IGF 2014

The Gender Dynamic Coalition meeting will discuss outcomes from key processes and discussions on Internet governance leading up to IGF 2014 – including 2013 IGF Gender Report Card findings, WSIS+10 results, and NetMundial to assess integration of gender issues and concerns. The meeting also launches the new “Feminist Principles of the Internet,” which is a working document produced from a meeting of over 50 women’s and Internet rights activists in April 2014. Panelists and attendees will together develop thinking and analysis around the contentious issues of gender, sexuality, and the Internet, including online violence against women, ‘harmful’ content, ‘hate speech’, and sexual expression.
It will also plan for integration of Internet governance issues at the post-2015 development agenda and Beijing +20 discussions led by UN Women for the 2015 Commission on the Status of Women. This will produce a set of recommendations for follow-up activities and future contributions to Internet Governance issues.

The Pal-DC meeting at the 2014 IGF will concentrate on the intersection of public access to ICTs and development. Building on feedback from workshops held at the African Internet Governance Forum and the WSIS+10 HLE, as well as experiences gained at the meetings of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals in New York during 2014, the DC will look at the prospects for ICTs within the post-2015 framework, and the way that the framework could create new realities for Internet Governance. The meeting will also review two new policy briefs on public access launched by coalition members during 2014, discuss the importance of public access for women and girls, and assess the progress of the Beyond Access and Global Libraries projects funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The network neutrality debate is gaining great political momentum. Several countries have already implemented network neutrality laws, while many others are currently elaborating or scrutinising the opportunity to elaborate network neutrality legislation. Yet, we are witnessing today the emergence of a variety of divergent (and somewhat incompatible) approaches towards whether or not network neutrality is enshrined in law.

Over the last months, in the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced the elaboration of new Open Internet rules after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal invalidated the Open Internet Order; at the European Union level net-neutrality is going to be enshrined into legislation but the outcome of this latter process seem currently difficult to predict; whilst the Brazilian National Congress adopted the Marco Civil an Internet Bill of Rights containing strong network neutrality provisions.

While the network neutrality debate continues, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) may enter into opaque interconnection-arrangements (peering agreements) that might include provision compelling Content and Applications Providers to pay ISPs for a direct connection to their consumers (so called “sender-pays” model).

These and many other issues will be presented by some of the contributors to the annual Report of the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality that will engage in an interactive debate during the DC NN meeting.

Meeting Format

The meeting will be introduced by a keynote delivered by Mr Vint Cerf, Vice-president and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google, followed by an interactive debate, prompted by the interventions of the various authors of the 2014 Report of the DC NN.

The authors/panellists will engage in an collaborative discussion aimed at jointly analysing their findings and proposals.

Today, there seems to be more child abuse materials being circulated online than ever before. Whatever we have been doing up to now to get these images (stills, videos and live streaming) off the Internet has not been working well enough. Emerging forms of abuse involve one-time live streaming transmission of sexual abuse of children. Peer2Peer environments have superseded the web and other online environments as the major source of child abuse materials and the emergence of anonymous or hard to trace forms of electronic payment such as virtual currencies, appear to be online a new growth in commercial traffic in child abuse material.
Although there is clearly an important agenda which seeks to address the underlying causes of the child abuse depicted in all kinds of images, as well as a need to improve the speed with which law enforcement can identify victims in real life, rescue them, then pass them on to appropriate care or help agencies to aid their recovery, another key part of the challenge involves seeking to disrupt and reduce the traffic in child abuse images to the largest extent possible.
Given the volumes involved it is self-evident that technical solutions will play an increasingly important part in this struggle. Microsoft has produced PhotoDNA to deal with still images. Google is working on a similar product for videos. Other companies are working on or have developed similar or complementary measures. Google and Microsoft have both taken steps to reduce the potential for their search engines to be abused by those with sexual interests in children. "Splash pages" are now being deployed to discourage certain types of users from using search engines to locate child abuse materials.
This meeting of the Dynamic Coalition will look critically at the array of technical tools now being used in the fight against online child abuse material. How well are the tools working and, crucially, how widely are they being deployed? What more can be done to encourage wider take up? Is the Financial Services industry doing enough to interdict the abuse of their systems in relation to commercial exchanges?
We will organize a round table followed by an open discussion with the audience/members.

7th Meeting of the
Dynamic Coalition on Internet and Climate Change (DCICC)

9th IGF Forum

Istanbul, Turkey

4 September 2014, from 9:00 to 10:30 (Room 6)

The Dynamic Coalition on Internet and Climate Change (DCICC) will gather key players from the Internet community and the ICT sector, such as governments, citizens, NGOs, business and academia, at its seventh physical meeting in Istanbul (Turkey) during the ninth IFG Forum.

Most of the economic value created by the Internet falls outside of the technology sector, with 75 percent of the benefits captured by companies in more traditional industries according to McKinsey.

Participants will present successful experiences and best practices from different regions of how providing access to the Internet, as well as harnessing ICT infrastructure and services, can spur economic growth and enable a sustainable use of natural resources.

Participants will also set out new priorities and actions to further advance the work of the DCICC in establishing collaborative multi-stakeholder partnerships to build a green economy, halt climate change and ensure a sustainable future using ICTs and the Internet.

Convener: Nevine Tewfik, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Egypt

Agenda:

1. Opening remarks:

• H.E. Hasanul Haq Inu, Minister of Information, Bangladesh
• Tomas Lamanauskas, ITU

1. Tour de Table
2. Welcoming of new members
3. Presentation of key activities by participants of the DCICC, including brief oral presentations
4. Next steps and future activities of the DCICC
5. AOB
6. Conclusion 

The goal of the face-to-face meeting of DCAD during IGF 2013 is to always continue to work toward the goal of ensuring that ICT accessibility is included in discussions related to Internet governance, aiming to create a future in which all users have equivalent access to the opportunities presented by ICTs globally. It is also to insure the IGF secretariat and host countries improves their performance in the actually provision of accessibility of the ICT technology and physical environment at the annual meeting. 

The DCAD will continue to discuss how cooperation and collaboration with IGF can be improved and to alert IGF stakeholders of the importance of building a culture of accessibility awareness among the policy makers, regulators, standards developers, service providers and software and hardware manufacturers involved in telecommunications and ICTs. The paramount topic is now the improvement of remote participation for persons with disabilities in the meetings and for all who wish to participate at a distance.

The DCAD meeting will as it has done every year since the beginning of its inception, also discuss how to continue to assist the IGF secretariat and other members of IGF, in making sure host countries conduct accessible meetings, in accessible premises, with accessible services for persons with disabilities, taking into account the improvements and the progress of the past years.

DCAD has been working on an updated version of the DCAD Accessibility Guidelines for accessible meetings and to present that updated document at the Final Plenary Session.

DCAD will as it has always done review the accessibility arrangements made by the host country and the outcomes from the DCAD/G3ict workshop “Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: Imperative for Web Accessibility” being held on Tuesday, September 2, 2014, 9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Room 01

There will be an opportunity for any other business to accommodate DCAD members to address other issues not foreseen at this time.

Agenda

Chairman: Andrea Saks, DCAD Coordinator 

Vice Chairman: Peter Major DCAD co Coordinator

Remote moderators: Peter Major (confirmed)Ginger Paque (to be confirmed)

1. Opening remarks and welcome 
2. Approval of the Agenda 
3. Review of Accessibility at this IGF meeting 
o Accessibility facilities at the IGF meeting 
o Accessibility web pages  and printed materials
o Hotel accommodation  and information for delegates 
o The  IGF registration form and process 
o Review of to the Internet facilities and connectivity
o Review of remote participation all aspects
4. Review the updated of the DCAD Accessibility Guidelines:
5. Funding of accessibility experts and IGF participants including remote moderators.
6. Discussion re the main sessions due they apply to accessibility
7. Review of DCAD activities at IGF
o G3ict/DCAD joint workshop: 89 Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: Imperative for Web Accessibility
o Other workshops on accessibility.
8. Open forum of participants and DCAD members
9. Future activities of DCAD for next year and how we proceed
10. Any other business
11. Closing 

Going back to the 3rd IGF in Hyderabad (2008), the Internet of Things has been subject to debate during the IGF, as it was considered by multiple stakeholders as one of the “game changers” towards the future of the Internet. With the formal inauguration of the Dynamic Coalition during the IGF in Nairobi (2011) this relevance was confirmed, and the discussions between a wide range of stakeholders has continued, since.
Today, we are at a point where the Internet of Things (or: IoT) is widely recognized to as “inevitable” and developing with increased speed – though in a fragmented way and with limited accountability. Smart environments are going to be the next big thing, in fact is has started already. Smart meters, smart cars, smart TV and all the little additional things we can do with our smart phone by using smart apps. The technology is long used by other industries already, like the logistic industry or wholesale and retail. But still we know so little about the ethical and privacy implications this development will have on our daily life. We also do not have established policies relating to accountability and transparency with which the processes for storing and using the data collected in IoT will be treated. We are also still discovering the legal implications of IoT.
With a clear calling for further introduction of IoT for different reasons, the importance of ensuring that it evolves in a way people want is also imminent. In the IGF context, the development aspects of IoT are also a serious concern. Some argue for growth and resource saving models - others against the damage this technology might cause to our health conditions and big brother scenarios. Now that Google spent 3,2 Billion Dollar on NEST Labs, we can start a discussion on a concrete example and explore to what extend there need to be public policy discussions with regard to using this technology in the future in our house and daily life.
Multistakeholder perspective
The IoT will help resolving societal challenges that couldn’t be addressed in other ways, or not without much higher costs. These challenges are different in different parts of the world, as for everything that has to do with the Internet. Whereas in some parts of the world the emphasis is on “ensuring privacy” in other parts of the world the emphasis may be on public safety, health, or on production and sales of goods in a new market. In still other parts of the world, the concerns are developmental. It is clear that, like with the other aspects of the Internet, the IoT will only manifest itself in ways we want if industry develops solutions consumers want to buy or use, with “things” that citizens accept to be present in their environment, and with government accepting that the IoT environment is part of the public space in which they have a role of ensuring public safety, etc. No one party can do this alone.
Global perspective
Like the rest of the Internet, IoT doesn’t stop at the border. Whether it is a car, or a plane, full with communicating objects crossing a border, or whether it is data that flow across networks, or consumer goods with IoT attributes that are imported… it is clear that it would serve people best if global standards are set and followed. It offers local economies the opportunity to export to other parts of the world, and it allows to import solutions that have been created elsewhere, as it is possible to “plug them in”.
The need for what the IoT has to offer will vary from region to region. Whereas in some regions emphasis may be on establishing extended care environments, supporting elderly to live independently, longer (such as in some countries where the demography is moving towards an elder civilization over the years to come), in other areas the emphasis may be on environmental monitoring (for instance: rain forests protection against slash and burn by using RFID beacons at strategic locations, highly polluted areas to constantly measure the quality of the water, and/or the air).
With all the benefits IoT may bring to different societies, it also comes with challenges that need to be addressed, rather than just closing our eyes and let things happen. For this we need the debate to take place with all stakeholders involved, at equal footing, at all levels (global as well as local).
Agenda for DC IoT: Global governance challenges
It is likely that all governance challenges in IoT are already covered somewhere else. However: with the emergence of the IoT some challenges get more and new emphasis, even more so when projected towards a future in which many (billions of) things will be connected. These challenges include:
1- Privacy: the amount of data is exploding by the increase of connected sensors that measure and share. These data range from being very much linked to persons to not being related to persons at all, the value towards users, businesses, and society is potentially huge, and so far there are no “good housefather” concepts (expectation embedded in the Law to express that “current practice standards” need to be fulfilled, at least) for where and how to store the data in autonomous IoT networks: accountability and transparency of processes are needed here. So with all our concerns about big data, addressing these issues for IoT environments is a crucial governance issue, while recognizing that some data are at all subject of privacy concerns, and others arenot. We are very early in understanding this from a technical level. Policy implications are also very rudimentary;
2- Security: the IoT includes “actuators” that are partly there to be triggered by people, and partly (semi-)autonomous, triggered by data from sensors and networks. As we know, everything that is networked is vulnerable against attack, and next to establishing what level of security may be expected from different applications, we may need to get to a “taxonomy” of applications in terms of their vulnerability (governance issue). Whereas some applications will require no or limited security measures (such as meta data), other IoT devices may not be detectable at all in a wireless space (such as peacemakers for the heart). In addition, a balance needs to be found in the use of IoT for ensuring security and respecting privacy, as the recent debate about pervasive monitoring on the Internet shows;
3- Ethics: understanding the ethics is very much society context dependent, and that the underlying concepts even in the same society are subject to change over time, addressing this is crucial if “trust” is to be maintained in society at certain levels. In order to establish the right level of “ethics” in applications, it will be important that people are well informed, and that “things” are “transparent thus trusted – otherwise it will not work. A clear example here is the abandoning of electronic voting systems because “the people” don’t trust the working of these black boxes. Ongoing dialogue on governance issues related to this is necessary at all levels;
4- Spectrum: managing the radio spectrum has been an interesting dance over the last decades. Without going deep into the intricacies of this, it is clear that if we want to avoid that “spectrum” becomes an issue for the further roll-out in masses of IoT, we need to address that in two ways: ensuring there is bandwidth availability for IoT; ensuring that bandwidth is only used when needed, and if so very effectively.
Finding ways forward on these issues are to be done at all levels, from the household itself, to the local community, nation, region, and up to the global level itself. For the latter, the IGF has proven to be an excellent place to discuss these governance issues with different stakeholders at global level. The DC IoT is becoming a focal point where insights and concerns can be shared, and validated. Since Bali, DC IoT has continued to convene meetings at regional IG events, and is now working towards “mapping the mine field” thus identifying those issues that stakeholders should take into account, wherever they are, whatever their role is.
With

Online platforms, such as social networks and other interactive online services, give rise to transnational “cyber-spaces” where individuals can gather and express their personalities imparting and receiving information and ideas. By reason of their transnational dimension as well as of their private nature, online platforms are regulated through contractual provisions, unilaterally established by the platforms’ providers and enshrined in the platforms’ ToS.

Hence it may be argued that, by regulating the use of information within a specific online platform, ToS undertake a normative function that may be compared to that of the “Law of the Land”. However, differently from the Law of the Land, the contractual provisions delineated in the ToS can be applied in several jurisdictions, thus affecting platform users in spite of their geographical location. Furthermore, the private decisions that may be taken by the platform provider in order to implement the ToS (e.g. removing content which is not compatible with the ToS provisions) are not subject to the constitutional guarantees that frame national jurisdictions.

In addition, it should be noted that the spectrum of rights and remedies that are granted to platform users through the ToS may be difficult to comprehend or even read in its entirety, and similar platforms may be regulated through very different provisions that might be unilaterally modified by platform providers.

For these reasons, it seems necessary to engage in a common multi-stakeholder effort aimed at producing model contractual provisions, which can be incorporated in ToS in order to provide intelligible and solid mechanisms to protect platform-users’ human rights and foster platform providers’ responsibility.

Such an effort appears necessary to equip platform users with common and easy-to-grasp tools to guarantee the full enjoyment of their human rights. From this perspective, the, absence of binding international rules in this area despite the universal nature of human rights represents a real challenge, which can only be effectively overcome through a multistakeholder effort, taking place in accordance with the UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework (endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council together with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights). Hence, the concept of “platform responsibility” aims to stimulate behaviour in line with the principles laid out by the UN Guiding Principles, focusing on the responsibility of private corporations to respect human rights and to grant an effective grievance mechanism.

Meeting Format

The first meeting will be introduced by two keynotes, highlighting the state of play of the platform responsibility debate and triggering an open debate amongst the DC PR members and the attendees.
The opening keynotes will be delivered by:
- Mr Jan Kleijssen, Director, Information Society and Action against Crime, Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, Council of Europe
- Ms Rebecca MacKinnon, Director of the Ranking Digital Rights project at New America Foundation

Subsequently the DC PR members and attendees will engage in an open discussion aimed at identifying the key elements to be addressed by the DC PR and jointly delineating the DC PR roadmap.Therefore this meeting should be considered as a “Birds of a feather session” allowing all interested individuals to jointly plan the future works of the DC PR.  

Particularly, the DC PR roadmap will be instrumental to plan the future activities of the DC PR members aimed at the elaboration of model contractual provisions that may be used to provide effective protection to specific human rights through online platforms’ terms of service.

All the attendees will be encouraged to actively participate to the debate, providing their inputs to the definition of the DC PR roadmap.

The discussion will be co-moderated by:
- Mr Luca Belli, Council of Europe & Université Paris 2
- Mr Nicolo Zingales TILEC at Tilburg University
- Ms Primavera De Filippi CNRS & Berkman Center for Internet and Society

The IRPC Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet: Five Years On
This meeting marks five years since the IRPC Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet begun as a collaborative, cross-sector project to develop a coherent and legally viable human rights framework that could be applied to Internet governance policy-making and processes. In that time it has moved from rough draft form to an authoritative working document that has framed and guided thinking across a number of sectors. This past year it has also started to be implemented on the ground. For instance, it has informed intergovernmental analyses of existing human rights for the online environment (e.g. the Council of Europe Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users) and legal analyses (e.g. the Chilean Institute of Human Rights). The Charter and its “Ten Punchy Principles” have proven their relevance as working models for grassroots awareness-raising campaigns (e.g. the Hivos IG-MENA Click Rights campaign), and innovative legislative initiatives (e.g. the NZ Greens’ Internet Rights and Freedoms Bill). The Charter work has also benefitted and learnt from precursor and parallel initiatives through the contributions of individuals and organizations in the IRPC such as the APC Bill of Internet Rights and the Brazilian Marco Civil da Internet. The IRPC Charter, as a whole and the 10 IRP Principles in particular, are also part of university curricula around the world, from Latin America to the Philippines, to the UK and the USA.
The current version of the Charter has made therefore achieved its goals and had a clear impact in human rights advocacy for the Internet. In addition it has been published in booklet form in five languages and so become accessible to new audiences online and in print form in this time. Because it has been developed as a comprehensive framework anchored in international human rights law and norms, the Charter has also been a formative contributor to increasing official recognition that online rights and fundamental freedoms matter too, e.g. the UNHRC 2012 Resolution and the NETmundial Outcome Document earlier this year. But these five years have also been marked by major technological developments, and revelations that have implications for how human rights can be protected and enjoyed online, and future roles and responsibilities for the Internet’s governance. Along with taking heart at these achievements comes the need to consider whether, and if so how, some parts of the Charter need revisiting in light of these changes.
Objectives and Agenda:
Roundtable: The first part of the meeting is a roundtable discussion. It assembles members of the original expert group who finalised the “collabowritten” draft developed by coalition participation, one of the current IRPC co-Chairs, and a representative from Article 19. Each speaker will nominate a section, or sub-section, that they consider needs revisiting or reconsideration and then present why and how they would revise that part. The outcomes of this discussion will be recorded as an initial outline for the next round of consultations to develop the next version of the IRPC Charter, pending support from the meeting and in collaboration with new partner organizations where pertinent.
Annual General Meeting: The second part of the session will be the coalition’s Annual General Meeting. A report of the past year’s activities and outputs will be available prior to the IGF. The IRPC Charter is available online in English and several other languages at http://Internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/.

This meeting is aimed to rejuvenate the youth coalition on Internet Governance , bringing new leadership and setup a strategical plan for the next 3 years.
The meeting will involve new members working on setting new goals for the coalition and ensuring the transition.

The meeting will follow a roundtable format and will be facilitated by the interim coordinator (TBC). It will involve old and new members of the DC.

The proposal is to have a meeting of the Coalition during the time slot allotted to discuss the role of stakeholder contribution to preserve core Internet Values. The session will bring together Representatives from two Civil Society Organizations, two Business Corporations, two Governments, two Technical Organizations and two Universities.

Do we really want to speak freely
- The topic concerns recent developments in different national and International courts that are setting standards for intermediary prior-control for free speech?
- Do we value our privacy rights over our freedom of expression? What are our wishes as users? As intermediaries? Other stakeholders?
- How to tackle offensive and potentially other illegal content online?