IGF 2014

Program - 9th Annual Symposium

8:30 - 9:00 Welcome and introductions

9:00 – 10:30 Theoretical session: Conceptual/Definitional papers

•             Carolina Aguerre. A framework for national mechanisms on Internet governance

•             Kirsten Gollatz, Jeanette Hofmann and Christian Katzenbach. Internet Governance as an Analytical Concept

•             Rolf Weber, Proliferation of “Internet governance”

11:00 – 12:30 Emerging scholar session: Institutional innovation in Internet governance

 

•             Andreas Kuehn. A New Paradigm in Securing Software Vulnerabilities – An Institutional Analysis of Emerging Bug Bounty Programs and their Implications for Cybersecurity and Internet Governance

•             Uta Meier-Hahn. Internet interconnection: how economic sociology can inform the discourse on internet governance

•             Trisha Meyer. Access and Control: The Political Economy of Online Copyright Enforcement in the European Union

 

12:30 – 1:30 Lunch

 

1:30 – 3:00 Interactive session: Multistakeholder governance and its alternatives

 

•             Mark Raymond, Laura Denardis and Fen Hampson. The Emergence of Contention in Global Internet Governance

•             Aaron van Klyton and Kerry Holden. Internet Governance and the African city

•             Derrick Cogburn. Uncovering the Conceptual Antecedents of the NETMundial Outcome Document on the Future of Global Internet Governance

 

3:30 – 5:00 Interactive session: The DNS and global Internet governance

 

•             Hong Xue. Trademark Protection at the Top-Level Domains: A Legal Review of the Trademark Right Objections in ICANN New gTLD Program

•            Patricia Vargas-Leon and Andreas Kuehn. Political Economy of Critical Internet Resources: South America vs. Amazon, Inc.: The battle for .AMAZON)

 

•             Kenneth Merrill. A Marketplace of Networks: Power and counter-power in the DNS

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 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and Enhanced Cooperation has been introduced in the Tunis Agenda as two parallel tracks to address public policy issues related to Internet Governance (IG). While the IGF was set to be multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic, transparent and non-binding process; Enhanced Cooperation was focused on enabling governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters.

While the IGF role is clearly defined in its mandate, there is no clear framework yet for Enhance Cooperation as a process. Both Processes address in their respective role (or mandate) IG Public Policies. One fact that we know by today is that successful IG Public Policies are the ones that are developed within a multistakeholder open balanced approach which became a trend on global, regional and national levels.

The workshop would address the following questions:

1. Can we view the IGF and Enhanced Cooperation as two linked processes since they both address IG public policies or they should remain and two independent tracks.

2. If the IGF is a non-binding and non-outcome policy dialogue platform, can Enhanced Cooperation serve as an outcome for this policy dialogue that can reflect multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent process.

3. In light of the two previous question, what should be a workable framework for enhanced cooperation that will enable governments to carry its role related to IG public policy.

-----
Workshop Agenda:

Mr. Qusai AlShatti - Background on Workshop Topic & Panelists Introduction - 5 min
Miss Désirée Miloshevic - Multistakeholder Engagement in Enhanced Cooperation process -5 min.
Mr. Ayman El-Sherbiny -The Role on Intergovernmental organizations in Enhanced Cooperation - 5 min.
Mr. Peter Major - Role and Ourcome of the Workgroup on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) - 5 min.
Mr. Mohammed AlQurashi - Enhanced Cooperation as a Process for Governments - 5 min.
Mr. Carlos A. Afonso - The View of Civil Society on the Enhanced Cooperation Process - 5 min.
Mr. Faycal Bayouli - Tunisia Experience in Enhanced Cooperation and the WGEC - 5 min.
Ms. Marilyn Cade - The View of The Private Sector on the Enhanced Cooperation Process - 5 min.
Workshop Participants, panelists and Remote Participants - Interactive Discussion - 40 min.
Workshop moderator and Panelists - Summary & Closing Remarks - 10 min.

The successful evolution of the Internet has been depending on a flexible, decentralised, bottom-up and issue-driven set of interrelated governance processes open to participation by all stakeholders. During the past five years the dialogue on Internet governance has grown exponentially. As one of the Internet industry leader in their respective countries, most of the country code top-level domain operators have been proactively engaging in the Internet governance process. They have become one of the main avenues to reach out their local community on this matter.
The workshop aims to show best practice cases of ccTLDs that have facilitated the development of “IG-literacy” through initiatives that have contributed to feed the IG process with local input on the IG ecosystem and the need that it remains anchored to the principles of multi-stakeholderism, openness, transparency and accountability.
In the spirit and with the ultimate goal of assuring a constructive evolution of the current IG model, various ccTLDs have been playing key roles in the IG arena and helped enhancing the dialogue at multiple levels.
The workshop will be set in the form of a round table where panelists and attendees will be given ample room for discussion. Central in the discussion will be the identification of difficulties and opportunities to engage the local community in an Internet Governance debate.
A dedicated social media campaign will be enforced to ensure the broadest possible participation before, during and after the workshop.

In 2009, ICANN entered into an Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) with the US Department of Commerce (DOC). The AOC promotes ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community, e.g. through a system of multistakeholder reviews of its performance in relation to public interest criteria. But it also moderated rather than ended the exclusive relationship between ICANN and the DOC, and affirmed ICANN’s commitment to remain a nonprofit corporation headquartered in the US with offices around the world. Now, with ICANN’s accelerating globalization efforts and the DOC’s announced desire to transition its role regarding the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community, new and pressing questions are being raised about the AOC and its potential alternatives.

The NonCommercial Users Constituency of ICANN (94 civil society organizations and 252 individuals in 81 countries) proposes this workshop to explore some of these questions. Should the bilateral relationship be replaced by a “Web of Affirmation of Commitments” between ICANN and the world’s governments and relevant nongovernmental actors, as advocated by an ICANN Strategy Panel? Could the US role simply be removed from the equation, rather than being replaced by formal agreements with other parties? Would another arrangement better promote globalization and multistakeholderism while preserving the security, stability and unity of the Internet? How far can ICANN’s globalization be advanced while preserving ICANN’s legal status and nexus of contractual relationships? Could the innovative AOC serve as a model for other global Internet governance issue-areas? The workshop would bring together architects of the AOC with other leading proponents of ICANN’s globalization.

ICANN is a multi-stakeholder organization that has a critical yet confined role as a steward of the Internet identifiers and protocol parameters. ICANN coordinates closely with other actors in the Internet ecosystem who play a key role in managing the technical resources of the Internet infrastructure. ICANN also has relationships with many different stakeholders who participate in various Internet governance processes at regional and international levels.
ICANN continuously seeks to improve its multi-stakeholder structures and policy development processes to be more effective, inclusive, and transparent. It does that through ongoing reviews undertaken by community members representing all stakeholder groups. The Affirmation of Commitments Reviews and the implementation of recommendations of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT1) and (ATRT2) are example of such community reviews.
ICANN also contributes to several initiatives and efforts aiming to evolve the global multi-stakeholder Internet governance cooperation, and to strengthen ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model. The ICANN Strategy Panels, the Montevideo Statement by leaders of Internet organizations, and the High-Level Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation, are all efforts toward this objective.

This workshop is targeted toward those with an interest in the evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, and will address a range of issues in this area including:
• ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms;
• Globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, including the NTIA transition dialogue;
• Enhancing global multi-stakeholder Internet governance cooperation, including reflections on Netmundial;
• Roadmap toward collaborative and inclusive Internet Governance, including the output of the High-Level Panel.


Detailed Agenda:

Introduction by moderator (2 min);

Panelists to react to following questions (10 min per question):

(1)How do you see progress made with regard to the process towards completing the transition of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions?

(2) How can ICANN’s accountability and transparency mechanisms continue to evolve to support globalization of the organization?

(3)What are the key outcomes of Netmundial, and how can the global Internet community benefit from its success?

(4)What are the key recommendations of the High-Level Panel’s report, and what are the next steps?

Discussion with floor (40 min)

Closing remarks by panelists (1 min each)

The Freedom Online Coalition is a group of 23 countries, from all regions of the world, committed to coordinating efforts with each other and with other stakeholders to advance Internet freedom. At this IGF Open Forum, Coalition members will give updates on the work of the coalition since IGF Bali, including the adoption of the 2014 Tallinn Agenda and the activities of the three working groups on key issues of concern to Internet freedom. 

The first working group is chaired by the Netherlands and addresses a rights-based and multistakeholder approach to cybersecurity. The second working group is chaired by Sweden and will explore development aspects and best practices for ensuring and leveraging an open Internet. The third working group is chaired by the U.K. and focuses on the relationship between companies and governments including around privacy and transparency.

We invite the IGF community to engage in a discussion of implementing the Tallinn Agenda and in three working groups.

For more than a decade, information and communication technologies (ICT) have been attributed a key driver to socio-economic transformation and play a catalytic role in the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. They increase efficiency, provide access to new markets or services, create new opportunities for income generation and give poor people a voice. In this regard, several researches revealed the contributions of ICTs, particularly the Internet and mobile, to economic growth in the continent. ECA is currently undertaking a research which is being finalized to explore the contribution of ICTs to recent economic growth of the continent. Recent McKinsey (2013) report estimates that while Africa still constitute 167 million Internet users with 16 percent penetration, the contribution of the Internet to GDP amounts to USD $18 billion with a prospect to grow by over16-fold by 2025.

In the context of the themes of IGF2014, particularly in relation to the sub-theme on ‘Internet as engine for growth & development’, the workshop will facilitate a stakeholders analysis workshop on the contribution of the Internet to Africa’s economic growth addressing the following two issues:

- The contribution of the Internet to recent economic growth in Africa
- Trends in Internet infrastructure (broadband), innovation and growth

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

Description of the Open Forum

 

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a multi-stakeholder policy forum to maximise the benefits of information and communication technologies and the Internet as drivers of innovation, productivity, growth, sustainable development and social well-being. 
The focus of this year’s forum will be on the many economic layers and dimensions composing the open Internet in a holistic manner. The OECD will engage with policy experts, economists, the technical community and civil society to discuss the different possible approaches to assessing the economics of the open Internet. This session will be an opportunity to update the IGF on OECD’s ongoing work in this area and to discuss the OECD Ministerial on the Digital Economy to be held in Mexico City in 2016. 
* The OECD approach to the Internet economy is guided by the Internet Policy Making Principles (IPPs) adopted in 2011. (link)

 

The number of people and machines using information and communication technologies and the usage time and prevalence of these technologies have rapidly been increased. Besides many benefit and convenience in our daily life, technology also presents risks  in terms of cybersecurity. There are several methods to avoid or minimize such risks. Increasing awareness, educating people about this issue, using capable security devices, applying cybersecurity standards and information sharing are some of those methods.

One of the most important tool in the fight against cyber-threats and in ensuring national and global cybersecurity is information sharing, where different organizations share information regarding threats, attacks, and vulnerabilities with each other so that each organization’s knowledge benefits the other.

Within this context, this session examines different information sharing models in cybersecurity and aims to provide a discussion space for national CERTs and other relevant actors.

Each speaker will be given 7-10 minutes to present his/her views on the issue. Then the floor will be open to participants also since the aim is to have an inclusive and open discussion on the subject. The social media contributors will also be given a voice by the moderator.  

Domain Names and IP addresses, as the critical Internet resource, are necessary for the day-to-day usage of the Internet. Correspondingly, stable function and equitable administration of DNS infrastructure can also boost the global consumer trust in Internet. For example, improving DNS service performance and transparency of root zone management can help to enhance the global trust of DNS infrastructure and further increase global users’ confidence in Internet.

Given that, many initiatives have been carried out by the community to strengthen the robustness of DNS, improve the global critical resources management, and enhance the global consumer trust, which includes promoting the development of IPV6, Domain Name System Security Extensions（DNSSEC）, DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) and so on. However, these emerging innovations, even are more advanced, could not easily change the status quo of DNS operation, because many incumbent interest groups and innate structure of the DNS make significant fractions in transforming the DNS infrastructure. Some of these frictions are reasonable concerns of potential risks to the existing users; some others are unreasonable and limit the space for further innovation.

Our workshop aims to make attempts to call on the debate of following topics:

1 What kind of potential viable institutional and technical improvement in DNS architecture shall we facilitate to enhance the consumer’s trust?

2 How consumer interest being maintained in the status quo or if it is changed?

3 What are the obstacles of implementing these innovations?

4 What should innovators do to stimulate the acceptance of innovation globally?

Ten years ago, at WSIS, there were great hopes that the Internet could bring great social and economic opportunities for all. These hopes have however not been realized in the past decade.

Key problems are processes of centralization, and also injustices which result from lack attention to mechanims at the technical layers that would aim at contributing to ensuring social and economic justice.

These matters are described in more detail in the background paper.

The workshop is focused on discussing how these social and economic justice issues are reflected (or not) in global Internet Governance institutions and processes, and how these should maybe be reformed.

The panelists will introduce several aspects. During the course of the workshop, one of them will be chosen as a focus topic, in regard to which an outcome document will be produced, by means of a drafting process that follows up on the workshop. This outcome document will address the following question in regard to the chosen focus topic: What can and should be changed in global Internet Governance in order to improve social and economic justice?



AGENDA:

5' Opening and introduction by the workshop moderator

25' Each panelist briefly introduces one aspect of social and economic justice issues in global IG

25' Questions and interventions from the floor, and responses from panelists

5' On the basis of the questions and interventions from the floor during the previous part of the workshop, the workshop moderator chooses one of the social and economic justice issues aspects that had been introduced as a topic that the outcome document will be focused on. The workshop moderator explains that the remainder of the discussion during the workshop itself will be on this topic, and that an outcome document will be produced on this topic. Everyone who wishes to participate in the drafting process for the outcome document is welcome to give their contact information to the workshop moderator or (for remote participants) to the remote participation moderator.

25' Discussion of the chosen focus topic (interventions from the floor and from panelists)

5' Wrap-up, closing and reminder that everyone who wishes to participate in the drafting process for the outcome document is welcome to give their contact information to the workshop moderator or (for remote participants) to the remote participation moderator.