engaged by putting up small cards with different smiley faces on to indicate whether they agree an argument or not. The panel consisted of a wide variety of youth delegates from different region and also who are with experience on youth engagement within or out of the Internet Governance field.  
During the discussion the below issues are being explored and discussed:
For Organizers:  
- How shall the format of the programmes look like?
- What sort of trainings shall be given to the participants?
- What are the critical resources needed?
- How to frame IG to young delegates?
- How to select the participants? 
- What are the possible channels for outreaching?
For Youth Participants:
- What are the incentives for joining?
- Why do they stay involved?
- Why do they drop out?
A sustainability issue also being raised about the extent of how the youth are being engaged and where they eventually goes to.
 

Conclusions and further comments: 

Consolidating the panels and the attendees opinion, below are some common factors or conclusion that we find prominent in youth engagement.
From Organizers
Format
Different format/programmes can help acheive different purpose of engagement. For example, a competition model would be effective in mass education and it is also a good way for selecting candidates, especially among the younger target group say like secondary students. However, an ambassadorship will create a higher level of participation of the youth by more in-depth training and empowerment. Youth-led approach is also more encouraged which gives higher flexibility to the youth for their open discussion.
Partnership
While youth may not be familiar on IG field at first, it is important to partner and collaborate with some reputable NGOs in doing outreach to students so that it enhances the overall attractiveness of the programme. Also by partnering with multi-sectors of organisations would help give the participants different perspectives. 
Resoures
Since engaging youth is a long process and not-an-easy task, it is critical to have a specific coordinator or full-time staff to communicate with the youth constantly and build up relationship with them.
Training
All of the youth and organizers all raised out the importance of prior preparations before letting the youth to attend actual UNIGF or International meetings. The youth or newbies are always confused or overwhelmed with the jargons and find it difficult. Therefore pre-meetings or buildling up a dictionaries for them would be essential. It is preferred to expose them to a wider scope of topics of IG instead of just going down to a specific theme to them which allows them to have a big picture. On the other hand, especially on younger groups, training on public speaking would also be needed. 
Outreach
Social media is a good way to engage the youth as it is where they go on a daily basis. On the other hand, a post-conference or programme sharing by the participants to their own community should be one of the requirement to them. 
From Participants
Below are an array of the incentives and factors that increase their motivation in participating on IG discussion:
- International opportunities is a very high incentive for young people to engage in IG. Ambassadors are subsidized to attend international meetings like ICANN, IGF or IETF, etc which gave them a good exposure. Young delegates also found the opportunities to speak in public is a rare and valuable experience to them.
- The way and the level of participation is another key issue which having a clear influence in the policy decision process would certainly be a motivator. Also one main difference of Internet industry is that the confereneces usually allow remote participation that enables youth to easily participate. 
- A peer network and the connections among people who share the same values provide a supporting drive for the youth to continue their engagement. They can know and find somebody that can collaborate and work with for future initiatives.
- A highly autonomous environment gives youth a higher sense of ownership on the stake. Also they like to really implement and contribute to the community that they are in. Therefore a higher flexibility and youth-led approach shall be adopted to give them a higher sense of ownership. 
Other issues being raised
Some other relevant issues being raised were the diversity of the youth engaged at the current status. Since most of the youth participants are recruited through schools, they are those who are relatively educated. Some attendees raised that it is important for us to really engage a more diverse background of youth from the public community e.g. those with criminal records, school drop-out kids or those from developing countries. Therefore the youth engagement should be regardless of background as long as the youth is interested in Internet.

(No.117) Best Common Practices for Building Internet Capacity

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]
Theme Question: 

Thematic Cluster 2 "Enabling Environment" (Q1 & Q2), IG4D Thematic Cluster 3 - "Infrastructure" (Q1)

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The spread of Internet access and its penetration into all parts of the world is a vital project, and one that relies heavily on effective knowledge sharing between all Internet stakeholders, whether in developed or developing regions.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Arab Internet Governance Forum -  Arab IGF Secretariat 
Mr. Hisham Ibrahim  - AFRINIC - Technical Community - Africa
Mr Chris Buckridge  - RIPE - Technical community - Europe, Russia & the Middle East.

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Christine Arida (AIGF / Egypt TRA), Moderator [confirmed]
Olga Cavalli (Southern IG Summer School)
Paul Rendek (RIPE NCC) [confirmed]
Salam Yamout (Lebanese gov)
Constance Bommelaer (Internet Society) [confirmed]
Sylvia Cadena (Information Society Innovation Fund, ISIF) [confirmed]

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Chris Buckridge
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
The majority of participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was mentioned briefly in the presentations and discussions
Please include any comments or recommendations you have on how to improve the inclusion of issues related to gender equality and: 

Gender equality and related issues would be a useful topic to explore further in follow-up workshops to this one.

Report
Reported by: 
Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

This workshop considered a range of capacity building efforts, with the goal of identifying common issues and strategies that can be employed to develop more effective training, education and capacity building programs around the world. The workshop brought together organizations, experts and regional representatives from different Internet stakeholders groups and sectors that have developed innovative projects, forums and strategies.

Christine Arida, of the Egyptian Telecommunications Regulatory Authority and Arab IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, moderated the session. In her introduction she noted that capacity building emerged as a cross-cutting priority at the recent Arab IGF.

Olga Cavalli, Director of the South School on Internet Governance, stressed the importance of raising awareness about relevant courses or activities. Working with government, as they did in their recent summer school in Colombia, has been effective in attracting a wider range of participants, as has the primary use of Spanish language in the course.

Paul Rendek, of the RIPE NCC, discussed the IPv6 Roadshow events, which are jointly organised by RIPE NCC and The Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG). He stressed that expanding the program beyond the Arab region will involve working with a range of other stakeholders - no organisations have the reach to do this kind of work alone. He noted though, the challenges of working across sectors, and the need to find new ways of working that can bring down barriers between private and public.

Salam Yamout, of the Lebanese government agreed with the need to think differently in planning projects, and noted the success of working with the technical community to bring in a broad range of private sector and business groups to Internet educational events in Lebanon.

Constance Bommelaer, of the Internet Society, discussed two ISOC projects, the INET Conferences, held regularly around the world, and the Next Generation Leaders program, which helps educate young people both technically and through exposure to forums like the IGF, the OECD and the World Bank, helping to build diplomatic skills. She stressed the blended approach, combining skills sets from different sectors to more effectively engage across those divisions.

Sylvia Cadena spoke about the ISIF Asia Grants Program, which encourages innovation through small grants, both in terms of funding and connecting grant recipients to networks of mentors and other experts. She stressed the importance of building capacity in developing countries that will actually remain in that country and help build local industry. She also noted that ISIF Asia and its sister projects around the world try to listen to what their applicants are looking for, and let them drive the project in new directions.

The group discussion touched on several other topics. This included the importance of engaging youth, and particularly in facilitating activities driven by youth. Paul Rendek noted the strength of youth participation in events like the Arab IGF and EuroDIG, and the opportunity for providing high-level assistance and coordination of such activities. Several speakers also noted the importance of maintaining linked with graduates and capitalise on their experience and expertise in mentoring new participants.

The group discussed how the success of capacity building efforts can be measured. Olga Cavalli suggested that such measurement is difficult, but that success can be seen in the spreading networks that many of these projects have created of past students, teachers and others.

Conclusions and further comments: 

Christine Arida closed the workshop with a summary of the main issues identified by participants as key to  successful capacity building projects:

- Working with different stakeholder groups to reach the right audience
- Developing blended skill sets that reflect technical, diplomatic and policy expertise
- Building networks and maintaining ties with past participants
- Engaging youth, particularly to build and strengthen youth-driven initiatives

Syndicate content