Internet Governance for Development [IG4D]

(No.160) CYBERLAW AND ITS ROLE IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE

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

Question 2

Concise Description of Workshop: 

Internet governance has indeed come a long way. Cyberlaw or the law pertaining to the Internet has played an increasingly important role in the growth and development of Internet governance. Yet these are only the early days. A lot of work needs to be done in this regard. How can Cyberlaw provide an effective enabling international platform for ensuring discussion amongst relevant stakeholders? Is there a need for an international consensus on cyber legal principles so as to further the growth of Internet governance?

Organiser(s) Name: 

Cyberlaws.Net

Previous Workshop(s): 

Yes,the President of Cyberlaws.Net, Mr. Pavan Duggal has organized various workshops and addresses various workshops including IGF held at Athens, Rio De Janerio, Hyderabad and Sharm-El-Sheikh.

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Prof Michael Geist, CanadaProf Susan Brenner, USAProf Graham Greenleaf, AustraliaProf Hong Xiu, ChinaPavan Duggal, President, Cyberlaws.Net

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
SHEFFALI

(No.158) INTERNET GOVERNANCE POLICY, LEGAL AND REGULATORY APPROACHES - WHAT DIRECTIONS SHOULD THEY TAKE IN THIS DECADE?

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

question 2

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The proposed workshop would look at the existing legal policy and regulatory approaches being adopted in the context of Internet governance and their efficacy. What are the various challenges being raised by such policy legal and regulatory approaches being used in the context of Internet governance?The proposed workshop would further look at what future directions can Internet governance policy, regulatory and approaches take in the present decade.

Backgroung Paper: 
Organiser(s) Name: 

Cyberlaws.Net

Previous Workshop(s): 

Yes,the President of Cyberlaws.Net, Mr. Pavan Duggal has organized various workshops and addresses various workshops including IGF held at Athens, Rio De Janerio, Hyderabad and Sharm-El-Sheikh.

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Ayesha Hasan, ICCPaul Wilson, APNICIndranil Banerjee, UNESCO, ParisKhalid Fattal ,MINCPavan Duggal, President, Cyberlaws. NetProf Abu Bakar, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
SHEFFALI

(No.152) What does it take?: Mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in internet governance negotiations [working title]

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

Question 1

Concise Description of Workshop: 

This workshop –which takes the GISWatch 2012 report as the starting point – will explore how transparency and accountability can be strengthened in internet governance fora. While numerous multi-stakeholder forums at the national, regional and global levels have been established in order to provide a way of collectively addressing the common concern of how the internet is used, evolves and is managed, these are not always successful.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation (Hivos) - International development organisation Association for Progressive Communications (APC) - Civil society

Previous Workshop(s): 

Hivos:
IGF 2011, Nairobi
• Exporting the Internet: Human Rights and Technology http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

APC:
IGF 2011, Nairobi
• Open spectrum for development in the context of the digital migration http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...
• Human rights: a unifying approach for development, freedom, access and diversity? http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...
• Do policymakers understand the role of libraries in mobilising the internet as a catalyst for development, innovation and freedom? http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...
• Women and internet governance http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

IGF 2010, Vilnius
• Sexual rights, openness and regulatory systems http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W... • Applying a code of good practice on information, participation and transparency in Internet governance http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...
• Protecting women’s rights: Internet content from a gender perspective http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

IGF 2009, Sharm El Sheikh
• A code of good practice on participation, access to information and transparency in internet governance http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono...
• Content regulation, surveillance and sexuality rights http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono... IGF 2008, Hyderabad
• Promoting pro-poor access to ICTs http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/72-works...

IGF 2007, Rio de Janeiro
• Towards a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=28
• Regulatory frameworks for improving access http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=26
• Content regulation and the duty of States to protect fundamental rights http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=19

IGF 2006, Athens
• Greening development through ICT and civic engagement http://www.intgovforum.org/Athens_workshops/GreeningIT_Workshop_report_P... • Content regulations from gender and development perspective http://igf.wgig.org/Athens_workshops/Content_Regulation.pdf

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

[Moderator]
    •    Mr. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive director, Association for Progressive Communications, APC. Status: confirmed.

[Introductory Speakers]
    •    Sebastián Bellagamba, ISOC LAC Director. Status: confirmed - Technical community
    •    Paul Maassen, Open Government Partnership. Status: confirmed - International cooperation
    •    Alice Munyua, Government of Kenya. Status: confirmed - Government
    •    Heather Creech, Director of Global Connectivity at IISD - Civil society

[Discussants]
    •    Mendi Njonjo, Fund Manager ATTI initiative. Status: confirmed - Non governmental organisation
    •    Pedro Less Andrade, Google LAC. Status: confirmed - Private sector
    •    Loe Schout, Hivos. Status: confirmed - International cooperation
 
Agenda outline:
- Introduction by moderator to present worskshop objectives and speakers
- Introductory interventions/perspectives by stakeholders from different groups
- Comments and reactions by a group of discussants from different stakeholder groups
- Comments and questions by the audience
- Final round of comments and responses
- Final remarks by moderator
 
 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Lisa Cyr (APC) - confirmed
Report
Reported by: 
APC
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

Please see the uploaded file

Conclusions and further comments: 

Please see the uploaded file

Additional documents: 

(No.150) The Multi-Stakeholder Model and the Evolving gTLD Space

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

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

Concise Description of Workshop: 

  This workshop will provide a review of present developments in ICANN’s work in the gTLD namespace, as well as a discussion of emerging issues and how the multi-stakeholder model can respond to meet these in the future.  The New gTLD Program is a major initiative that reflects the intensive participation of many stakeholder groups and individuals.  In working out the details of the program, the multi-stakeholder collaborative process proved to be a rich source of expertise and a reliable methodology for resolution of complex and far-reaching global issues.

Backgroung Paper: 
Organiser(s) Name: 

* ICANN * UNESCO

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Moderator: * Chris Disspain, auDA Panelists: * Akram Atallah, Chief Operating Officer, ICANN * Bill Woodcock, Founder and Research Director, Packet Clearing House (PCH) * Professor Dr. Hong Xue, Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL), Beijing Normal University * Janis Karklins, Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO * Maria Häll, Deputy Director - Division for Information Technology Policy , Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, Sweden * Mouhamet Diop, CEO, Kheweul.com
All panelists are confirmed. 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Baher Esmat
Report
Reported by: 
Baher Esmat
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

 
Moderator:
·      Chris Disspain, auDA
 
Panelists:
·      Akram Atallah, Chief Operating Officer, ICANN
·      Bill Woodcock, Founder and Research Director, Packet Clearing House (PCH)
·      Professor Dr. Hong Xue, Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL), Beijing Normal University
·      Janis Karklins, Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO
·      Maria Häll, Deputy Director - Division for Information Technology Policy, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, Sweden
·      Mouhamet Diop, CEO, Kheweul.com
 
Summary of main topics:
·      Update on the new gTLD program
·      Role of governments in the process
·      Potential impact of IDN TLDs on the Internet
·      DNS industry in Asia and Africa: key developments, challenges and opportunities
·      Technical aspects in relation to critical Internet resources, and security and stability of the DNS
 
Main points:
·      ICANN is currently in the middle of the initial evaluation process, aiming to complete it by end of June next year; all of the comments have been gathered; objections are ongoing; almost all applications will require some clarifications; clarifying questions to come out by the end of November; draw event will take place in mid‑December to prioritize applications; many details are still in the work, e.g. how to ensure that ‘community strings’ applicants fulfill their business plans and commit to what they presented in their applications.
·      ICANN multistakeholder model works; there is room for improvements, and best way for preserving the model is by improving it; GAC has been part of the new gTLD process, the ‘scorecard’ was a very good piece of work, it flagged public policy aspects related to new gTLDs (e.g. consumer rights, economic perspectives, technical infrastructure perspectives, etc); dialogue between ICANN Board and GAC has become much more better; Both governments (GAC) and ICANN need to mutually understand how each party woks; GAC and all stakeholders are involved as part of multi-equal- stakeholder model;  The new gTLD program has lifted the profile of the GAC; operating in a multi-stakeholder model is a challenge, not only for governments but also for all stakeholders; a lot has been done over years, and IGF for example has been valuable in helping stakeholders understand one another;
·      There is a general perception that IDNs will help bring more people online, particularly those who do not recognize the Latin script; UNESCO-EURid study shows that there are challenges facing the uptake of IDNs; two main reasons for that: one is technical and the other one is organizational; the technical is in relation to services available for IDN TLDs, they are by far less than those available for ASCII TLDs, further work is needed to make browsers better support IDNs, and to introduce IDN e‑mail capability, as well as major services like social networks, etc; the organizational aspects are those related to registration policies within countries, the study proved that where policy of registration is liberal, the uptake is faster, and vice versa; IDNs drive content growth and very soon English is unlikely to be the top language used online; those technical/ service issues need to be resolved otherwise the uptake of IDN gTLDs may be as slow as IDN ccTLDs; introduction of new gTLDs may put positive pressure on the technical community to resolve those issues; the Universal Acceptance project is key in that regard.
·      New gTLDs should address users needs and should respect users experience, for example confusing similarity should be decided upon by people who use IDN scripts; there is more than 300 new gTLD applicants from Asia Pacific; regional organizations are working on legal frameworks and trade agreements, a lot of development going on in areas like intellectual property rights, privacy, data flow, etc. all this will have an impact on both ccTLDs and gtLDs; where is this from ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model? ICANN stakeholder engagement team should reach out to those stakeholders; current trademark protection model will be effective only for the developed economy, but it will be too costly for small enterprises and local brads in Asia to use; IDN gTLDs are likely to be vibrant in China.
·      There could be a conflict between a trademark and some name that belongs to one community or culture; short answer to this is independent objector because it is the independent objector's job to make those moral decisions.
·      Only 17 new gTLD applications from Africa; domain name industry in Africa is far from being similar to the developed world in terms of investments, policies, etc; it is not just price although the price needs to come down, it is not just the new gTLD program whether this round or the next one, it is about establishing an industry in Africa around existing gTLDs and ccTLDs so that there is a market for startups and entrepreneurs; only few registrars operate in the local market today but there are many people who sell domains in Africa and they have no legal relationship with ICANN; consumer choice, and consumer protection are core values of the multi-stakeholder model; it is our duty as community and as ICANN to help get proper and better industries serving end users in Africa.
Three main challenges in relation to technical infrastructures: 1) ICANN have trusted relationship with the existing 300 TLDs, that have to be known to ICANN staff; that is a very human process, and obviously one that doesn't scale well; this is a much bigger issue than how many zones can be added to the root; 2) the mandatory DNSSEC requirement with new gTLDs is an excellent thing, but the problem is that DNSSEC implementation is still difficult and often comes with glitches; 3) Lack of IPv4 blocks that TLD operators need to get a for each name server, though there might be solutions to this problem (e.g. convince ISPs to accept smaller blocks), implementing such solutions take time; this is a question of whether new market entrants will be supported in the same way that TLD operators have been up until today; one could argue though that there is no necessity of that as TLD operators could easily outsource 

Conclusions and further comments: 

 
 
·      The new gTLD program opened up the membership of the multistakeholder; ICANN has been hearing only from IP attorneys, now we are starting to see the marketing folks and the business development folks from the brands, etc.
·      Though some may still argue that it is hard for governments to accept the multi-stakeholder process; many have recognized that GAC role within ICANN multi-stakeholder model has been improved.
·      ICANN community has a responsibility for meeting the expectations and the needs of the Internet community in Africa and the developing world. 

(No.81) Internet Governance and Sustainable Development: The Case of Small Island Developing States

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

Internet Governance for Development
IG4D Thematic Cluster 2 "Enabling Environment"

Question 1: What does it take to attract investment in infrastructure and encourage innovation and growth of ICT services, including mobile technology and how can these technologies best be employed to address development challenges?

Question 2: What does it take in terms of IG policy, legal and regulatory approaches? What are the challenges to and opportunities for participation of stakeholders from developing countries with a special focus on increasing participation by youth and women participation in IG from Least Developed Countries?

IG4D Thematic Cluster 3 - "Infrastructure"

Question 1: What are the key concerns regarding Internet infrastructure from developing countries' experiences and how can new technologies and the Global Internet Governance mechanisms address limitations, offer opportunities and enable development?

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The United Nations Office of the High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS; www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/sid/list.htm) states that Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are numerically significant being presently comprised of fifty-two (52) Nation States.
 

Organiser(s) Name: 

Mr. Tracy Hackshaw -- Internet Society Trinidad & Tobago Chapter -- Academic/Technical Community -- Caribbean

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Ms. Maureen Hilyard -- (Cook Islands) -- Chair, Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society -- Pacific -- (Invited, Confirmed/Accepted) - Remote Panelist
Ms. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro -- (Fiji) -- Director at Pasifika Nexus Limited, Current Chair of Fiji Cyber Security Working Group,Co-Coordinator Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, Asian, Australasian and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO) Representative to At Large Advisory- Committee (ALAC), ICANN -- Pacific -- (Invited. Confirmed/Accepted)
Mr. Karim Attoumani Mohamed -- (Comoros) Comoros representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN Ingénieur Télécoms en Transmission, Réseaux et Commutation Chef du Département Études et Projets, Autorité Nationale de Régulation des TIC (ANRTIC) - Union des Comores -- Africa -- (Invited. Confirmed/Accepted)
Mr. Sebastian Bellagamba -- Regional Director, Internet Society Latin American and Caribbean -- LAC -- (Invited. Confirmed/Accepted)
Mr. Bevil Wooding -- (Trinidad & Tobago) Internet Strategist (Caribbean), Packet Clearing House -- Caribbean -- (Invited. Confirmed/Accepted)
Mr. Duksh Kumar Koonjoobeeharry -- (Mauritius) Fellow/Emerging Leader, DiploFoundation @CP Capacity Building Programme in Internet Governance and ICT Policy -- Africa -- (Invited. Confirmed/Accepted) - Remote Panelist
Mr. Carlton Samuels -- (Jamaica) Adjunct, University of the West Indies (Mona) -- Caribbean (Invited. Confirmed/Accepted).
Mr. Tracy Hackshaw (Moderator) -- Internet Society Trinidad & Tobago Chapter -- Academic/Technical Community -- Caribbean

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Ms. Cintra Sooknanan, Chair, Internet Society Trinidad & Tobago Chapter/Internet Society IGF Ambassador
Transcript: 
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
There were very few women participants
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: 
Tracy Hackshaw
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

The Workshop was held under challenging circumstances, given that three (3) of our scheduled Panelists (2 from the Pacific Islands and 1 from Mauritius) were unable to secure funding, and now therefore intended to participate as Remote Panelists.
Notwithstanding these challenges, a late start due to problems with the remote setup, and an Internet outage of approximately 10-15 mins, we were able to effectively execute a reasonably successful Workshop, which fed into the Main Session.
Bevil Wooding (Trinidad & Tobago) (having to step in out of planned order of speaking while the in-room Remote link was being troubleshooted) kicked the session off with a provocative discussion on how Small Island Developing States, such as those in the Caribbean grapple with First World issues such as Local Content, Internet Policy et al. Mr. Wooding noted that small states face peculiar challenges, but they also hold tremendous opportunities for demonstrating the transformative power of the Internet at a national level. In the Caribbean model, he sought to highlight the key areas which the states in the region need to overcome in order to better participate in the Internet Governance conversation: 

(1) Ignorance (2) Environmental Resistance (3) Disconnect (4) Infrastructure (5) Local Content Challenges

 

Further details of Mr. Wooding's presentation are available at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzqpE890O2UobzhpUjJoMk56S2c
Maureen Hilyard (Cook Islands), Chair of PICISOC, joined the Panel remotely, and provided a comprehensive stage setting presentation re: the issues and challenges facing Small Island States, and the Pacific Islands in particular. Among the issues addressed:
 

1. ACCESS FOR ALL

 

• Access must extend to all population groups, including those with disabilities

• The public and private sectors need to work more collaboratively to deal with digital divide issues

• The Church is a significant stakeholder group in the region, an untapped resource

 

2. PUBLIC POLICY

 

• Need for links between global, regional and national strategies – including local perspectives, knowledge and values

• Capacity building must allow Pacific states to devise and implement their own policy frameworks

• Linguistic challenge – encouraging the use of indigenous languages in the writing of policy

 

3. CRITICAL INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE

 

4. EMERGING ISSUES

 

• Citizen journalism

 

• Digital observatories

 

• Dealing with e-waste in the region

 

• Concerns with keeping users and infrastructure safe

 

• Ensuring that the internet is accessible in Pacific lanuages

Further details of Ms. Hilyard's presentation are available at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzqpE890O2UobmQxRWlDVjNHRms
Duksh Koonjoobeeharry (Mauritius), from AfriNIC provided a vast amount of information relating to Mauritius and the challenges faced therein. Many, if not most of these issues and challenges were seen to be very similar across the Pacific and Caribbean SIDS. 
Carlton Samuels (Jamaica), from the University of the West Indies, attempted to tie the points raised by the three SIDS regions (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific), by seeking commonalities, while respecting the differences therein.
Rapporteur, Anju Mangal (Fiji) from the Secretariat of Pacific Community and PICISOC provided the following summative points based on the Panelists' presentations, feedback from the Floor and remotely and the ebb and flow of the discussions therein:

  • Small Island Developing States (SIDS) face peculiar challenges, but they also hold tremendous opportunities for demonstrating the transformative power of the Internet at a national level, regional and international level.
  • The workshop on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development “The Case of Small Island Developing States” addressed issues and challenges that are faced by the Caribbean, Pacific and (some of) the African regions.
  • There’s still insufficient appreciation of fundamental principles and tenets of the Internet and there’s limited coverage in assessing some critical issues in relation to access, privacy, content development etc.
  • Overcoming infrastructure challenges is a key issue. There are still limited technical resources and we need to decide now how to overcome these challenges that deter the regions from equal (or at least equitable) access to connectivity.
  • Identifying hot topics like climate change issues in SIDS is a BIG CONCERN and it’s a priority now.
  • From the climate change perspective, there is a need to find concrete and immediate adaptation solutions on climate change. This can be done through the use of ICT and the Internet but the question still remains, “Who is going to help the small island developing states?” As an example, the Pacific Island nation of Kiribati is in the process of purchasing land in the Fiji Islands to help secure a future for its people who are threatened by rising sea level. Small islands like Kiribati have flat coral atolls which are already disappearing beneath the waves. So how can these people be part of the multistakeholder process if the countries have no other solution but to relocate their people? For these countries, their only hope is to have access to traditional media such as radio programs and television programs that provide them up to date news on their current situation. Having said this, there’s still some hope. Some ICT initiatives are now applied for implementing strategies and policies to combat this issue by sharing climate change information between countries and regional organizations on the climate change issues. The Internet provides a new revolution and allows people to consider earth’s climate crisis by staying informed. But for this, many of these SIDS need to first actually have decent and affordable Internet connectivity.

 
 
 

Conclusions and further comments: 

 

  1. Working together collectively and collaboratively may be an appropriate approach for SIDS to consider. It is still possible to retain a uniquely regional perspective when developing a research framework, or even perhaps an overall solution set for the challenges ... the critical aspect remains working together as a team with equal voices.
  2. New laws are already coming into place in relation to data and privacy laws and these are enablers of information societies. The time is therefore NOW to consider new opportunities. It is important therefore for the SIDS to stand up and make a statement to address some of the issues ... but the question remains “How can the SIDS address these issues?
  3. It is important to note that there are existing resources within the Internet Governance Forum to provide these opportunities for our region. One option could be for the SIDS to collectively lobby for SIDS-wide developmental funding and investment which will greatly assist SIDS-wide projects and initiatives that might not otherwise be possible, or indeed feasible within each national context.
  4. The SIDS have begun raising the volume of their voices and have obtained a seat at the table. The only logical next step will be to work together collaboratively and collectively to address BOTH our common and differential IG-related challenges.

 
 

(No.80) STEADY STEPS.....FOSS AND THE MDG's

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

IG4D Thematic Cluster 2 "Enabling Environment" Question 1: What does it take to attract investment in infrastructure and enc

Concise Description of Workshop: 

This workshop will address some key areas, where Free and open source software has made a milestone, in the last few years to fulfill the Millennium development goal, across the globe. Many a times whenever FOSS is mentioned, , thoughts quickly run to ‘techies’ .

Organiser(s) Name: 

- Mr. Satish Babu, International Center For Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS) - India, Government - Ms. Judy Okite, Free Software and OpenSource Foundation For Africa (FOSSFA) - Africa, Civil Society

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

1. Mr. Satish Babu - ICFOSS, India  (Government)- Moderator- Confirmed 
2. Mr. Fernando Botelho- F123.org, Brazil (Remote Participation)- Confirmed
3. Ms. Anne Rachel Inne, ICANN- Confirmed
4. Mr. Sunil Abraham , CIS Bangalore, India- Confirmed 
5. Ms. Mishi Choudhary,  Executive Director of International programs at Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), India- Confirmed
6. Mr. Yves Miezan Ezo, FOSSFA , CHALA, France- Confirmed
7.Ms. Nnenna Nwakanma, CEO, Nnenna.org, Cote d' Ivoire- Confirmed

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Ms. Judy Okite, FOSSFA
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 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: 

We intend to look at the women who have made it in the FOSS community and how they have made it  and what can be done to extend this globally, begining with  Brazil, India and Africa and compile this information as the background paper to our 2013 workshop. 

Report
Reported by: 
Mr. Satish Babu and Ms. Judy Okite
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

In this session very critical questions were asked;
1. How do we ensure that the Governments across the globe are well educated in terms of software and how do we ensure that the right people with the right knowledge are the one's that make the policy decisions (in reference to Latin America)
2. Are there any indicators that FOSS has played, within the MDG arena?
and
3. FOSS is about Free sharing, free learning, free giving....Multi-stakeholder platform is not new, FOSS has practiced this for years, the IGF ecosystem can learn from this.
 

Conclusions and further comments: 

The first point is about the strategy that you deploy to  sell the idea of open source to the government. In India, at least in the state of Kerala we have  converted all the government schools, that's about 2,000 schools with about 500,000 children, to Linux, the strategy that was adopted was not to lobby the Minister or the bureaucrat, it was actually to lobby at the grass-roots with the teachers. They got the teachers convinced, and then there was this bottom up transition that took place. I mean the Minister, or the bureaucrat that point was irrelevant, because the teachers decided to convert to open source, so I agree that it is a long way, it is not a short way, that it is along haul, but once you do that it is very sustainable because as long as the teachers could support it, the programme shall run. Today, this program is   in its seventh year and continues  to run without any problems, despite changes to the government, so the top may change, but it is here  and it will be sustainable. I suggest please don't  foreclose your options. There are strategies and there are strategies.

There are discussions around the IGF about a 19th and 20th century legal frameworks trying to govern the technology of the 21st century and finding it very difficult to cope, that we should therefore, like the universal declaration of human rights perhaps start thinking about the universal declaration of Internet rights which is somewhat different and forward-looking. Hopefully such frameworks will also help us address   questions  like how to convince our governments. So when you have a new kind of a framework that is futuristic, forward-looking, perhaps we'll be there.
 
CONCLUSION
Mr Babu and Ms Okite closed the session by thanking all the participants and apologising for not being able to carry the passionate discussion forward.
Overall, the panel discussion brought forward various point of views from different sectors, those of technology industry, legal industry, entrepreneurs, civil society organization, governments and teachers. In order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals such as Universal Education, Gender Equality, Environmental Sustainability and Global Partnership with the help of technology we need Free Software, we need Free Hardware we can hack on, we need Free Spectrum we can use to communicate with one another, without let or hindrance. We need to be able to educate and provide access to educational material to everyone on earth without regard to the ability to pay. We need to provide a pathway to an independent economic and intellectual life, for every young person, man or woman, rich or poor, whether living in a developed or a developing nation as in tough times, we all must collaborate and innovate together. Further, FOSS is  now going to join a  big river of Internet Freedom and without free software there cannot be any free internet. Thus, FOSS should be an integral part of any debate that talks about internet freedom.

Additional documents: 

(No.69) Teaching Internet Governance in developing countries

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

Why do developing countries have a low participation in the Internet Governance Process?

Concise Description of Workshop: 

After six successful meetings of the Internet Governance Forum the participation of the developing countries is still very low. This analysis is specially intreresting in Latin America for example. There is usually a 5 to 6 % of participants from this region in the different IGFs. Also in the second IGF that took place in Río de Janeiro, Brazil, there were several local participants but the rest of the region was again underrepresented.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Organiser: South School on Internet Governance - SSIG
Olga Cavalli Director SSIG Olga Cavalli is a university teacher, Director of SSIG, advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, ISOC Argentina board member, among other activities.

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Olga Cavalli - Director South School on Internet Governance. University teacher and director of the online Internet Governance course of the Organization of American States OAS (Confirmed).
 
Pedro Less Andrade - Senior Policy Counsel Latin America - Google (confirmed)
 
Gorka Orueta - University of País Vasco (Confirmed - Remote)
 
Jorge Vega Iracelay - Senior Director of Legal Affairs - Microsoft Mexico (confirmed)
 
Iván Sanchez Medina - Commissioner National Commission of Communications of Colombia (confirmed)
Eduardo Santoyo, Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Country Manager for the ccTLD .CO, and President of the LACTLD board of directors (Confirmed)
 
Ricardo Pedraza - Verisign Director Business Development Latin America (confirmed)
 
Avri Doria - SSIG core Faculty member  (confirmed)
 
Bill Drake - University of Zurich (Confirmed)
 
Adrián Carballo - SSIG - South School on Internet Governance (Confirmed)
 
Wolfgang Kleinwaechter - University of Aharus (Confirmed)
 
Beatriz Lopez Crespo - Advisor Cyber Security for children (Confirmed)

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Malebogo Khanda - Gaborone - Botswana
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 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: 

The audience was divided among several simultaneous activities so it was difficult to measure gender involvement and other audience related issues.

Report
Reported by: 
Olga Cavalli, Director South School on Internet Governance
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

 
This workshop analyzed the experience of different initiatives that try to bring new participants into the I* organizations (ISOC; IETF; ICANN; IGF) teaching the concepts of the Internet Governance from al local and regional perspective but at the same time putting these ideas and debates in the light of the global Internet Governance Debate. Some of the aspects that the workshop addressed were the language barrier, the local reality and its distance to the global debate, the relevant involvement of some national governments in these initiatives, the main achievements and conclusions that can be shared after several years of work done.
Panelists:
·       Pedro Less Andrade - Senior Policy Counsel Latin America – Google
·       Gorka Orueta - University of País Vasco (remote)
·       Bill Woodcock – Packet Clearing House
·       Eduardo Santoyo, Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Country Manager for the ccTLD .CO, and President of the LACTLD board of directors
·       Ricardo Pedraza - Verisign Director Business Development Latin America
·       Avri Doria - SSIG core Faculty member
·       Wolfgang Kleinwaechter - University of Aharus
Organizer: Olga Cavalli - Director South School on Internet Governance. Secretary ISOC Argentina Chapter
www.gobernanzainternet.org

Conclusions and further comments: 

- Panellists explained their different involvement in Internet Governance teaching activities and the advantages that they find in them in relation with the involvement of developing countries.
- SSIG, South School on Internet Governance main mission is to increase the relevant participation of Latin American and Caribbean representatives in debate and participation spaces where the Internet Governance is discussed. The South School on internet governance:

  • Creates a capacity building program for new leaders of oppinion that encourages them to actively participate in meetings and debates where the future of the Internet is decided.
  • Trains professionals in the Latin American and Caribbean region in those issues related with the Internet Governance in each of their countries.
  • Motivates young students of the Latin American and Caribbean region to actively get inolved in the development of the internatoinal policies related with Internet and related issues.

All students recieve a full fellowship to attend, there is full simultaneous translation English Spanish in all sessions.
SSIG rotates among countries of the region in order to allow higher local involvement in a region which is big and it is expensive to travel iside it.
First SSIG was held in 2009 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, then 2010 Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2011 in Mexico DF; 2012 in Bogotá, Colombia and next will take place in April 2013 in Panama.
The program has trained more than 300 professionals so far, many of them are very much involved in different IG activities, which is the main objective of this training innitiative.
- The Euro SSIG takes place every year in Meissen, Germany, and there come students from all over the world, it does not have a specific focus on regions or developing countries, but they do participate as well.
The program takes place in a very quiet and nice location in Meissen, where the atmosphere makes teaching more insightful.
The program will take place next year again in July.
- Faculty members see advantages in both models of the School, the European in one place and the Latin American with the rotation and more involvement of the local community. Both have advantages for the participants.
- From the experience, training programs about Internet Governance must be reviewed every year and they have to address the needs of the participants,which are the issues that interest them and try to focus in them. The approach must be practical more than theory.
- Packet Clearing House is an operational organisation much more than a research or academic organisation, they organize between 70 and 100 workshops each year and those are almost all aimed at solving some kind of operational problem.  A lot of those are about Internet governance. PCH has four main areas of work.  They support Internet exchange points and peering and traffic exchange, they support the core of the domain name system, they support regulatory and policy work, and security co‑ordination.
PCH educate operators on how to work with law enforcement, to take down a DOS attack or ISP operators on how to keep port stability on their switches.
Tension is on the one hand the safety of the status quo and on the other hand the advantages for development. At some level, most people understand that they can't exactly have both.  If they want new technology and the benefits of new technology and modernity, they have to give up some of the things that they are used to that are not necessarily better, they are just safe and convenient and they have become habituated to. A huge amount of work goes at ministerial and regulator level.
- Universities should de more involved in these teaching innitiatives.
- Involvement of governments was seen as an advantage for local understanding of the Internet Governance issues.
- The SSIG had remote participation for participants in 2012 in Bogota, and usually those faculty members that cannot attend in person make a remote presentation. The quality of the remote participation must be always the best that can be achieved in order to allow broader and better involvement of the interested community.
- Other innitiatives mentioned: Project Guttenberg, knowledgeunlatched.org, Brewster Cale's Digital Open Library, openlibrary.org.  
 
 
 

(No.68) Multi-stakeholder Internet Public Policy: Toolkit for internet public policy practitioners

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

Security, Openness and Privacy Q5; IG4D, Enabling Environment Thematic Cluster: Q2, Infrastructure Cluster: Q1

Concise Description of Workshop: 

At the “Multi-stakeholder Internet Public Policy Dialogue: Lessons Learned and Best Practice Examples of Local to Global Policy Making” organized by IISD at the Nairobi IGF, and involving a rich panel consisting of coordinators of the Canadian, UK, Brazilian/South American, East African, Togo National IGFs, and the UNDP, certain key messages emerged that recognized:
• the relationships between global and public spheres in policy making

Backgroung Paper: 
Organiser(s) Name: 

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
Nominet

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

• Alice Munyua, EAIGF
• Sheba Mohammid, Caribbean IGF
• Nnenna Nwakanma, WAIGF
• Heather Creech, IISD
• Martin Boyle, Nominet/UK IGF
• Towela Nyirenda, Southern African IGF

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Ben Akoh
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: 

Participation by women stakeholders is important for their voice to be included. However, their participation must be encouraged through the provision of funds.
Secondly, women stakeholder participation should not be limited to women's organization that are technically oriented, but to those who ordinarily and traditionally would not be involved in internet policy dialogue but on whom such policies will affect regardless.

Report
Reported by: 
Ben Akoh
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 
  • Debates on the Internet and its potential impact are beyond mere dialogue on critical internet resources, and mostly about public policy that govern their use and their impacts on wider society. Sustainable development as the theme of this year’s IGF bolsters this point.
  • Public policy should be all-inclusive; even those who for whatever reasons decide not to participate.
  • Therefore sustainable Internet public policy dialogue should take cognizance of future societies and contexts. The UNESCO session on global citizenship involving young persons aged 14 to 17 indicates a growing shift in global culture and perceptions of citizenship held by youths in relation to Internet Public Policy.
  • Subsidiarity principles should be recognized such as supports local policy impacts of global policy dialogue and vice versa. An outcome is the need for firm support of developing country participation.
  • Certain approaches or tools (some discussed in the toolkit written for the workshop) have been employed in various countries. The workshop elicited what worked and how they can be improved.
Conclusions and further comments: 
  • Public policy dialogue done right has resulted in increased policy making in areas in which ICTs may be perceived to have no direct influence such as in agriculture, health, and Education as has taken place in the Pacific region.
  • Public policy dialogue calls for a broader stakeholder participation through the use of various other tools of engagements. For instance, social media and mobile devices proves to be powerful media for engagement in policy dialogue in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the way that it increases access to Diaspora Liberians and those physically indisposed to traditional means of face to face engagement. Similarly, broadened participation makes it possible for Southern African stakeholders to engage in policy dialogue beyond the state to broader regional levels in the Southern African Development Corporation region. The UK parliament has increased access to other members of parliament in Scotland and Wales. 
  • The influences of public policy participation can be felt in how government and governance function are carried out. Such as the case of parliamentarians in the UK, Cote d’Ivoire, and Liberia where public policy dialogue has been able to influence laws and discussions on child pornography, budgeting, access to official government information, and transparency and accountability of government actions. 
  • While process is important, the elaboration of tools within a toolkit addresses the immediate concerns of the absence of a set of “how to” process tools that leads to effective public policy making allowing budding national or regional IGFs to focus more on the substantive elements of policy dialogue such as building awareness, raising and capturing policy concerns amongst a widespread of stakeholders, and mapping out possible policy options.
  • Standard IGF issues are not the only policy issues that are important and that brings together stakeholders using a multistakeholder paradigm. The case of "TV spaces" in South Africa for instance has resulted in multistakeholder dialogue that is not euro- or us- centric but focuses on purely African issues of concern.

(No.61) New gTLD program: an opportunity for development or a mean for more digital divide?

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

Pending Expansion of the Top Level Domain Space: Q1 and 2
Our workshop answered the Q2: What kind of support may be required to help communities, NGOs and business from developing world to participate in the gTLD process? 

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) launched in January 2012 the new generic Top Level Domains (gTLD) program, consisting in expanding considerably the top level domain space for up to 500 new gTLDs. We will probably see the first strings delegated early next year. This program will transform the Internet landscape by multiplying the number of the generic top level domains by 30, and creating new Internet registries and registrars.

Organiser(s) Name: 

African Regional At-Large Organization (AFRALO) at Internet Corporation for assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Mr Tijani BEN JEMAA, FMAI - NGO - Confirmed - Moderator and Rapporteur (Tunisia) Mr Zahid Jamil, Lawyer - Confirmed (Pakistan) Ms Avri DORIA, Teacher and consultant - Confirmed (USA) Mr Dev Anand Teelucksingh, ALAC member from LACRALO - Confirmed (Trinidad & Tobago) Ms Sandra Hoferichter, Civil Society - Confirmed (Germany) Mr Mohamed El Bashir, .africa SteerCom Chair - Confirmed (Qatar) Ms Hong Xue, Teacher and Lawyer - Confirmed (China) Mr Yaovi Atohoun, IT Consultant - Confirmed (Benin) 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Olivier Crépin Leblond, - (France)
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: 
Tijani BEN JEMAA
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

The ICANN AFRALO workshop focused on the new generic Top Level Domain (new gTLD), and the question was: will the new gTLD program be an opportunity for the development or a new mean for more digital divide?
7 panelists from the 5 regions of the world introduced the subject under different angles:

  • Opportunities for developing economy regions
  • The impact that a regional gTLD like dot africa may have on the development in the region
  • Opportunities for development brought by the new IDN gTLDs
  • Opportunities in the Caribbean islands
  • Opportunities for the Internet end-users in various region

All the speakers recognized that the new gTLD program, at least for its first round cannot be considered as an opportunity for the development for various raisons.
They all spoke about the future and what should be done to really make the gTLDs serve the development.
Several suggestions were made such as:

  1. Don't wait for the second round, and make use of the second level of the existing gTLDs or those that will be delegated in the next few months.
  2. Start now preparing for the next roundin terms of:
  • Outreach to raise the awareness
  • Capacity Building
  • Creating an enabling environment for a viable domain industry
  • Engaging with developing country business associations facilitating action on the ground rather than just delivering messages
  • Empowering the ccTLDs in those regions
  • Improving the process for the upcoming rounds.

3.   Another proposal that was very much appreciated in the room was to     conceive a remedial round (before the second one) to be oriented to favor applications from developing economies. 
The panel was made in such a way that regional and gender balances were very well respected:

  • Zahid Jamil                    Man          Pakistan          Asia Pacific region
  • Avri Doria                      Woman      USA                North America region
  • Mohamed El-Bashir         Man           Sudan             Africa
  • Hong Xue                      Woman      China              Asia Pacific region
  • Dev Anand Teelucksingh  Man           Trinidad          Lac region
  • Sandra Hoferichter          Woman      Germany         Europe
  • Yaovi Atohoun               Man           Benin              Africa

 

Conclusions and further comments: 

The conclusion was to start now preparing for the next round: raising awareness, building capacities, creating enabling environment for sustainable domain name industry in the developing economy regions. In the mean time it was recommanded that the application process should be improved to remove barriers for the applicants from developing countries and poor communities.
Conceiving a remedial round was seen as the necessary step to overcome the result of the first round.

Syndicate content