IGF 2015

This session will discuss the preliminary findings from the Citizen Lab's research project on mapping Internet governance and information controls in Thailand, the Philippines, and Myanmar (Burma). The project's partners include Foundation for Media Alternatives (The Philippines) and Chulalongkorn University (Thailand), and is sponsored by Hivos.

Spam continues to be a significant problem for Internet users, creating a burden for developing countries, networks, operators and all end users. High volumes of unsolicited email can cause significant impacts to regions with limited Internet access as well as raise concerns for all regions with the increasing malware infections that come from unwanted email. Unsolicited email may be magnified in developing countries, where high volumes of incoming and outgoing spam can cause a severe drain on the limited and costly bandwidth that is available in those regions. Cooperation and partnerships among all stakeholders is needed to develop strategies and approaches to mitigating spam. For that reason, addressing the problem of spam requires a multistakeholder discussion and a framework of suggested approaches, including the need to engage governments in the discussion of how to reduce the threat and impact of spam globally. This discussion with a panel of experts will focus on the “Regulation and mitigation of unwanted communications (e.g. "spam") draft outcome document and will include examples of best practices they use to address the proliferation of spam in their regions/country’s that might be useful to include in the draft as possible recommendations. Output expected from the session would be review and consensus regarding the draft outcomes document, feedback on the text and indication of support for the for the recommendations and next steps that the report outlines

Internet exchange points (IXPs) are a well-established concept. There is a substantial body of knowledge within the IXP operator and member community regarding best practices and the characteristics of local environments that are conducive to the formation and success of IXPs. However, such knowledge is not evenly distributed, and some stakeholders have expressed a need for greater awareness. Therefore, the aim of this BPF is to make existing community knowledge more widely available.

The Best Practices Forum in IXPs will explain why IXPs matter and focus on ways to create enabling environments that allow IXPs to develop and flourish.

The draft best practice outcome document that will be presented and discussed during the session is open for public comments on the IGF Review platform.  

• Remote participation: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-cast  ( 2pm UTC )

Session Agenda  -  Room 5

1. Welcome and Introdution

• Welcome and opening of the session 
• Best Practices Forum on IXP introduction

2.  Role and Benefits of an Internet Exchange point 

• Overview of the role and benefits of an IXP
• Q&A and discussion 

3. The IXP's Stakeholder and Environment

• Overview of the IXP's stakholders and environment
• Q&A and discussion

4. Challenges and creating an enabling environment

• Challenges
• Creating an enabling environment 
• Policy messages
• Q&A and discussion

5. Wrap up and next steps

Remote moderator: Michael Oghia

Portugal was the first Member State from European Union to adopt accessibility guidelines to Public Administration websites: the WCAG 1.0 in August 1999. Since February 2013 that the WCAG 2.0 make also part of the National Regulation of Digital Interoperability (RNID) used by Public Administration and also apllied to all State business sector.

All the work carried out since 1999 made Web accessibility to become a quality requirement of the digital content and services online, mainly in the Portuguese Public Administration. National studies show that an accessibility significant improvement happened between 2006 and 2008 and that was consolidated in 2010: we passed from 25% compliance of the Web sites of Central Public Administration in 2006 to 75% compliance in 2010 (level A of WCAG 1.0). The UN study [1] published in February 2011 put Portugal in the 2nd position among 192 analysed countries concerning Web accessibility best practices.

Beside advisory services and training sessions, Portugal has focused in monitoring systems. Comprehensive reporting of practices, with precise identification of the problem, emphasizing the possible solutions and pointing the resource material to find the better way to avoid the accessibility barriers. More than searching for errors, the tools that Portugal has developed aim to distinguish the good and the bad practices. More than penalizing, it is important to make a pedagogical approach to teaching / learning.

The presentation aims to show and discuss some of the assumptions of AccessMonitor and use of it to create a Web Accessibility Observatory as a tool of awareness to drive the accessibility of web content.

Digital technologies and internet have changed the way we experience, engage with and extract value from information goods. The so-called “creative industries” are well positioned to grow in markets where investment in knowledge is a priority, where information and communications technology infrastructure enables new types of value and delivery networks, and where e-commerce is widely adopted by consumers. But for many copyright is increasingly seen as restricting Internet innovation. From this perspective, restrictions are important factors in spurring the emergence of a new type of innovation system in the internet economy that sees multinational corporations, fledgling start-ups, telecommunications providers, content creators and consumers form increasingly complex value chains that defy and contradict the copyright regime.
Unfortunately, much of this debate takes place within an evidence vacuum, despite the obvious need to better understand the role of copyright in incentivising innovation and contributing positively to the economy . There is an urgent need to reflect on current understandings of how can copyright contribute or not to innovation delivering economic value in this new context. Do the rules as they exist in specific countries add to or detract from economic growth? Does the system result in broader economic gains for the many, or has it become a bastion for rent seeking by the few? How copyright reform could be an incentive for economic development in developing countries? We want to use IGF space to discuss copyright reform and internet economy informed by detailed policy analysis - not steered by sectional interests - in order to achieve its function in the digital age.

Technology-related Violence Against Women are acts of gender-based violence either committed or aggravated by the use of ICTs.
While there is a growing recognition of the importance of integrating VAW discussions on Internet governance stances, a difficulty is that of dealing with the sometimes seemingly contradictory human rights of freedom of expression and those related to gender protection and emancipation. The issue expresses itself oftentimes in the subject of intermediary liability in terms of third party contents. To use Brazil as an example: in the recently approved Marco Civil da Internet (Internet’s Civil Framework), an exception in the general intermediary liability limitation provides that cases involving unsolicited sexual material should be dealt with speedily. Meanwhile, the Federal Department of Human Rights announced to be monitoring social networks for better tackling with hate speech (gender-based included).
Calls for safer and more open online spaces for women oftentimes raise concerns on the side of Freedom of Expression and Internet Rights community, and finding a common ground to protect these different sets of human rights can be challenging, and involve the polemic subjects of anonymity, monitoring and platforms’ incentives. Making use of research material gathered by APC, InternetLab, Gig@ and UNESCO about tech-based VAW and the FoE, our contribution aims to understand whether and to what extent there is a contradiction between the defense of women rights and that of FoE, and whether moving forward on this is possible. The objective is to frame the subject and promote future conversations.

Panelists:

• Ana de Freitas - journalist, Nexo, Brazil
• Bia Barbosa - Intervozes, Brazil
• Dafne Plou - APC
• Erika Smith - Take Back the Tech, APC
• Gabrielle Guillemin - Article19, UK
• Hibah Hussain - Public Policy Analyst at Google
• Mariana Valente - InternetLab, Brazil (moderator)
• Paz Peña - Derechos Digitales, Chile

Recent large scale security incidents (Target, Home Depot, Anthem, Sony Pictures, etc.) have demonstrated that “cybersecurity” is not just a technical matter for experts, but that it should be also a priority for government leadership and top executives (across all economic sectors), as well as for individuals. 

Many leaders and decision makers in businesses and in governments are realising that while the digital environment is a driver for innovation, productivity and growth, it also introduces risks that can jeopardise economic and social prosperity. For example, digital security attacks can alter production and undermine companies’ reputation; intrusions can be performed to steal trade secrets, and damage growth; personal data breaches can violate the lives of millions, facilitate identity theft and related financial fraud. 
This workshop will bring representatives of governments, businesses and civil society together to explore the following questions: 

• What does “cybersecurity” mean when it is approached from an economic and social perspective? In particular, what does this mean for companies and government agencies? What does risk management mean in this context?
• What does it really mean and imply for leaders and decision makers in governments and businesses to approach the digital environment both from the perspective of the opportunities it offers and the risks it can pose? 
• What are the cultural and governance challenges in businesses? Are there specific challenges for SMEs?
• How can communities better understand each other to work together towards a better management of digital security risk? 
• What are the consequences in terms of broader Internet governance? 
• How is “cybersecurity” governance impacting policies concerning Internet use?

Link to the Digital Security Risk Management Recommendation and Companion Document

http://oe.cd/dsrm

Names of participants

• Laurent Bernat
• Intergovernmental Organisation
• OECD
• Cybersecurity and privacy expert

• Danil Kirimi
• Private Sector
• WEF
• Experience in Internet governance discussions and unique perspective on the global private sector

 

• Aaron Martin
• Private Sector
• JP Morgan Chase
• Cybersecurity expert in a leading company from an industry not primarily ICT-based

 

• Flávia Lefrève
• Civil Society
• CGI.br’s Civil Society Representative
• Experienced lawyer and representative of civil society in many multistakeholder instances in Brazil

 

• Cristine Hoepers
• Technical Community
• Senior Security Analyst and General Manager of CERT.br
• Expert in incident management and with extense knowledge of the concrete challenges in training and fostering awareness on cybersecurity

Name of in-person Moderator: Nicolas Seidler (ISOC)

Name of Remote Moderator: Lorrayne Porciuncula (OECD)

Agenda

1. Moderator's introduction (5 min.)
2. Short introduction by each panellist on their particular angle and general views on the topic.
3. Questions by th emoderator to the panellist and interaction with the audience (50 min.)
4. Conclusion and final closing remarks (10 min.)

A 13-year-old female in South Africa uploads a sexually explicit “selfie” to someone posing as an online “friend.” Within minutes her trust and privacy are violated as the image is published on websites worldwide. Sound outrageous? It is - and it happens every day.

How can the multistakeholder community come together to help solve this problem? How do we overcome IG challenges such as cross-border jurisdictions and varying degrees of privacy and freedom of expression protections? How do we educate and encourage responsible use of new technologies to avoid this type of behavior? And, if sensitive content is shared beyond the immediate parties, are there other mitigations? 

The Internet Watch Foundation will present the results of an in-depth research effort into this problem. A team of discussants will lead the audience through a multidisciplinary problems solving session. A draft outline of the session:

1) 15-minute overview of study - IWF
2) 60 minutes of free-flowing dialogue and discussion addressing the problem
3) 15 minutes of summary

Not only will we draw on the expertise and experience of the discussants, we anticipate a highly participatory session that engages the experience of audience members, potentially including youth, and takes advantage of the track record of best practices developed at the IGF in Istanbul for Child Online Protection.

At the end of the session, we anticipate an outcome document that includes a roadmap of solutions to explore in combating the increasingly common problem of self-produced sexual images and videos among children and youth.

Women, as one of the fundamental stakeholders in the information society, play a very crucial role. It is important for the IGF to fully integrate gender concerns in its work. The three sectors with the IGF's defining feature of mutistakeholderism are not monolithis, unitary and consistent actors. Greater efforts have to be to ensure that women's diverse perspectives are brought to the forefront in each stakeholder group. Ultimately, a rights based approach to Internet governance is the only safeguard for women to fully enjoy the benefits of the Internet.

Access to the Internet is extremely important for women to be able to gain information which may not be available to them otherwise. This will also facilitate them to achieve full realisation of their rights, especially in case of those from the marginalised communities. The Internet can also function as the harbinger of citizenship rights, bridging their right to be informed with the duty of the governance institutions to inform.

The Internet was designed so that global data flows would be dictated by efficiency, rather than centralized control or oversight. This engineering principle has provided businesses and consumers with access to the best available technology, information, and services, wherever those resources may be located around the world. It has benefitted virtually all industry sectors, from manufacturing to financial services, education, health care, and beyond. The “free flow” of data is what has allowed the Internet flourish into what it is today.

Yet governments, corporations, and non-state actors around the world are increasingly employing a variety of technical, legal, and administrative tools to restrict data flows, limiting routing and data storage to particular jurisdictions and restricting the kinds of content and data types that are permitted online. Some of these restrictions have been put in place for legitimate purposes, designed to further privacy protections, network security, and fair commerce, and have been justified within the bounds of international law and norms. Others, however, are less defensible, and are intended to unfairly support preferred commercial interests or to quell domestic political dissent. 

This panel will discuss the many benefits and challenges of the free flow of data. It will foster a discussion of the ways in which stakeholders can address the underlying reasons for data flow restrictions (such as the need for law enforcement access to data or the desire to nurture local ICT industry development, etc.) without subverting the Internet’s core potential for innovation, economic growth, and public welfare.

Peering coordinators and network engineers often describe internet interconnection as largely unregulated. And indeed, there is no central feature of the internet that has been subject to as little formal regulation as the making of connectivity. However, we can observe that local regulation is starting to emerge in the field. There is transparency regulation – for instance, in France networks have to report to the regulator upon request about their peering relationships. In the USA, the FCC just recently declared itself to be in charge of dispute resolution in interconnection conflicts. And then there is more general regulation, such as licensing rules that set a threshold for organisations to participate in internet interconnection at all (e.g. India) or, trade embargoes, which limit companies of a certain origin in operating in a specific country (like the USA in Iran). It is time to take account of this development and begin a debate about such governance initiatives in light of what we actually know about how connectivity is being established, maintained and discontinued.
The proposed workshop will serve to a) create an overview of emerging modes of regulation that affect internet interconnection in the different regions of the world, b) systematise the means, resources and motivations that regulators mobilise in these settings and, c) discuss experiences with and implications of the possible trend towards formal regulation of internet interconnection. The following experts will be on the panel: Mohamed El Bashir (Qatar Communications Regulatory Authority ), Prof. Laura DeNardis (American University, remotely), Mike Jensen ("IXP Toolkit"; APC/ISOC), Manoj Kumar Misra (Association of Competitive Telecom Operators/Vodafone), Martin Levy (Cloudflare) and Bill Woodcock (Packet Clearing House). Remote participation is encouraged. To get access, please register at https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?RGID=r97ca5605a0243cfb04345dae848ebe9e // The survey that is referred to in the introduction can be found online at http://limesurvey.hiig.de/index.php/675663?lang=en

The Youth Coalition on Internet Governance is an open group of organizations and individuals representing all stakeholders that work together for a better youth participation and involvement on Internet Governance discussions and debates. 

Without the attention of most stakeholders – even those deeply immersed in multistakeholder discussions on the future of internet governance –bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations are increasingly becoming the vehicles for norm setting on internet policy issues – from intellectual property to e-commerce, domain names on the Internet, to cybersecurity and national security exemptions to free flow of information and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. The norm, in these multilateral forums, is secrecy. In general just governments and a few private sector lobbies have access and can provide informed input to so-called policies of the 21st century . But not just multistakeholderism is affected by the way Trade Agreements’ negotiations are conducted, basic principles of democracy are at stake. This debate/roundtable/workshop will assess how the inclusion of these internet policy issues in closed door, state-to-state agreements impact the future of multi-stakeholder internet governance and what are the digital rights at stake. Workshop participants will receive an update on the state of negotiations of the core trade agreements, and will then discuss how these secret negotiations impact on their rights, business, or expectations regarding the open internet. Additionally, participants will be shown a map of the qualitative and quantitative increase on internet related rules in trade agreements, covering the trade agreements negotiated primarily by the US over the past 12 years.

Agenda

The moderator will give the overview of digital trade in TISA, TPP and TTIP and introduce the speakers. 

Then each speaker has 5 to 7 minutes to make their case. The moderator can ask questions to the speakers before she opens the floor to questions. 

At the end of the discussion, the moderator may ask the participants to summarize what they have said, adding any comments they want to include.

Moderator: Carolina Rossini

Speakers

Julia Reda, Member of the European Parliament

Burcu Kilic, Public Citizen

Claudio Ruiz, Derechos Digitales

Marcel Leonardi, Google

Usman Ahmed, PayPal

Laura DeNardis, American University

Manu Bhardwaj, U.S. Department of State

IANA functions transition has been the focus of the past year’s Internet governance discussions. The three operational communities who rely on the IANA functions (names, numbers and protocols) were asked to draft proposals on how the transition should take place. By the time the IGF will be held, the final proposal will probably have been submitted by the ICG to the U.S. Commerce Department NTIA, and it will be a suitable period to analyze the proposal’s level of public support, strengths, weaknesses and features in a multi-stakeholder manner at a non-ICANN venue. 

The IANA functions transition has been organized within the ICANN community. IGF is an appropriate venue to engage a broader range of stakeholder groups and understand their perspective. 

This workshop considers the commonalities and differences in the proposals from Names, Protocols and Numbers communities. It evaluates the transition process and discusses how different constituencies have handled the way ICANN combines policy making for Names and the operation of the IANA functions. 

The workshop also discusses the way the proposal will be received by stakeholder groups not normally part of the ICANN process, such as the US Congress, other governments and other stakeholder groups. How are they reacting to the final IANA functions transition proposal, what are their concerns, is there any interference with the transition? The workshop’s contribution will be to broaden consensus on IANA transition requirements.

Panellists and Agenda 
Opening (5 minutes)The moderator (MM) will begin with a brief overview of the IANA transition, and the ICG (combined) proposal
Introductions (10 minutes)Each panelist is introduced and briefly (1-2 minutes) explains how their stakeholder group relates to the IANA functions operator and what they see as the benefits or problems of the transition.
Jari Arkko, Ericsson Research, IETF Chair, ICG member
Brenden Kuerbis, Postdoctoral researcher, Georgia Institute of Technology
Izumi Okutani, Policy Liaison, JPNIC and CRISP team memberNarelle Clark, Deputy CEO, Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) and ICG member
Gangesh Varma, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, DelhiMary Uduma, Nigerian Communications Commission and ICG member
Keith Drazek, Verisign, Inc. and ICG member
Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior, Government of Brazil, GAC representative

As cybersecurity becomes an increasingly important issue on the international governance agenda, there is a need for an informed debate on the relationship between governance, security, and fundamental rights and freedoms online, involving all stakeholders, and particularly with respect to policy development.    

The purpose of the session is to share perspectives on the need for cybersecurity policy to be rights-respecting by design and to discuss and build on a set of recommendations from the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) WG 1 on “Internet free and secure” designed to bring human rights into cybersecurity policy development and decision-making.

The workshop comprises a panel segment, interactive breakouts and a closing segment.

On the panel:

Matthew Shears, Center for Democracy & Technology, FOC WG1 (moderator)

Uri Rosenthal, Special Envoy for International Cyber Policies, Government of the Netherlands (welcome video)

Eileen Donahoe, Human Rights Watch, FOC WG 1

Michael Walma, Cyber Coordinator, Department of Fooreign Affairs, Government of Canada

Audrey Plonk,  Director, Global Cybersecurity and Internet Governance Policy, Intel Corporation

Mishi Choudhary, Legal Director, Software Freedom Law Center

The breakouts will be fully interactive, involving the workshop participants in small focussed groups that will discuss the need for cybersecurity to be rights respecting by design and review and build on the recomendaitons from the Freedom Online Coalition Working Group.  Those attending the workshop are encouraged to review the draft recommendations in workshop documentation.  FOC WG 1 members will be moderating each breakout.

For further information on the work of the Freedom Online Coalition Working Group 1, including Mapping Cybersecurity – A visual overview of relevant global spaces in 2015 and the WG's blog series on cybersecurity, please go to:

https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/how-we-work/working-groups/working-group-1/

Workshop rapporteur: Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands, Director of the Data J Lab, FOC WG 1
Remote participation: Aditi Gupta, Global Partners Digital

Of all the civil rights for which the world has struggled and fought for 5,000 years, the right to learn is undoubtedly the most fundamental. 
Today there is a fast increase in numbers of massive open online courses, open educational resources (OER) on the Internet and the process is getting even faster with emerging technologies: mobile, virtual and augmented reality etc. OERs have gained increased attention for their potential and promise to obviate demographic, economic, and geographic educational boundaries and to promote life-long learning and personalised learning. The initiatives of Education For All (EFA) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s) have helped put the debate surrounding basic education firmly in the educational, developmental and economic spotlight. With the continued widening digital divide gap in the global South (Sub Sahara Africa), experts have argued that OERs could be the answer to digital inclusion and diversity and online education services now are major approaches for empowerment people. Access to such a large and unregulated body of information, as exists on the Internet, suggests a need for quality control and critical evaluation of related educational internet resources as the information there might be irrelevant and of low-quality. Thus there should be basic principles of quality control of education services, and especially educational content discussed during the IGF with representatives of different stakeholders groups.