Review Platform

Review Platform

Welcome to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Review Platform provided by the IGF Secretariat. This platform allows IGF Community members to review a document and leave public comments, which can be structured paragraph-by-paragraph. Users can annotate and debate, turning the document into a conversation.

Anonymous Mon, 16/10/2017 - 15:36

The Internet We Want

The Internet We Want

Invitation to Contribute from Leadership Panel Chair | Overview of IWW Process | Comments Deadline (Extended): 8 March 2024 

lbobo Wed, 18/10/2023 - 10:33

In today’s digital societies, Internet governance is critical for economic, social, and environmental development. Internet governance is a crucial enabler of sustainable development, ensuring that the Internet is used in a responsible and inclusive manner, and can contribute to promoting access to information, communication, and innovation. The importance of this agenda cannot be understated in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing economic recovery, supply chain shocks, and unfolding geopolitical tensions, especially as economies worldwide are working towards a sustainable economic rebuild.

Internet and other digital technologies are vital components of a sustainable future. Leaders across all stakeholder groups globally must come together and collaborate in a cohesive and inclusive manner to ensure that their actions align with existing commitments to:

promote a human-centric Internet that ensures respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law and protects against harmful behaviours;

expand connectivity and guarantee meaningful and affordable access for everyone, everywhere;

preserve an open, free, globally connected, interoperable, unfragmented, and stable Internet.

unlock the value of data for development and enable data free flow with trust, while ensuring data protection and privacy, to support a truly global digital economy;

Foster a safe and secure online environment, in particular by increasing efforts to strengthen cybersecurity;

facilitate collaboration for the development of new and emerging technologies in a trusted way while continuing to enable innovation;

adopt environment friendly practises consistent with reducing greenhouse gas emission when utilising the Internet and digital resources;

acknowledge, support and encourage the contribution of youth playing a key role in the achievement of sustainability; and

uphold the multistakeholder approach in the governance of the Internet.

 

In line with these commitments, the IGF Leadership Panel encourages all governments, private sector, civil society and technical and academic communities to come together to share this vision, define goals and targets to achieve the Internet we - as a global society - would want, and promote the necessary coordinated and effective actions at local, regional and international levels to realise this common vision.

We firmly believe in the multistakeholder model and the unique convening power of the Internet Governance Forum to achieve this vision and offer the following characteristics as a starting point for discussions.

The IGF Leadership Panel believes that the Internet We Want is:

1. Whole and open;

2. Universal and inclusive;

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

4. Safe and secure; and

5. Rights-respecting.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Regarding inclusion and universal

Today's internet is the internet for all. The concept of not using or no internet is an unimaginable situation for any country. In this situation and time when the world citizen are directly impact the use they should be able to develop l, contribute and collaborate the policy and standardization issues.  Having said that internet and it's basic standard differ from countries to countries and from region to region more focus has to be given to real level of inclusion and values of  universal standardization. In the nomination and selection of MAG members of IGF it is written the priority is said to be given to least developed and lower economies but in reality the syndicate runs the power politics where the same people are elected and they are there in the IGF and other internet organization. In the name of inclusion and diversity more people from least developed and lower economies have to be given chances to learn, practice  and collaborate with the policies 

The internet we want, should not be discriminatory it should be Multistakeholder and collaborative ......

0 People voted for this

If we care about human rights online lets cancel Riyadh

Writing a vision for the internet deeply rooted in human rights means nothing if our actions are not in line with it. I cannot contribute to an IGF mission document for the Internet in good faith, knowing that the next IGF’s meeting venue, and its host, fall short in upholding foundational human rights principles.
The selected host venue of Riyadh scores poorly on all matters of human rights, whether digital or not. And asking those of us who have been working on freedom of expression, media rights, labor rights, and women’s rights to go there—is in particularly bad taste.

The strength of an IGF document on ‘the Internet we want” lies in much more than advocating for inclusivity, freedom, and equity in the digital sphere, or on paper. It needs to be met with concrete actions, in person. Defining the Internet we want, means being willing to speak out about the politics we want, and the rights and freedoms we’re entitled to. This also means speaking out about who is a suitable host for the IGF, and who is not.

The decision to convene the IGF in Riyadh, a place that does not respect important human rights principles raises concerns about the authenticity and dedication of the IGF's efforts to safeguarding human rights.

Maintaining coherence between our professed principles and the chosen venue hosts is pivotal. This inconsistency not only challenges the credibility of our work but should prompt critical reflection on the consistency of our commitment to human rights within the broader spectrum of our actions—and the communities we hope to engage at the IGF.

1 People voted for this

If we care about human rights online lets cancel Riyadh 1

Writing a vision for the internet deeply rooted in human rights means nothing if our actions are not in line with it. I cannot contribute to an IGF mission document for the Internet in good faith, knowing that the next IGF’s meeting venue, and its host, fall short in upholding foundational human rights principles.

The selected host venue of Riyadh scores poorly on all matters of human rights, whether digital or not. And asking those of us who have been working on freedom of expression, media rights, labor rights, and women’s rights to go there—is in particularly bad taste.

 

0 People voted for this

Free-flowing and trustworthy;

The process in IGF needs to be standardized. In every protocol of  proposal selection, the MAG membership application  first needs to be transparent and accountable. From ages, it has been the same people and their group of circle people who have been getting the proposal and selected as MAG members.  

If possible, please check the data. We are talking about a multistakeholder and bottom-up approach that is always recommended and selected. Is this the multi-stakeholder approach where we want to select the people among the known...... 

1. How would the new people join if the same old people kept on doing what they did?
2. We are talking about evaluation with a descriptive language and process that is good for English-speaking people. How can that evaluate the competencies of a non-English-speaking scenario, and how can that keep people away from a multi-stakeholder environment?

The internet we want should not be biased toward any language, community, or region; it should be neutral, supportive, and collaborative. It should be open and transparent.

0 People voted for this

Whole and open;

The internet of today has a lot of challenges; openness has greater issues of acceptance, and the values are very vague. It needs to be collaborated on at the UN level, making a unilateral decision among countries, and then further worked on. 
The clarity needs to come from the basic value. The struggle of today in different regions and communities is the definition of openness, which is subject to many jurisdictions and  their local laws, which can only be solved with primitively defined values of collaborative effort.

one values and one world for humanity 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Timothy Asiedu

Regarding Safe and Secure

The Internet which was developed in the early 1970s continues to make an impact economically and socially on our global world. It has become a communication tool which is difficult not to be used on a daily basis. Consider its usage on the Social Media through LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, twitter,  etc every day. Whether young or old, the Internet through the social media is making a huge impact. Jobs are being provided through the Internet on a daily basis and this in effect is reducing the unemployment rate in many developing countries.  

Despite the benefits provided by the Internet, there are others on the Internet called Cyber-criminals who are on a daily basis mapping out strategies in order to hack into people’s account and steal funds from the accounts with financial organizations. If these cyber-criminals succeed, it will be realized that savings made through the efforts of these innocent ones in days, weeks, months or sometimes years would have been lost in few minutes or hours by these thieves on the Internet. This sad situation called Internet Fraud continues to affect many organizations through loss of fund on a daily or week basis.  In view of the negative impact of the behavior of these cyber-criminals, we all need to be involved in finding lasting solutions which continue to occur frequently. Solutions can be provided through adopting good Cybersecurity standards or strategies. Because these cyber-criminals are always around, it is an advisable that organizations whether small or large make an effort to create a unit or department to deal with these Cyber-criminals activities. Thank you.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user cveraq

Collaborative internet

I propose to look on a collaborative perspective as a goal for the Internet we want. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Abraham Fiifi Selby

The Internet we want towards Universal and Inclusiveness

In the critical step towards building a digital future that benefits all, building a truly universal and inclusive internet demands ongoing dialogue, innovative solutions, and a commitment to shared values. By collaborating and setting ambitious but achievable goals, we can create a digital space that empowers everyone to thrive.

These goals and areas can help build more towards "the internet we want"

  1. Universal Access and Connectivity
  2. Inclusion and Diversity
  3. Content Accessibility and Multilingualism
  4. Openness and Participation
  5. Safety and Security

Stakeholder groups must be able to;

  • Ensure affordable and reliable internet access for all, particularly low-income populations and remote regions.
  • Empower marginalized communities to actively participate in shaping the internet and digital policy, ensuring diverse voice heard.
  • Promote the development and use of multilingual content and tools, fostering cultural understanding and knowledge exchange.
  • Encourage multistakeholder participation in internet governance, including civil society, technical communities, and private sector.
  • Promote transparency and accountability in online platforms and data practices, empowering users to control their information.
  • Protect user privacy and data security, implementing robust safeguards against misuse and exploitation.
  • Promote ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, mitigating potential risks to human rights and democracy.

These actions can be achieved through collaborative efforts where Governments, civil society, technical communities, and the p must work together to develop and implement effective solutions with youth advocates funding that can help address these ch the local level to the global level. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Maarten Botterman

Response from the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things

The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things (DC-IoT) has engaged in open meetings at IGFs, and at meetings in between IGFs on the usefulness of Internet of Things, specifically as a necessary resource in addressing global and local societal challenges, and on what issues need to be addressed in order to ensure that the Internet of Things develops in ways that serve people around the globe. It strives to develop and evolve a common view on Global Good Practice with IoT through a multistakeholder dialogue, as to ensure all stakeholders are involved.  

Based on its mission, DC-IoT is very happy to contribute to the IGF Leadership’s panel’s call and supports its invitation to collaborate on the existing commitments, to produce and sustain the IWW. The Internet would have never become what it is today without the tireless commitment of many to its stability, interoperability and adequate security. Only these properties can foster sufficient justified trust that use of the Internet will ultimately be to users’ benefit; and only this trust-based belief can fulfil the promise of the Internet. A good shared understanding of “global good practice” is important in this, as is the capacity building in regions to ensure local regions can develop and apply innovations in a way that serves them best.

We therefore believe it is crucial to remind ourselves of the necessity of the technical community’s adherence to Core Internet Values in order to create a durable One Internet for everyone: open, free, globally connected, interoperable, unfragmented (at least in technical terms), and stable.

With regards to the Internet of Things, there are specifics relating to “things connected to the Internet”, which are to serve us, directly or as part of larger (Cyber Physical) systems and services, that are important to ensure we actually can make sure we have a handle on how the Internet serves us, including through its extensions: the Things – and what specific requirements to “the Things” are necessary as they will be connected to the Internet.

Per section indicated on IWW we identify and comment on what we believe to be the key points presented by the IGF Leadership Panel:

1. Whole and open;

DC IoT supports the call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to ensure that the internet stays whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable, stable and unfragmented at its core.

Specifically for IoT: The Internet of Things will inevitably affect the way the world confronts societal challenges and develops business opportunities. For this influence to be beneficial, it must be developed in an open way, with predictable ways of working, according to commonly defined open global standards, allowing permissionless innovation – expecting from developers to take the impact on people and society into account from the outset.

2. Universal and inclusive;

DC IoT supports the call to move towards universal meaningful connectivity for everyone (and everything), everywhere, to encourage the development and appropriate uptake of promising new technologies that foster this and to address skills gaps.

Specifically for IoT: we believe that this initiative should prioritise universality in the sense that all can benefit from the use of IoT devices, systems and services and inclusivity in that this use will reduce marginalisation and damaging isolation. , it will be important to ensure development of and adherence to suitable global standards, and that the design of devices, systems and services involves users from the outset to ensure inclusivity; and it is also critical that the interests of stakeholders and affected parties from all over the world and all relevant sectors are taken into account (ideally by those most affected) in setting those standards in order to foster universality. NB: these standards both go for interoperability, as for security, and for data management. NB2: the fact that AI applications and services come up have specific meaning for IoT (and the other way around) as IoT devices generate data for AI as input, and AI may instruct IoT devices to take actions based on the data feeds.

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

DC IoT supports the call for Internet stakeholders to set goals to unlock the value of data flows to foster sustainable development of all and enshrine trust (or: trustworthiness) as a prerequisite for data sharing regimes, founded on the protection of data.

Specifically for IoT: global technical standards should be open, widely and transparently accepted and information provision about devices, systems and services on the functioning and specifically the data sharing should be available online and dynamically updated, just as many of the devices will include software that can and will be updated during its use. Certification of this information is crucial, via globally recognized methods and procedural standards (smart certification), and there should be a compliance/guarantee function to ensure standards work as intended. In addition, updating should be possible, and ensured to be correct. All this in recognition of the different contexts in which devices, systems and services function.

4. Safe and secure

DC IoT supports the call for Internet stakeholders to set goals to establish and implement robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity, and strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime.

Specifically for IoT: in order for IoT devices, systems and services to be safe and secure, enabling this should be taken into account already in the design phase, taking real use cases into account. Certifiable information needs to be available online to enable users to assess and manage the risks associated with their particular IoT usage (smart labelling).

5. Rights-respecting.  

DC IoT supports the call for Internet stakeholders to set goals to ensure a human rights-based approach to Internet governance, and to promote human rights in the digital space.

Whereas many central aspects of respect for human rights depend very much on context (nature of use) and jurisdiction (the legal formulation and protection of those rights), smart labelling IoT devices, systems and services needs to disclose their specific nature to enable users to align their usage with applicable laws and regulations (e.g. not invading others’ privacy by capturing their images, sound and other information without adequate notice and consent) and so that human rights laws and regulations can keep pace with evolving IoT use.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

IWW premise

 

line 18-19:

facilitate collaboration for the development of new and emerging technologies that pursue public interests in a trusted way while continuing to enable innovation; 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user AHM Bazlur Rahman S21BR

The Internet We Want

The Internet We Want:
What are the main challenges to Internet in the human rights online in Bangladesh?

• Use of digital technology to use for suppressing and violent Internet in the human rights

• Lack of due diligence which can ensure that technology products and terms of service comply with human rights principles and standards.

• Due to limited access to digital devices Internet in the human rights information are not accessible to a large number of people

• The benefit of the Judicial system is not yet fully digitalized, as a result, the benefit of online legal services takes more time

• Lack of awareness of policy-makers and mass people about Internet in the human rights online

• Lack of proper legal tools for addressing illegal and harmful contents

• Cyber-bulling of adolescent girls and women are risk of threats and attacks.
Which measures are necessary?

• Making access to the Internet affordable

• Judicial information both at upper courts and lower courts needs to be open digitally for easy access of the stakeholders

• Ensure online safe spaces, and transparent and accountable content governance frameworks.

• Framing legal framework for taking action against the persons responsible for misinformation, disinformation, and mal information

• Encourage the private sector to engage in dialogue with relevant State authorities and civil society in the exercise of their corporate social responsibility, in particular, their transparency and accountability encourage civil society to support the dissemination and application of the guide so that it provides an effective tool for Internet users.

• Promote and use trustworthy network infrastructure and services suppliers, relying on risk-based assessments that include technical and non-technical factors for network security

• Protect and strengthen the multistakeholder system of Internet governance, including the development, deployment, and management of its main technical protocols and other related standards and protocols.

• Refrain from undermining the technical infrastructure essential to the general availability and integrity of the Internet.

How can IGF contribute to addressing the issue?
• IGF can contribute towards guiding principles on business and Internet in the human rights

• Develop system-wide guidance on human rights, due diligence and impact assessment in the use of new technology.

• IGF should play an important role, as a catalyst for stimulating a united approach to the protection of human rights online.

• IGF should develop a regional framework to prevent misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information

• IGF should promote coordination with other state and non-state actors, within and beyond the country with regard to the standards and procedures which have an impact on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the Internet

• IGF should promote online safety and continue to strengthen our work to combat violence online, including sexual and gender-based violence as well as child sexual exploitation, to make the Internet a safe and secure place for everyone, particularly women, children, and young people

• Promote safe and equitable use of the Internet for everyone, without discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnic, national or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of an indigenous population, property, birth, disability, age, gender identity or sexual orientation.

• Promote cooperation in research and innovation and standard setting, encourage information sharing regarding security threats through relevant international fora, and reaffirm our commitment to the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace.
How can ensure access to Internet in the human rights digitally?

• Expansion of internet service across the country
• Expansion of digital literacy about human rights
• Making internet service affordable and accessible without disruption
• Protect the right to privacy and other human rights in the digital space

• The Internet has a public service value. People, communities, public authorities, and private entities rely on the Internet for their activities and have a legitimate expectation that its services are accessible, provided without discrimination, affordable, secure, reliable, and ongoing.

• Furthermore, no one should be subjected to unlawful, unnecessary, or disproportionate interference with the exercise of their Internet in the human rights and fundamental freedoms when using the Internet.

• Ensure that existing human rights and fundamental freedoms apply equally offline and online

• Actively promote the guide to Internet in the human rights for Internet users among citizens, public authorities and private sector actors and take specific action regarding its application in order to enable users to fully exercise their Internet in the human rights and fundamental freedoms online

• Promote affordable, inclusive, and reliable access to the Internet for individuals and businesses where they need it and support efforts to close digital divides around the world to ensure all people of the world are able to benefit from the digital transformation.

• Foster greater exposure to diverse cultural and multilingual content, information, and news online. Exposure to diverse content online should contribute to pluralistic public discourse, foster greater social and digital inclusion within society, bolster resilience to disinformation and misinformation, and increase participation in democratic processes.

• Protect individuals’ privacy, their personal data, and the confidentiality of electronic communications and information on end-users electronic devices, consistent with the protection of public safety and applicable domestic and international law.

• Promote the protection of consumers, in particular vulnerable consumers, from online scams and other unfair practices online and from dangerous and unsafe products sold online.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Ms Cheryl Langdon-Orr

The Internet We Want

The goals and principles identified by the IGF Leadership Panel

1. Whole and open;

2. Universal and inclusive;

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

4. Safe and secure; and

5. Rights-respecting.

Resonate with, and are supported by not only me as an individual but are integral to the vision and purpose of the Internet Society Chapter of Australia (Internet Australia) that I have the honor to currently lead. 

Our support for these ideals is given here noting that in this current and upcoming times of so many risks and pressures on the Internet We Know becoming The Internet We Want; the IGF as it evolves should be in a prime position to facilitate and partner with other I* entities to better ensure that there is  fulsome and frank discourse using a multistakeholder model, that explores the risks and outcomes, intended and unintended, to our Internet with policies being made and actions taken; and to ensure a better understanding of these matters not only in those who make policy and take actions, but also those effected by these decisions and actions.  This is a timely and essential matter for a full focus of the IGF, not an opportunity we can risk missing (or messing up)  

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Ms Cheryl Langdon-Orr

The Internet We Want - Support for the 5 Principles

I wish to have recorded my personal support and endorsement as well as that of the Australian Internet Society Chapter (Internet Australia), which I have the honor of currently leading, for the 5 overarching principles or goals identified by the IGF Leadership Panel for 'The Internet We Want';

An Internet that is:-

1. Whole and open;

2. Universal and inclusive;

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

4. Safe and secure; and

5. Rights-respecting.

This resonates with our principles, vision and goals and we will continue to find ways to pursue and protect these going forward as we have in the times to date.

We do however note that particularly at this current and near future time 'The Internet We Have' is exposed to a myriad of risks and pressures that are counter to, or have intended and unintended consequences on these ideals.

The IGF as it is currently evolving could and should take advantage of its unique multistakeholder model, and take the opportunity to work with other actors and I* entities to facilitate discourse and shared understanding of the intended and unintended effects of actions taken and policies made that threaten any or all of these principles;  ensuring not only that the decision and policy makers are fully cognizant of such effects but also that the communities and individuals effected by these actions are aware.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user qshatti_1897

Whole and open

The importance of the Internet lays with being a “one unfragmented network”, open in its uses and available for all. This is important to all users and stakeholders especially in the economic and social context. Therefore, it is of importance to reach a clear understanding to the definition of "one unfragmented Internet" that is acceptable to all, especially in the technical aspects and in the usage aspects.

With the growth of internet users, the principle of "what applies offline applies online and vice versa" has emerged, which is an important concept related to the civil rights of individuals, the work of the private sector, and the responsibilities of governments. It also lead us to the concept of digital sovereignty as it is in national sovereignty in the context of protecting citizens’ rights, preserving private sector interest and invoking national laws and regulations. This will extend to collect revenues and fees related to users’ data, profiles and cross border transactions from the Internet global companies and any other party.

0 People voted for this

Support and suggesting the LP propose goals

As an overarching comment, we encourage the Leadership Panel to itself propose some specific goals for discussion in each area, to inform and challenge stakeholders. It is important that this discussion on internet governance focus on outcomes for users, not only organisational options.

auDA supports clear goals to guide the internet’s development, having argued for them in its August 2023 Internet Governance Roadmap (online at https://auda.org.au/IGroadmap). The Leadership Panel’s expertise and diversity, alongside its small scale, gives it a good opportunity to develop and propose some specific goals for community input. It should consider doing so as it assesses all the feedback received on this paper, and propose goals in time for community dialogue at the 2024 IGF.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user stellaanneteohmhgmailcom

NetMission.Asia & Asia Pacific yIGF

The following comment is made on behalf of NetMission.Asia and as an alumni of Asia Pacific yIGF on The Internet We Want;

  1. Whole and Open

We affirm an Internet where youths are empowered to act in processes of agenda-setting, policy formulation, and evaluation of establishment of legal frameworks that promote net neutrality and prevent Internet fragmentation. We support initiatives to leverage human creativity in order to close the intergenerational Internet governance knowledge gap.

  1. Universal and Inclusive

We aspire to sustain the progression of youth engagement, meaningful participation and leadership at all levels—local, regional and global. We stress the significance of acknowledging Internet access as a fundamental right, and the inclusion of youths (of equitable gender and geographical representation) in policymaking.

  1. Free-flowing and Trustworthy

We advocate for the acknowledgement of the youth perspective and contribution towards upholding Internet Freedom; and the fortification of trust in the role of youths in data protection.

  1. Safe and Secure

We assert the pivotal role of resilient youths as intergenerational-mediator for cybersecurity capacity building—privy to discussions on regulatory or compliance frameworks and in shaping cyberspace as digital natives.

  1. Rights-respecting

We acknowledge the human-rights based approach to Internet Governance, and appeal for the enablement of youths—students or legal professionals, to address issues of digital rights infringement through access to talent development and expertise.

(for our full comments please refer to our website)

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Abdirashid Ibrahim

The ideal digital ecosystem in Africa

 

The digital ecosystem I envision for Africa prioritizes rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet. Recognizing its pivotal role in shaping Africa's future, we must prioritize these aspects to harness technology for equitable development.

Safeguarding fundamental rights like privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information is paramount. Robust policies and regulations are needed to protect users' data privacy and ensure freedom of expression online. Bridging the digital divide is crucial for ensuring universal access to digital resources, particularly for marginalized communities.

Inclusivity is essential, requiring initiatives for digital literacy and skills development, especially among underserved populations. Digital platforms and services must be designed to cater to diverse needs.

In summary, establishing the optimal Internet ecosystem for Africa demands a holistic strategy focused on upholding rights, fostering inclusivity, ensuring security, and cultivating an open, reliable Internet environment. Embracing these principles will unlock the full benefits of digital technologies, fostering inclusive development and empowering communities across the continent.

0 People voted for this

Increased Reference to UN Charter, UDHR, UNGPs

The introduction to the IWW would be strengthened through referencing the UN charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The IWW should include in its introduction a clear recognition of a state’s obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law and the responsibilities of companies under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The IWW should also make reference to the fact that human rights apply online and offline in the introduction (in addition to the reference in the section on a “rights-respecting” internet) rather than just committing to “promote a human-centric Internet that ensures respect for human rights…”

The first commitment should be shortened to “promote a human-centric Internet that ensures respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.” “Harmful behaviors” is a subjective term that can be  weaponized to promote narratives and policies that undermine human rights. Additionally, the introduction should include a commitment to ensure that the IWW’s implementation be connected to discussions in related fora and processes, including but not limited to the Pact for the Future / Global Digital Compact, Code of Conduct on Information Integrity, NetMundial+10, and the World Summit of the Information Society+20 Review. The IWW should also include a commitment to “proactively integrate other communities working on relevant internet governance issues to mitigate the difficulties faced by civil society and small, island, and developing states, which lack the resources to track multiple, simultaneous processes.”

The section on facilitating collaboration for the development of new and emerging technologies would be strengthened if rephrased as such: “facilitate collaboration for the development of new and emerging technologies in a trusted manner while continuing to enable innovation and ensure human rights safeguards are protected”

Lastly, on the sentence on internet connectivity, we would recommend rephrasing as follows: “expand connectivity and guarantee meaningful, regular, secure and affordable access for everyone, everywhere”.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

Whole and open - AFRINIC Contribution

Advocate for Policy Frameworks: Engage with policymakers globally, including Internet organizations to advocate for the adoption and enforcement of policies that uphold principles of net neutrality, freedom of expression, and open access to information. This includes supporting legislation that prevents discrimination in data transmission and ensures equal access to online content.

 

Support Infrastructure Development: Collaborate with the Regional Internet Registries (RIR), governments, Network Operators Groups, Network Internet Services Providers, National Research and Education Networks, and private sector entities to invest in the expansion and maintenance of Internet infrastructure, particularly in underserved regions. This includes deploying broadband networks, building data centers, and improving connectivity through initiatives like the Internet Exchange Points (IXPs).

 

Advance Interoperability Standards: Contribute to the development and adoption of open and interoperable standards for Internet protocols, ensuring seamless communication and compatibility across different networks and devices. This includes active participation in standardization bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and  the Internet Telecommunication Union (ITU),.

 

Combat Digital Fragmentation: Monitor and address emerging trends and policies that threaten the global connectivity and openness of the Internet, such as data localization requirements, content blocking, and restrictions on cross-border data flows. Advocate for approaches that prioritize interoperability and prevent the fragmentation of the Internet into isolated networks.

 

Engage in Capacity Building: Provide technical assistance and capacity-building support to governments, organizations, and individuals, globally and especially in Africa to strengthen their ability to effectively participate in Internet governance processes, and contribute to policy discussions.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

Response from the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

 

The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values (DC-CIV) plans to list and define Core Internet Values as also ideals that need to be addressed. The Coalition members strive for a commitment to the Core Internet Values across stakeholder groups as well as to seek to define Core Internet Values as a reference standard for Internet Policy. 

Much of the initial drive to form the Coalition came from the concern, which is even more pressing today, that attempts to "fix" the Internet to correct or compensate for undesirable events, such as spam, phishing, human-rights abuses, intellectual property rights violations, etc., easily end up denaturing the Internet and turning it into an intranet, make it less interoperable, fragment it into a set of networks that do not have global reach any more, or in many other ways defeat the principles and goals on which it was designed and has evolved.

This concern today has to be addressed ever more intensely and in an environment made even more complex than fifteen years ago by the expansion of the Internet to a large fraction of the world's population in a huge diversity of cultures and stages of development; the adoption of the Internet for forms of practically all human behaviours, some unquestionably good, some unquestionably destructive, and many whose valuation may vary among cultures and societies. 

The Internet we want must be resilient against such challenges.

The Internet is often blamed for undesirable events and conduct that range from the petty to existential threats to humankind; from distraction and discomfort to serious crime, from unsavoury conversations to the risk of global financial disruption, from preying on the naïve to the escalation of hostilities ending up in war, from profiteering and rent-seeking to the economic exploitation of the whole of humankind by a few. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Core Values firmly asserts that while the Internet has indeed proven to be disruptive in many fields, the damages attributed to it are invariably generated by human conduct and motivation, be it individual, collective, or the product of institutions, corporations and states, and calls on the broader community to attribute each harm to an actor separately from the way in which the harm evolves from intention to effect.

Based on its mission, the DC-CIV is very happy to contribute to the IGF Leadership’s panel’s call and supports its call to come together and collaborate on the existing commitments, so as to ensure creating the Internet We Want, that it be:

  • human-centric
  • for everyone
  • unfragmented
  • balanced between allowing for the free flow of information and ensuring data protection and privacy
  • safe, including cybersecurity so as to minimise potential harms
  • an open environment for collaboration to foster innovation
  • environmentally friendly
  • inclusive of the next generation to achieve sustainability
  • multi-stakeholder in its governance approach

In particular, we believe it is crucial to remind ourselves at every step that this Internet we created together was only possible to develop because of the adherence of the technical community to Core Internet Values that made it possible to create one Internet for everyone: open, free, globally connected, interoperable, unfragmented, and stable.

Per section, we indicate what we believe to be key, from this perspective, for that specific section of  the five points presented by the IGF Leadership Panel:

 

1. Whole and open;

The DC CIV agrees with this point..

In particular, the DC CIV emphasises the risk of fragmentation, wholly commercial exploitation and digital exclusion if this point is ignored.

 

2. Universal and inclusive;

The DC CIV agrees with this point as the Internet is Global.

In particular, the DC CIV emphasises the user centricity of the Internet, which brings its inclusiveness.

 

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

The DC CIV agrees with this point since it brings together the concept of sharing and trust.

In particular, the DC CIV emphasises the capacity for the Internet to be both free-flowing and trustworthy due to its layered approach.

 

4. Safe and secure; and

The DC CIV agrees with this aim.

In particular, the DC CIV emphasises the development of standards that make Internet use as well as devices safer to use. This is particularly valid for Internet of Things (IoT) devices that have a lower unit device cost.

 

5. Rights-respecting.  

The DC CIV agrees with this focus.

In particular, the DC CIV emphasises the user (human) centricity of the Internet, which brings with it obligations when taking a human rights approach to Internet Governance, Coordination and Development.

 

The above points shared by the Leadership Panel are at the heart of our community’s work and we firmly believe that it is these principles that have made the Internet the Global success that it has become, thanks to its overwhelming positive effects on the world’s development.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Yao Amevi SOSSOU

Fostering inclusive Internet Governance with ordinary citizens

Thank you for extending the invitation to contribute to shaping the future of Internet governance. I am particularly championing the concept of a citizen council within the IGF framework. The idea of incorporating ordinary citizens' perspectives alongside expert viewpoints is both innovative and essential for fostering a truly inclusive and democratic Internet governance landscape. I had a fruitful discussion remotely during the IGF 2023 on the citizen council concept with Mark Carvell and Concettina CASSA. I hope we will continue championing that idea together.

In today's interconnected world, where the Internet plays an increasingly pivotal role in our daily lives, governance structures must reflect the diverse voices and experiences of ordinary people. If we establish a citizen council within the IGF, we can ensure that the policies and decisions made regarding the Internet are not only informed by technical expertise but also grounded in the lived realities of individuals worldwide.

There is a noticeable trend of the same individuals attending IGF discussions repeatedly, which will further exacerbate the issue of exclusivity. This perpetuates a cycle where the voices of a select few dominate the discourse, potentially sidelining the concerns and perspectives of those who are not part of this recurring cohort. I wish we could find a better way to integrate the voices of ordinary citizens into these discussions. We can ensure that Internet governance truly reflects the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders, not just a privileged few.

I fully support the notion that the Internet We Want should be whole, open, universal, inclusive, free-flowing, trustworthy, safe, secure, and rights-respecting, as outlined by the IGF Leadership Panel. However, to truly realize this vision, we must actively engage with and listen to the concerns, aspirations, and insights of citizens from all walks of life.

Civil society organizations, while present, often struggle to effectively convey messages to remote communities due to a lack of appropriate mechanisms for engagement. By including ordinary citizens in these discussions, we ensure that the perspectives of those who rely on the Internet for their daily lives are heard and considered. This not only promotes inclusivity but also strengthens multistakeholderism, the legitimacy, and effectiveness of Internet governance processes by incorporating diverse viewpoints and experiences.

Therefore, I humbly urge the Leadership Panel to embrace the proposed citizen council concept and integrate it into the broader multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. we can create a more democratic, transparent, and effective framework for shaping the future of the Internet—one that truly reflects the needs and desires of the global community.

Thank you for considering my input.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Olusegun

On Safe and Secure

The Internet We Want should envision a Judicious Unification of Global Digital Ecosystem Security (JUDGES) philosophy that should be well-mapped to align with the judicious use and supremacy of the Internet Governance principles of transparency, multistakeholderism, openness, and neutrality in securing and safeguarding the Internet. Securing a unified Internet remains one of the most profound challenges, and it is one of the foundational stones that must be reconstructed in line with this philosophy. Security of the Internet should uphold the UN Universal Declaration on human rights, freedom of access to information, and application of such security to safeguard solutions to our human problems as well encapsulated within the framework of the UN SDGs. It should embrace the challenging risk posed by emerging technology, most specifically the unethical application of AI and blockchain technologies. There is an unholy marriage occurring gradually between the abuse of AI and the unethical application of cryptocurrency platforms that can lead to the damage of trust and erode our confidence in the Internet. For instance, many nations and big tech organisations (i.e. OTT operators) are hiding under the pretext of cybersecurity and trade to fragment and polarise the Internet. Fragmentation is emerging through the backdoors of e-commerce and digital trade protection and portends a huge threat to Internet neutrality and security. A polarised segment of the global community on account of their poor purchasing power parity will always seek compromised channels to gain access. At the heart of the Internet We Want should be a consideration for the ''JUDGES'' philosophy that should inspire and empower the much-needed global cooperation and partnership with commitment towards a secure and safe Internet. I believe we can achieve it together.     

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

Internet whitout hegemony.

Internet we want is the socio-technical ecosystem based on network of interrelated sovereign and regulated local networks that is trustworthy, ethical, lawful, neutral, fair, transparent, healthy, safe, secure, family friendly, development oriented, civilian environment designed for global public good and peaceful coexistence with international governance system that is based on principles like multilateralism, truth, public interests, justice, legal rights and digital sovereignty.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Vittorio Bertola

User-centred, not free-flowing

In general, this framework is very abstract and high-level, leaving ample room for it to be interpreted in very different ways. This is perhaps unavoidable for a U.N. document, but I would still find it very hard to commit to it without further clarity on what it actually means.

Specifically, I find the "free-flowing and trustworthy" principle noticeably imbalanced. In its current formulation, it puts privacy and trust into the back seat by affirming that the purpose of the Internet is to "unlock the value of data for development" and that all data should flow freely "while ensuring data protection and privacy", as a second-thought constraint. This vision is clearly oriented by big business interests that want to track and monetize Internet users and everything they do online.

You should rather formulate the principle in the opposite way: the Internet should be built for and around its users and their privacy. Reprising many foundational documents of the contemporary Internet (e.g. RFC 8890), the Internet should be "user-centred and trustworthy". This also entails the free circulation of non-personal data, but it should be made clear that personal data should only circulate when the users freely choose to do so and only for the agreed purposes, in line with the GDPR and most other major national privacy regulations.

Most Internet users really have enough of the "surveillance Internet", in which people and their data are only considered as goods, and as a means of production for a very limited number of companies from a small part of the developed world. I think that the leadership panel should take a clear stance against this model and not in favour.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user prince.zutah

Shaping The Future of Internet Together

As we engage with the 'Internet We Want' (IWW) consultation, our insights and contributions are pivotal in shaping a future where the Internet reflects our collective aspirations for inclusivity, security, resilience, and sustainability.

Here is how we can all make a difference:

Ensure Inclusivity and universal acceptance: We should advocate for universal access to the Internet, working towards breaking down barriers related to infrastructure, affordability, digital literacy, and content availability in diverse languages and cultures. Our voices should highlights the necessity of making the Internet accessible and relevant to everyone, regardless of their geographical, social, or economic status.

Enhance Security and Trust: We have to focus on bolstering Internet security and user trust, championing the development of robust cybersecurity measures, data protection policies, and ethical standards that prioritize privacy and personal data. Our contributions should help create a safer Internet where trust is the foundation of user interactions.

Build Resilience: We have to promote the development of a resilient Internet infrastructure capable of withstanding disruptions, whether they are from natural disasters, cyber-attacks, or other challenges. Our advocacy for resilience should ensures that the Internet remains reliable and accessible in the face of adversity.

Promote Sustainability: We should emphasize the importance of environmentally sustainable practices in the development and operation of Internet infrastructure, driving the conversation towards reducing the environmental footprint of digital technologies. Our engagements should make sustainability a core consideration in the evolution of the Internet.

Strengthen Governance and Cooperation: We must encourage a governance model that is inclusive, transparent, and collaborative, fostering a multistakeholder approach where governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia work together in decision-making processes. This efforts would help ensure that the Internet is governed in a way that respects diverse perspectives and interests.

Foster Innovation and Openness: We all have to support the principles of open standards and interoperability to nurture innovation, advocating for net neutrality to maintain the Internet as a vibrant platform for free expression, creativity, and entrepreneurship. In doing so, our voices would helps protect the openness that has been fundamental to the Internet's success.

Invest in Education and Skills Development: All of us need to champion the cause of education and skills development, empowering individuals with the necessary tools to navigate, contribute to, and benefit from the Internet. Our involvement highlights the importance of digital literacy as a cornerstone for participating in the digital age.

I believe that by adopting these collective and proactive stance, we all become key players in the movement towards an Internet that is open, secure, resilient, and inclusive. Our actions and advocacy contribute significantly to realizing the vision of the Internet We Want, ensuring it remains a global public resource that enriches lives and fosters a just and equitable society.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Dynamic Coalition on Internet & Jobs

We really applaud for putting up the highest calibre people on the leadership panel and we trust them for taking up the right issues. 

 

1. Eliminating the Digital Divide: IGF should have a high-level panel on 'Connected the Unconnected'. We need to bring everyone on the internet by 2030. This should be the overarching theme of all IGF meetings going forward. 

 

2. Addressing inequities: Seniors and Women are left behind in our race to bring the best of internet technologies to the world. I would call them a vulnerable class.  We need to upskill them 

 

3. Taking everyone together; We must bring everyone to speed with regards to AI .

 

4. Work with academia and industry to reform the education system to match the needs of the digital economy 

 

5. Adopt Project CREATE for the summit of the future. www.projectcreate.tech 

 

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Chairman

Dynamic Coalition on Internet & Jobs 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Yusuph Kileo

Regarding Safe and secure

In an ever-changing world, Online safety has never been more important. The use of internet has grown and so much of our personal and professional data are all over the internet today. collectively we can do many things to fortify our cyberspace and make it more safer and secure. We must start somewhere, we should put emphasis on making use of the rights skillsets in the right place and Improve cyber capacity building for sustainable development. More over we need to enhance international cooperation to combat cybercrime and build meaningful Public-Private partnership for cybersecurity.

Have the right skillset in place — It all begins with having the right people with the right skillset to help in protecting our countries from falling victims to cyberattacks. The ones who are able to quickly recover data and systems when exposed to cyberattacks. When we luck the right skillset, it become harder to prevent cyberattacks, detect any attack attempts and response to any cyberattacks.

Capacity building is very important — Human are the weakest link to the security chain. The most common ways cyber criminals get access to our system and data using social engineering techniques (exploiting human weakness) . This is why capacity building and cybersecurity awareness is vital. One of the most efficient ways to protect against cyberattacks and all types of data breaches is to train our people on threat landscape and how cyberattacks can be prevented, inform them about how cyberattacks can impact the internet we want!

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user chaficchaya

Together, Let's Shape the Future of the Internet

 

We extend our heartfelt thanks to the IGF Leadership Panel for the opportunity to engage in this vital dialogue. As we contribute to the discussion initiated by the IGF Leadership Panel, the RIPE NCC is guided by the principles of openness, connectivity, security, and inclusivity. These principles are not just the foundation of our work but are integral to achieving a digital world that benefits all stakeholders. Our engagement in policy development processes and community collaborations is a testament to our unwavering commitment to these ideals, aiming to foster an Internet environment that mirrors the aspirations outlined by the Leadership Panel and the broader Internet governance community.  

As we navigate the complexities of today's digital societies, the pivotal role of the Internet in driving economic, social, and environmental development cannot be overstated. The RIPE NCC's commitment to enhancing Internet governance reflects our deep-seated dedication to fostering a robust, secure, and inclusive Internet environment. This dedication aligns seamlessly with the expansive themes laid out by the Leadership Panel.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user info_7211

The IRPC supports the Internet We Want framework

The Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC), a dynamic coalition under the umbrella of the Internet Governance Forum has been - since it started its activities in 2008, actively working and committed to create awareness to human rights on the Internet and promoting an online environment that is free, open, inclusive, safe, sustainable and rights respecting.

As a multistakehoder network, this coalition believes that only dialogue and collaboration among all stakeholders can lead to a successful Internet Governance and we  are happy to contribute to this call and to support future discussions. 

The IRPC welcomes the  Leadership Panel paper "The Internet We Want" as it aligns with the work we have been undertaking under the umbrella of our main output document The Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet and its 10 Internet Rights and Principles and supports our vision of the Internet for present and future generations. 

In this context the  IRPC would like to suggest the following edits:

Paragraph 1:
First sentence: add  “cultural”
to read: In today’s digital societies, Internet governance is critical for economic, social, cultural, and environmental development.

Second sentence: add “freedom of expression
to read: “Internet governance is a crucial enabler of sustainable development, ensuring that the Internet is used in a responsible and inclusive manner, and can contribute to promoting freedom of expression, access to information, communication, and innovation.”

Paragraph 2: 

point 1: add “practices”
to read: 

  • promote a human-centric Internet that ensures respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law and protects against harmful behaviours and practices

Point 5: add “ and to support, protect and empower vulnerable groups”

to read:  

  • Foster a safe and secure online environment, in particular by increasing efforts to strengthen cybersecurity and to  support, protect and empower vulnerable groups

Point 7: replace “environment” with “environmentally”,  “practises” with “practices”,  “emission” with “emissions”  “digital resources” with digital technologies” and add  “e-waste, protecting biodiversity and ensuring the responsible and sustainable use of natural resources” to read: 

  • adopt environmentally-friendly practices consistent with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, e-waste, protecting biodiversity and ensuring  the responsible and sustainable use of natural resources when utilising the Internet and digital technologies

Point 8:  replace youth with “younger generations” replace “playing a key role in the achievement of sustainability” with “who play a key role  in the global effort to achieve sustainability
to read:

  • acknowledge, support and encourage the contribution of younger generations who play a key role in the global efforts to achieve sustainability; and 

Point 9:  add “and promote”,  replace “the” with “a” and “in” with “to”
to read:

  • uphold  and promote a multistakeholder approach to the governance of the Internet. 

In line with the paragraphs above, which highlight the importance of the Internet and Internet-connected technologies for a sustainable future,  The IRPC also believes it is  crucial to add a sixth characteristic:

6. environmentally sustainable

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Vittorio Bertola

Support for more inclusive participation requests

I would also like to support the comments on the striking contrast between all the high-sounding words on the importance of human rights and the choice of Riyadh as the place for the next IGF meeting. While I would much like to get in contact with such a different country and culture, I feel that I would have to give up a lot of my freedom of expression, my values and my own self to be present in person, and it would be the same for many participants from all stakeholder groups (not just civil society).

I have not made up my mind yet on attending in person, but I encourage the leadership panel to take into account the problem, starting with the letter by another well known IGF participant, Avri Doria, which I wholeheartedly support:

https://m17m.is/an-open-letter-1b9383fefd01

A public reply and practical action to provide either adequate guarantees of freedom to in-person participants or adequate options for remote participation would be much appreciated.

0 People voted for this

The importance of a people centered Internet (DC-PAL)

The information society should uphold the fundamental values of freedom, equality, tolerance and shared responsibility amongst others. In order to achieve this, we must see universal internet connectivity as part of the universal human right of access to information.

Connectivity needs to be accompanied by investment in skills and support. This implies ensuring not just a one-off investment in physical connectivity, but also investment in people and institutions which can deliver over time. Public internet access must not be seen as a 'stepping stone' towards private access but rather as an ongoing value that is a complementary means of connectivity for a whole community. 

 The growing digital divide that separates those with and without access to the internet greatly increases the importance of libraries as a trusted gateway for access in ways that can enhance civil society. Libraries just as the Internet, have also gone through radical changes during the past decades. Today they have become anchor multipurpose institutions that actively work towards the achievement of an inclusive, rights-based information society. Nevertheless, there is still an outdated social narrative about libraries that needs to change. Overall, they support community development at different levels so they should be considered as part of the broader connectivity infrastructure. Today, their resources, staff, network, infrastructure and knowledge continues to play a crucial role in the achievement of many Internet outcomes. Building up and supporting the library sector can help ensure that libraries have the resources to effectively deliver interventions for the years to come.
Meaningful universal connectivity should be a core pillar of development assistance programmes and libraries should be considered when seeking systemic support for this purpose.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user israel_rosas

Internet Society Comments on the Introduction

The Internet Society supports and promotes the development of the Internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people’s lives, and a force for good in society. Our work aligns with our goals for the Internet to be open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy. We reaffirm our interest in contributing to the upcoming discussions of the 5 subgroups created for the above sections. If there is an opportunity to add another subgroup, we propose “Facilitates Individual Participation on the Internet.”

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Dr. Olga Kyryliuk

Submitted on behalf of the…

Submitted on behalf of the Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Consortium run by Internews and uniting over 100 organizations with local, regional, and global reach across 8 regions in 39 countries.

The Internet We Want is built upon a multistakeholder approach to internet governance and digital cooperation, where governments, private sector, technical community, civil society, and academia, in their respective roles, collaborate and participate in decision-making processes to ensure that internet remains whole and open, universal and inclusive, free-flowing and trustworthy, safe, secure, and rights-respecting.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

 

 1. Whole and open

A whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable and stable Internet is vital for sustainable development, the functioning of digital societies and economies, for supporting business operations worldwide, and a prerequisite to the effective functioning of public services such as education, health care or various governmental services. When properly harnessed, information and communication technologies (ICT) and digital technologies are formidable engines of innovation, competitiveness development, sustainable economic growth, and instruments of social, cultural, and economic empowerment for all.

This unique potential can only be fully exploited if the fundamental nature of the Internet as an open, whole, interconnected, and interoperable network of networks is preserved. However, at present, there is a heightened risk that some potential policy or business decisions might fragment the Internet into siloed parts.

The potential fragmentation at either the technical, content or governance layers, threatens the open, whole, interconnected, and interoperable nature of the Internet, and its associated benefits to social and economic development, while also harming human rights.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to ensure that the internet stays whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable, stable and unfragmented.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

chapter 1 "Whole and open"

LINE 3:

A whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable and stable Internet is vital for sustainable development, the functioning of digital societies and economies, for supporting business operations worldwide, and a prerequisite to the effective functioning of public services such as education, disaster prevention, health care or various governmental services. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Ms Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Support for the 5 principles of 'The Internet We Want'

I wish to have recorded my personal support and endorsement as well as that of the Australian Internet Society Chapter (Internet Australia), which I have the honor of currently leading, for the 5 overarching principles or goals identified by the IGF Leadership Panel for 'The Internet We Want';

An Internet that is:-

1. Whole and open;

2. Universal and inclusive;

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

4. Safe and secure; and

5. Rights-respecting.

This resonates with our principles, vision and goals and we will continue to find ways to pursue and protect these going forward as we have in the times to date.

We do however note that particularly at this current and near future time 'The Internet We Have' is exposed to a myriad of risks and pressures that are counter to, or have intended and unintended consequences on these ideals.

The IGF as it is currently evolving could and should take advantage of its unique multistakeholder model, and take the opportunity to work with other actors and I* entities to facilitate discourse and shared understanding of the intended and unintended effects of actions taken and policies made that threaten any or all of these principles;  ensuring not only that the decision and policy makers are fully cognizant of such effects but also that the communities and individuals effected by these actions are aware.

0 People voted for this

Comments from auDA (.au) in support

auDA supports the direction proposed by the Leadership Panel in this section. To avoid fragmentation of the internet , with all the negative consequences for users and innovation this would entail, requires a coherent governance structure, and governance fragmentation should not be allowed to occur.

Where stakeholders, including governments, see the need for new strands of coordination or cooperation, the first approach should be to ground these in existing mechanisms – primarily the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This could include instigating new working methods within those mechanisms that can deliver on new needs, issues and concerns. Such an integrating approach supports coherence and ensures the diverse technologies and policy issues that have the internet at their core, or rely on the internet, will remain able to shape its evolution and be developed in ways more fully aware of the internet’s realities.

If new areas of policy require different assemblies of stakeholders, we suggest applying the internet’s multi-stakeholder approach, given its proven track record in the successful stewardship of the evolving and resilient internet. It is the genuine inclusion of stakeholders and consensus decision-making that has led to the internet’s success. This successful approach can and should be applied more broadly. 

In both current and new areas of internet governance, bolstering the participation of people from all around the world is vital. More participation from under-represented regions and communities is vital to ensure the system is shaped by everyone’s needs and concerns.

0 People voted for this

Integrate Concrete, Action-Oriented Commitments

This section could build on work that has already been carried out within the internet governance community to understand and address internet fragmentation, e.g within the IGF’s Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation. It could call on the global community to further study and advance the recommendations by that mechanism. To address this, we propose adding the following sentence: “The development of technical standards and other state-based efforts to regulate the internet may directly support the enjoyment of human rights and ensure an open, interconnected and interoperable internet. An internet that is not whole and open poses a number of risks to human rights, including the right to privacy, freedom of expression and access to information, amongst others. These risks can emerge from specific laws, policies or other efforts that impact the development and implementation of technical standards and broader user experience.”

The addition of the following principle would also strengthen this connection: “We call on all stakeholders to commit to a principle-based approach to internet governance, grounded in human rights and that commits to protecting the critical properties of global connectivity.” The IWW should also encourage all stakeholders to not only promote the continuity of a whole and open internet but also efforts to counter threats to it such as by adding the following to the last sentence of this section: “A commitment to not politicise the core technical elements of the internet - such as domain name systems, identifiers, etc.; refraining from imposing bans or restrictions on international data flows or engaging in techno-protectionist initiatives, interfering with free expression, and Internet shutdowns all work towards achieving this aim.”

Additionally, the call to action is currently very high-level and lacks sufficient detail to provide adequate guidance to stakeholders. We would encourage the drafters to integrate the following to strengthen this section: “A principle-based approach grounded in human rights and that commits to protecting the critical properties of global connectivity is needed. These commitments need to be specific and tied to concrete actions.” Examples of such commitments include conducting research to ‘connect the dots’ between policy discussion and the technical components of the internet, ensuring there is meaningful engagement with stakeholders in all stages of  policy development with a view of identifying threats to an open internet, and developing and implementing means of measuring the incremental steps that are leading to internet fragmentation, among others.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

2. Universal and inclusive - AFRINIC Contribution

Mobile Technology development: The widespread adoption of mobile technology should dramatically increase internet accessibility, enabling more people to connect to the digital world. This has been particularly transformative in developing countries, where mobile internet often represents the primary means of online access.

Broadband Connectivity expansion: The expansion of broadband infrastructure should improve internet quality and speed, crucial for modern applications and new technologies.

 

Promote Multi-Stakeholder Governance: Work to strengthen multi-stakeholder governance models that involve governments, industry, civil society, and technical experts in decision-making processes related to Internet governance. This ensures diverse perspectives are considered and fosters consensus-building on critical issues.

Engage in Capacity Building: conduct effective Programs aimed at enhancing digital literacy and skills, specifically in developing countries. This is  crucial for boosting new technologies adoption and enabling people to take full benefits from the Internet.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

1. Whole and open - AFRINIC Contribution

Advocate for Policy Frameworks: Engage with policymakers globally, including Internet organizations to advocate for the adoption and enforcement of policies that uphold principles of net neutrality, freedom of expression, and open access to information. This includes supporting legislation that prevents discrimination in data transmission and ensures equal access to online content.

 

Support Infrastructure Development: Collaborate with the Regional Internet Registries (RIR), governments, Network Operators Groups, Network Internet Services Providers, National Research and Education Networks, and private sector entities to invest in the expansion and maintenance of Internet infrastructure, particularly in underserved regions. This includes deploying broadband networks, building data centers, and improving connectivity through initiatives like the Internet Exchange Points (IXPs).

 

Advance Interoperability Standards: Contribute to the development and adoption of open and interoperable standards for Internet protocols, ensuring seamless communication and compatibility across different networks and devices. This includes active participation in standardization bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and  the Internet Telecommunication Union (ITU),.

 

Combat Digital Fragmentation: Monitor and address emerging trends and policies that threaten the global connectivity and openness of the Internet, such as data localization requirements, content blocking, and restrictions on cross-border data flows. Advocate for approaches that prioritize interoperability and prevent the fragmentation of the Internet into isolated networks.

 

Engage in Capacity Building: Provide technical assistance and capacity-building support to governments, organizations, and individuals, globally and especially in Africa to strengthen their ability to effectively participate in Internet governance processes, and contribute to policy discussions.

 

0 People voted for this

Support for a Unified and Open Internet - An Indian Perspective

As an Indian researcher specializing in internet governance and security studies, the first principle advocated by the IGF Leadership Panel— a whole and open Internet forms the foundation for the theme of "the internet we want". Recognizing the significance of a free, globally connected, interoperable, and stable Internet for sustainable development, digital societies, and global business operations, India underscores the indispensable role of a unified digital space in supporting critical public services like education, healthcare, and governmental operations. Emphasizing the transformative power of information and communication technologies (ICT), India acknowledges their role as engines of innovation, competitiveness, and economic empowerment. However, the current landscape poses a heightened risk of potential policy or business decisions leading to Internet fragmentation, jeopardizing its open, interconnected, and interoperable nature. This fragmentation, whether at the technical, content, or governance layers, not only threatens the associated benefits to social and economic development but also poses risks to human rights. India also actively participate in international forums, such as the Internet Governance Forum and ICANN, to contribute to the global dialogue and ensure the realization of the principles outlined by the IGF Leadership Panel it .

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

Response from Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values (DC-CIV)

 

The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values absolutely supports an Internet that is “Whole and open” - with its interconnected interoperability being at the centre of its fundamental design - these are Core Internet Values. The focus on the risk of fragmentation is real and is captured well in the declaration.

One risk that should be mentioned alongside “fragmentation” is the risk of overwhelming “privatisation” of “public spaces” and digital exclusion: the Internet is a network made up of thousands and thousands of networks, each run independently but exchanging traffic through peering agreements. A consolidation of these thousands of networks towards a much smaller number of giga-operators (huge cloud providers) could be as detrimental as fragmentation if the global players exert so much power that they can unilaterally shift rules of interoperability. This would result in “closing” the Internet’s open nature. We call this Core Internet Value: Decentralised: The Internet is free of any centralised control.

Thus we call on governments to keep flows across borders, to legislate with awareness of the global reach of the Internet and its benefits, and to cooperate across borders in good faith against crime and abuse; on corporations to decisively avoid building up "walled gardens", choosing instead to opt for interoperability at as many levels and as early in product development as possible; on civil society to make sure the preservation and enhancement of human rights is built on an underlying assumption of the functional equivalent of a right to an entire, global, interoperable, decentralised Internet; and on the technical community to support and expand these ideals under an open, multi-stakeholder governance model.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

Defining the World we want to define the Internet we want:

The Internet spans across geographies, cultures, ideologies and economies. We haven’t had anything like the Internet ever before. One culture learns about another, one geography or ideology about another. This has never happened before on this scale and extent. Baseless hatred or fear diminishes when one culture gets demystified about another. There has never been an opportunity for this before. The Free and Open, Global, end to end, Interoperable Internet of today is a space to cause changes in the world we live in, on a scale and extent never possible before. 

The Internet we want 

To define the Internet we want, we need to understand the persistent issues in the world we live in, define the world we want and go on to define the Internet we want.

 
The Internet we want is the Internet that would rebuild the world we live in, by addressing and resolving persistent and elusive problems. 

At least 50 million people live in modern slavery in 2021 -in forced labour or in forced marriage; Over a billion are over 60, many of whom may be ill or lonely; We have 150 million orphaned children and there are widows who are uncared for; and others those whose sufferings are unseen or unknown 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would enable actors to identify, reach out and connect to care for the helpless and protect them from unseen harm, and ensure that they live free, and live well. 

We have 130 million forcibly displaced persons, stateless and homeless and 1.6 billion people worldwide live in inadequate housing conditions, with about 15 million forcefully evicted every year. 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would cause to redeem and prosper marginalized or downright downtrodden segments of the population including refugees, build a billion and more homes of sufficient comfort, to ensure fair livelihoods for those who are weak and meek. 

770 million face hunger, predominantly in Africa and Asia. For argument, to illustrate, it would take $770 million a day to provide food for everyone who is hungry, which would take ONE charitable corporation to match its profits with that of the most profitable business corporation in the world and set up a kitchen (It is well understood that this would not really the solution for the long-term) 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would bring together various actors to create sustainable programs to eradicate hunger and provide livelihoods.

Many rivers are dry or contaminated; draughts are followed by floods which equally devastate, rather than nourish the dry lands. In our World we have a problem with water to drink, for us and for animals and birds, and water to farm; a billion lack safe drinking water and 600 million suffer from foodborne illnesses annually, with children under 5 bearing 30% of foodborne fatalities; 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would forge cross-border, cross-cultural collaboration, generate creative solutions across and within borders to cause rivers to branch out and flow 

Governments, when not sufficiently connected beyond their sphere of comfort, almost always find it difficult to deal with impossibly huge problems such as conflicts, poverty, and in resolving socio economic problems that persist from time immemorial. 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would open up for Governments and policy makers a wider spectrum of thoughts and ideas for solutions to historical and persistent problems and connect Governments and communities to cause quantum changes away from temporary fixes or marginal changes, the Internet that would cause greater good. 

John Hay’s Open Door policy of 1899 was the cornerstone of America’s foreign policy for 40 years, was significant in its attempt by the United States to establish an international protocol of equal privileges for all countries trading with China and to support China’s territorial and administrative integrity. Its follow-up missive in 1900 was significant in its attempt to establish an international protocol of equal privileges for all countries trading with China. 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would build collaborative spaces, even between Governments among others, cause the information flow expands the goodness of Governments and inspires them to augment their goodness. 

Over 70% * of all Internet traffic is cinema (including very good cinema), sports, soap opera, junk exchanges and shopping, which is relatively an awful waste of the Internet technologies. [ * Most statistics in this presentation are gross approximations ] 

The Internet we want is an Internet primarily as a space for education and collaboration; It is a space for Cinema with the awareness that the images you see and the stories you hear make you who you are; It is a space where cinema could also educate, with an intricate model to ensure copyright fairness. 

There is a relatively recent trend, at least in the YouTube / netflix-like cinema space, to republish old cinema, publish recent zoom conversations, university lectures, even whole courses (such as a Harvard course on Justice or a computer course (CS 50) and this trend is expanding.

The Internet we want is the Internet ecosystem of such expanded, affordable or relatively free and largely open access to education of values, knowledge and skills across geographies, cultures and economic divides. 

What do we read? What do we hear? What do we see? How do we know what is true, what is correct, what is fair and leads to a good understanding? Would the Internet point to what is true and fair and good, and characterize what is true and fair and good as true despite narrow or short-term compulsions to call them otherwise? 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would increasingly cause an information flow, good and true. 

Could "access" be an expanded idea of not merely access to connect, but as access to content across geographies and across cultural spaces past excessively copyrighted and politically filtered content? 

The Internet we want is the Internet of decent access across borders, across cultures, across ideologies. 

Bad actors loom large, but they are proportionally few in number than good people. 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would raise and empower good people in business, politics and in public/private workplaces, to discourage unethical policies and practices and substandards everywhere. 

There are good standards for products and services in one part of the world that needs to reach other parts of the old; good standards in the higher end of the industrial and consumer spectrum including from military or space or fields such as aeronautics which needs to percolate down to the middle and lower spectrum of business and consumers to affordably benefit them 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would enable cross-sectoral, 
cross-border flow of standards and technologies across income groups.
 

What was it that Tesla and Tucker and Hughes wanted to do? Would the Internet help innovators see through their ideas without undue barriers ? And help recollect and gather disconnected or disarrayed components from otherwise common ideas to make them whole? 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would offer fair opportunities by enabling networks of people with multiple degrees of freedom, redundant pathways to connect and communicate. 

There are historical challenges, such as the natural and infused misunderstandings that cause hatred, geographical and cultural animosities that in turn have caused wars to happen. If there is hatred and divide in the world there are also Communities that are exemplary, such as the Hull House and Toynbee Hall and Universities, several Think Tanks and Charities initiating solutions. 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would address ‘impossible’ problems that have eluded the brightest minds of the past millenniums, one of which is cultural divisions often arising from and in turn perpetuating baseless hatred, fear and the resultant reluctance to change the way the world works. 

In matters related to economic models and business, change could be smooth, swift and at the same time without drastic upheavals, with receptiveness from the 1% of the 1% who are said to be in a position to effect changes and actually with lead-participation by the select who are highly privileged. As a non-zero sum and at a quantum pace. Change does not have to be a shift from one ideology or political system to another. Change can be brought about by dispelling extreme notions of either ideologies, by causing a balance far, far from that of a zero sum game.

 
The Internet we want is the Internet that would cause a balance. The Internet we want is the Internet that would cause quantum changes in every sphere. 

As the world transitions to AI technologies, it is time to revisit the answering machine invention which enables the business to stay distant, if not hide, from the consumer, and even governments in some manner, in some places, to become more unapproachable and even invisible. The Internet we want is an Internet that would bring back the corner store of the 50s and pathways into doors. 

The Internet we want is the Internet of people connecting to people with 
essentially minimal doorways, where and when there are reasons. 

The Internet we want is the Internet that would strive to restore Justice as of old, build cities of refuge, impart wisdom to make our parliaments and executives wiser and far more connected to build a better world.
 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Olusegun

On Safe and Secure

The Internet We Want should envision a Judicious Unification of Global Digital Ecosystem Security (JUDGES) philosophy that should be well-mapped to align with the judicious use and supremacy of the Internet Governance principles of transparency, multistakeholderism, openness, and neutrality in securing and safeguarding the Internet. Securing a unified Internet remains one of the most profound challenges, and it is one of the foundational stones that must be reconstructed in line with this philosophy. Security of the Internet should uphold the UN Universal Declaration on human rights, freedom of access to information, and application of such security to safeguard solutions to our human problems as well encapsulated within the framework of the UN SDGs. It should embrace the challenging risk posed by emerging technology, most specifically the unethical application of AI and blockchain technologies. There is an unholy marriage occurring gradually between the abuse of AI and the unethical application of cryptocurrency platforms that can lead to the damage of trust and erode our confidence in the Internet. For instance, many nations and big tech organisations (i.e. OTT operators) are hiding under the pretext of cybersecurity and trade to fragment and polarise the Internet. Fragmentation is emerging through the backdoors of e-commerce and digital trade protection and portends a huge threat to Internet neutrality and security. A polarised segment of the global community on account of their poor purchasing power parity will always seek compromised channels to gain access. At the heart of the Internet We Want should be a consideration for the ''JUDGES'' philosophy that should inspire and empower the much-needed global cooperation and partnership with commitment towards a secure and safe Internet. I believe we can achieve it together.     

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

Internet without hegemony.

Internet we want is the socio-technical ecosystem based on network of interrelated sovereign and regulated local networks that is trustworthy, ethical, lawful, neutral, fair, transparent, healthy, safe, secure, family friendly, development oriented, civilian environment designed for global public good and peaceful coexistence with international governance system that is based on principles like multilateralism, truth, public interests, justice, legal rights and digital sovereignty.
We want internet without hegemony.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user chaficchaya

Preserving Internet Unity: RIPE NCC's Commitment to Openness

The RIPE NCC fully upholds the principle of a whole and open Internet as being fundamental to its mission. We advocate for an unfragmented digital space that remains globally connected and interoperable. This vision underpins our efforts to support innovation, foster collaboration, and facilitate the free exchange of ideas, thus maintaining the Internet's role as a driver of social and economic progress. Our efforts in promoting open standards, transparent policy development, and community engagement are central to preserving the Internet's openness and integrity.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user akmeemana palliyaguru.rohana chaminda_53916

adding safe and secure

A whole, open, free, safe and secure , globally connected, interoperable and stable Internet is vital for sustainable development,

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user info_7211

Re: A whole and open Internet

The Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) fully supports the call for a whole and open Internet. Drawing on Article 1 of this coalition’s Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet:  the right to access the Internet is “increasingly indispensable for the full enjoyment of human rights”. Any restrictions to the access and use of the Internet must be lawful, necessary in a democratic society, proportionate, non-discriminatory and time-limited.  

The IRPC highlights the risks of further digital exclusion brought by Internet fragmentation and privatisation and that more needs to be done to  ensure that the Internet remains a global commons. 

The coalition notes the valuable work of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Core Values in this regard and echo the call for a decentralised Internet, which is free of any centralised control, equal, ensures digital inclusion, supports public services and community-driven services,  provides quality of service and freedom of choice.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user israel_rosas

Internet Society Comments on Section 1 “Whole and Open”

We agree on the goal of avoiding Internet fragmentation. However, we’re concerned about the increasing number of policies and decisions that can undermine the Internet’s open, global, interoperable nature. To help illustrate the types and effects of fragmentation and the kind of decisions that may lead to it, the Internet Society has developed a Fragmentation Explainer, which includes a range of examples of policies and decisions that could undermine the open, global Internet or that are already doing that. Our Internet impact assessment toolkit is also helpful in analyzing and understanding the consequences of Internet fragmentation. We believe that Internet impact assessments, inspired by analogous work in the environmental domain, are critical for all Internet-related decision-making. We invite all stakeholders to use these resources to analyze existing decisions and avoid the consequences that may harm to the Internet.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Dr. Olga Kyryliuk

on behalf of Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Consortium

Submitted on behalf of the Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Consortium run by Internews and uniting over 100 organizations with local, regional, and global reach across 8 regions in 39 countries

.

To ensure that the Internet stays whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable, stable and unfragmented, we recommend setting the following goals:


1.  

Governments should ensure that their laws do not unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression online. As enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, restrictions to the right to freedom of expression should be provided by law, legitimate, and proportionate. Internet shutdowns, vague prohibitions of online content, and criminalization of legitimate expression on online platforms and websites are examples of how the governments across the world have restricted access to a whole and open internet in violation of international human rights law.


2.  

The telecommunication companies should improve their transparency reporting to ensure that their consumers understand how and why their services and data are impacted by government orders. This can be achieved, inter alia, by publishing timely and accurate information about government shutdown orders, takedown requests, and user data seizures. They should also set up mechanisms to transparently respond to government orders and to appeal orders that do not comply with domestic or international law. The IGF community should engage with telecommunication companies to monitor if and how companies observe this commitment and highlight positive examples of transparency reporting and appeals mechanisms during local, regional, and global IGF convenings.  


3.  

With the increased usage by the public of digital means to access services and resources, governments should ensure universal access to public resources and services. This necessitates fostering initiatives for their digitization, while simultaneously prioritizing data security and inclusivity. In conjunction with this commitment, governments should also ensure the implementation of robust security measures safeguarding the data and information used by these digital platforms.


4.  

Governments should invest their best efforts to bridge the digital divide and ensure equal access to resources and services for individuals regardless of their internet bandwidth limitations. Governments should also address gender, age, and geographic divides. In many countries, women still have limited access to mobile devices and internet compared to men. When introducing digital services, governments should pay special attention to vulnerable and marginalized groups of population, including the elderly, youth, and people with disabilities.


5.  

Governments should provide access to basic digital literacy and cybersecurity courses in local languages for the most vulnerable groups of population. By doing so, governments can empower citizens and bridge the gap towards a more equitable and efficient society.


6.  

Governments of island nations, developing and least developed countries should prioritize the connectivity and affordability of digital services to their population. Similarly, rural areas should receive necessary resources to improve internet connectivity.


7.  

Governments should envisage the right to affordable and inclusive internet access in their national legislation, as well as undertake a positive obligation to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place for full and unrestricted enjoyment of this right.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

2. Universal and inclusive

Since its inception, the Internet has evolved from an information exchange network to the platform for sustainable social and economic development we recognise it to be today. An open, stable, and trusted Internet is vital for the effective functioning of a diverse array of services, as varied as agriculture, energy, healthcare, manufacturing, or education, continuously reimagining the way people interact with their peers, businesses, and governments. However, despite the enormous progress in expanding connectivity in recent years, 2.7 billion people remain unconnected.

Connecting the unconnected and reconnecting the disconnected is not just about infrastructure and access to the Internet. Meaningful connectivity also requires focus on bridging the barriers to adoption, including creating and maintaining an enabling environment in which locally relevant, local language content is created, as well as adopting policies and tools designed to identify and address skills gaps. The enduring digital divides in access, application, and skills among and within countries emphasise the need for universal, affordable, and meaningful connectivity in order to reach the development potential of the Internet, ICTs, and digital technologies. Meaningful connectivity should also be secure, resilient and cost-effective.

In pursuit of these goals and of a human-centric, sustainable digitalization, all stakeholders must improve their understanding of how ICTs work in practice, including knowledge of the ICT ecosystem, the roles of the various stakeholders and relevant policy issues.

Frameworks that enable Internet connectivity should be based on light-touch ICT policy and regulations, encourage universal access through competition and the entry of new players into the ICT ecosystem to foster the emergence of innovative products, services, and business models. Policy and regulatory mechanisms should consider the value of the entire communications and digital services ecosystem. They should be non-discriminatory, technology-neutral, and supportive of innovative business models and the development of a wide range of technologies, standards, and system architectures. Successful efforts to deliver universal meaningful connectivity need to balance the needs of all stakeholders, should be grounded in evidence and data, should seek global harmonisation in terms of interoperability and standards, should enable the effective management of spectrum between all stakeholders, and must facilitate investment across the entire digital value chain.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to move towards universal meaningful connectivity for everyone, everywhere, to encourage the uptake of new technologies at need, and to address skills gaps.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Abraham Fiifi Selby

The Internet we want towards Universal and Inclusiveness

In the critical step towards building a digital future that benefits all, building a truly universal and inclusive internet demands ongoing dialogue, innovative solutions, and a commitment to shared values. By collaborating and setting ambitious but achievable goals, we can create a digital space that empowers everyone to thrive.

These goals and areas can help build more towards "the internet we want"

  1. Universal Access and Connectivity
  2. Inclusion and Diversity
  3. Content Accessibility and Multilingualism
  4. Openness and Participation
  5. Safety and Security

Stakeholder groups must be able to;

  • Ensure affordable and reliable internet access for all, particularly low-income populations and remote regions.
  • Empower marginalized communities to actively participate in shaping the internet and digital policy, ensuring diverse voice heard.
  • Promote the development and use of multilingual content and tools, fostering cultural understanding and knowledge exchange.
  • Encourage multistakeholder participation in internet governance, including civil society, technical communities, and private sector.
  • Promote transparency and accountability in online platforms and data practices, empowering users to control their information.
  • Protect user privacy and data security, implementing robust safeguards against misuse and exploitation.
  • Promote ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, mitigating potential risks to human rights and democracy.

These actions can be achieved through collaborative efforts where Governments, civil society, technical communities, and the p must work together to develop and implement effective solutions with youth advocates funding that can help address these ch the local level to the global level. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

new wording for para 2 : Universal and inclusive

LINE 12:

The enduring digital divides in access, application, and skills among and within countries emphasise the need for universal, affordable, and meaningful connectivity in order to reach the development potential of the Internet, ICTs, and of all digital technologies. Meaningful connectivity should also be secure, resilient and cost-effective, and able to reach the whole of the population (including rural areas and the poorer). 

LINE 17: 

Policy and regulatory mechanisms should consider the value of the entire communications and digital services ecosystem but have to prevent the creation of monopolies.

LINE 25:

should seek global harmonisation in terms of interoperability and standards, should enable the effective management of spectrum between all stakeholders (preserving the free-to-air services for emergency communication), and must facilitate investment across the digital value chain. 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Anna Kompanek

Address barriers to access

To achieve a truly universal and inclusive internet, the IGF community should consider how women and marginalized communities such as persons with disabilities, refugees, and LGBTQ+ communities experience the internet, and what barriers to access they face which are often greater than the barriers for general population. Barriers to access go beyond insufficient ICT infrastructure or prohibitive costs. Factors such as online gender-based violence and harassment and inaccessible technologies have further hindered the promise of a universal and inclusive internet for all. The IGF Secretariat should consider including metrics that seek not only to promote the affordability of the internet access, but also take steps to reduce harassment online (which often translates into physical risks offline) and examine how to improve the accessibility of online content and affordability of assistive technologies, especially for persons with disabilities from Global Majority countries.

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user qshatti_1897

Universal and inclusive

As we are approaching twenty years since the inception of the forum, Internet access is still an important topic for the Arab region and for many developing countries. Issues related to access are not limited only to the number of Internet users, but they became more complex to include the quality of service, bandwidth, reasonable cost for all, size of investment in Internet infrastructure and securing this infrastructure. Furthermore, finding alternative means and quick solutions for Internet access in areas of instability and natural disasters to alleviate the suffering of individuals in these areas remains a huge challenge for everyone.

0 People voted for this

Comments from auDA (.au) in support

auDA supports the direction proposed by the Leadership Panel in this section. In our view, the primary goals should be:

  • To ensure affordable connectivity to the internet is accessible to all people everywhere, through the diverse and increasingly resilient physical connectivity models now available.

     
  • To ensure that all people everywhere have access to the training and support that would allow them to realise the internet’s promise, and to be equipped to deal with the risks that can come with internet access.

     
  • To encourage widespread adoption of universal access principles so that all online services and systems accept input in all scripts, making the online world more fully multilingual.

The first goal is in sight, and would require stakeholders (particularly governments, given their role) to support infrastructure rollout and to engage in targeted support for disadvantaged people and communities.

The second goal is underway but is a multi-generational effort. All stakeholders could engage in supporting training and other initiatives that help people learn about the opportunities the internet offers and how to use it securely and confidently.

The third goal requires action by all stakeholders offering online services and should simply be factored in as an essential component of all system renewal efforts. It could be helpful for the Leadership Panel to propose a date after which all stakeholders publicly commit that any service or product launched will be characterised by universal accessibility.

0 People voted for this

Need for an Intersectional Gender Perspective & Accessibility

The IWW should encompass an intersectional gender perspective that recognizes and takes into consideration the different impact that digital technologies have on women, girls and people of diverse genders and sexualities. Currently, this section mentions the digital divide but does not address its disproportionate impact on women and girls, persons with disabilities, and those in vulnerable or marginalised situations. We encourage the drafters to ensure their perspectives are integrated into the final document.

 

Additionally, while we applaud the commitment to non-discrimination, we encourage the drafters to integrate the following as essential to ensuring an open and diverse model of internet governance: “the inclusion and integration of all perspectives, particularly those subject to discrimination or other forms of marginalisation.”

 

There is also a concerning lack of commitment to accessibility. This could be remedied through the addition of a commitment to ensure that internet governance processes and forums are “open, inclusive, accessible, consensus-driven, and transparent. This includes ensuring that stakeholders from the Global Majority and other under-represented groups in global public policymaking can fully participate in decision-making processes and providing adequate notice and funding and accessible accreditation systems.”

 

This section should also encourage all stakeholders to take a comprehensive and holistic approach to understanding the potential impact of regulatory frameworks on the internet. We encourage the drafters to include a recommendation for governments and policymakers “to meaningfully engage with all stakeholders in policy development, with the view to identifying threats to an open internet - particularly as these might be inadvertent.” This call to action would strengthen this section.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy - AFRINIC Contribution

Promote Ethical AI and Algorithmic Transparency: Advocate for the development and adoption of ethical guidelines and standards for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms in Internet  services. Encourage transparency and accountability in algorithmic decision-making processes to mitigate biases, discrimination, and unintended consequences in the use of Internet.

 

Engage in Multistakeholder Dialogue: Increase Participation in multistakeholder forums, working groups, and initiatives that bring together governments, industry, civil society, and technical experts to discuss and address challenges related to online trust and safety. By fostering dialogue and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, we can develop holistic solutions that promote a free-flowing and trustworthy Internet for all.

Combat Disinformation and Misinformation: Collaborate with stakeholders from across sectors to develop and implement strategies for combating disinformation and misinformation online. This includes promoting media literacy, fact-checking initiatives, and platforms' efforts to reduce the spread of false information while respecting freedom of expression.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

2. Universal and inclusive - AFRINIC Contribution

Mobile Technology development: The widespread adoption of mobile technology should dramatically increase internet accessibility, enabling more people to connect to the digital world. This has been particularly transformative in developing countries, where mobile internet often represents the primary means of online access.

Broadband Connectivity expansion: The expansion of broadband infrastructure should improve internet quality and speed, crucial for modern applications and new technologies.

 

Promote Multi-Stakeholder Governance: Work to strengthen multi-stakeholder governance models that involve governments, industry, civil society, and technical experts in decision-making processes related to Internet governance. This ensures diverse perspectives are considered and fosters consensus-building on critical issues.

Engage in Capacity Building: conduct effective Programs aimed at enhancing digital literacy and skills, specifically in developing countries. This is  crucial for boosting new technologies adoption and enabling people to take full benefits from the Internet.

0 People voted for this

Indian Researcher's Perspective on Inclusive Internet Access

The principle of universal and inclusive access to the Internet resonates deeply with India's commitment to leveraging the transformative power of digital technologies for sustainable social and economic development. India's success with its flagship movement "Digital India" that helped in accessing citizen centric services more easier addressing the digital divides in access, application, and skills, emphasizing the importance of universal, affordable, and meaningful connectivity to unlock the Internet's development potential securely, resiliently, and cost-effectively.

While at the global level achieving these goals and embrace a human-centric, sustainable digitalization, stakeholders will require a deep understanding of ICTs' practical workings based on the demand and resources, of the area, where the roles of various stakeholders, and pertinent policy issues will play key role. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

Response from the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values supports these attributes. 

One Core Internet Values is: Global – The Internet is a global medium open and accessible to all, regardless of geography or nationality.

As for inclusivity, the Core Internet Value is: User-centric: End users maintain full control over the type of information, application, and service they want to share and access. By controlling the edge, end users are at the heart of the Internet.

But to be able to maintain this control everyone needs to be able to access it, including persons with disabilities. We point out the work undertaken by the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability in relation to this matter.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

Internet without hegemony based on fair International law.

Internet we want is the socio-technical ecosystem based on network of interrelated sovereign and regulated local networks that is trustworthy, ethical, lawful, neutral, fair, transparent, healthy, safe, secure, family friendly, development oriented, civilian environment designed for global public good and peaceful coexistence with international governance system that is based on principles like multilateralism, truth, public interests, justice, legal rights and digital sovereignty.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user chaficchaya

Expanding Access: RIPE NCC's Drive for Internet Connectivity

We are committed to expanding Internet connectivity to achieve universal and inclusive access. Recognising the transformative power of the Internet, the RIPE NCC actively supports initiatives aimed at enhancing Internet infrastructure, such as the development of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) and the adoption of IPv6. We provide training to the technical community and collaborate with the academic community (such as through RACI, the RIPE Academic Cooperation Initiative). These efforts ensure more resilient, efficient, and accessible Internet services for all, bridging the digital divide and fostering inclusivity.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user info_7211

The Internet Rights and…

The Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) through the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet and its 10 Internet Rights and Principles highlights importance of the principles of universality and equality, diversity and  the right to equal and universal access and use of the Internet, which underlines the vital need to ensure an inclusive Internet environment which is:

  • accessible to all,
  • promotes and encourages cultural and linguistic diversity,
  • promotes gender equality and
  • caters to the needs of minorities and vulnerable and  marginalised groups, including women, children, indigenous communities, homeless, refugees and displaced people, and people with disabilities.

The IRPC supports the call to bridge the digital divide. This can be done by  promoting an Internet that is free, open and non-discriminatory and  by ensuring  that techno, legal, political, socio-cultural and economic barriers are overcome to provide everyone with the meaningful access and participation in the online environment for a full realisation of human rights online.
 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user israel_rosas

Internet Society Comments on Section 2 “Universal and Inclusive”

Efforts to expand Internet connectivity must remain a priority, as it is an essential tool for individuals to access information, communicate, and connect with others. The rapid expansion of Internet connectivity has only been possible due to the collaborative efforts of stakeholders. However, significant challenges remain in bridging the digital divide. Barriers to expanding Internet access range from lack of business interest and adequate policy and regulatory frameworks to challenging geographical or weather conditions. Some populations are offline and unlikely to be connected unless new connectivity models are used, such as Community Networks. We call on all stakeholders to redouble their efforts in favor of facilitating Internet access, including the enabling environment for complementary connectivity solutions.

Community networks are deployed and operated by communities to meet their needs. These do-it-yourself networks are a solution for many remote and rural areas and underserved urban areas with a limited business case for traditional Internet service providers. Such networks are an excellent example of the importance of preserving the Internet as a networking model since they leverage the open Internet to enable communities to connect themselves. This is crucial for expanding connectivity and promoting inclusion.

Further, connectivity efforts may face additional barriers without actions favoring Internet resiliency. A resilient Internet against disruptions –created by targeted decisions or due to non-intentional occurrences like natural disasters– is the foundation for contemporary societies that allow people a more prosperous and secure future. Pulse, an Internet Society initiative, offers the Internet Resilience Index as a resource to understand how countries and regions are progressing towards a more resilient Internet based on four pillars: infrastructure, performance, security, and market readiness. We invite all stakeholders to promote and adopt actions that advance Internet resilience in the four pillars.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Dr. Olga Kyryliuk

Submitted on behalf of the…

Submitted on behalf of the Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Consortium run by Internews and uniting over 100 organizations with local, regional, and global reach across 8 regions in 39 countries.

 

To move towards universal meaningful connectivity for everyone, everywhere, to encourage the uptake of new technologies at need, and to address skills gaps, we recommend setting the following goals:


1.  

Governments have made considerable strides to increase connectivity in the past two decades. However, internet access remains out of reach for too many. To this end, governments should enact and enforce policies to connect the unconnected and make the internet more affordable. Thus, governments should prioritize innovative solutions to last mile connectivity, particularly in rural and underserved areas and work with the international community and the private sector to improve subsea cable infrastructure.


2.  

Governments of landlocked countries should seek opportunities to connect to submarine cables, thus diversifying access to broadband internet and reducing monopolies. 


3.  

Governments should commit to exploring ways to make the internet more affordable for poor and marginalized communities by subsidizing internet access costs and instituting price caps to prevent the telecommunications sector from price gouging consumers, as well as by establishing public-private partnerships that accelerate the deployment of affordable and accessible digital infrastructure.


4.  

Governments should collaborate with regional stakeholders to regularly assess connectivity, digital literacy, and access to online services, ensuring that indicators accurately reflect the region’s unique challenges and opportunities. Governments should also develop region-specific metrics and benchmarks to measure progress in closing the digital divide.


5.  

Governments should prevent tiered access to the internet by enacting and enforcing net neutrality legislation and regulation. Efforts by the private sector to circumvent net neutrality principles should be highlighted during IGF meetings. The IGF technical community and civil society should engage with the governments to explain the importance of net neutrality and ways to enforce this principle.


6.  

To design products that reflect the needs of a diverse society, including its most vulnerable and marginalized groups, the private sector should ensure inclusion and engage with critical voices. As such, the private sector has a responsibility to engage meaningfully with civil society organizations (CSOs), who hold invaluable insights into the needs and concerns of communities, providing a direct link to those impacted by products and services. By fostering collaboration and incorporating CSO input throughout the design, manufacture, and management processes, businesses can develop solutions that are socially responsible, sustainable, and meet the needs of the information society. This partnership benefits not only communities but also strengthens the legitimacy and ethical grounding of the private sector.


7.  

The private sector should increase inclusivity of their products and services by prioritizing user-centric design that considers needs of local communities, as well as local and regional context. Companies should not ignore the needs of consumers outside the Global North – instead, their policies, reports, and products should reflect the diversity of their users. New products, platforms, and sites should be tested for accessibility, including language accessibility, in different countries and regions to ensure people of all abilities can use their services, including in local languages.


8.  

When digitizing public services, governments should consider the digital divide in their country. Digitalization should not hinder access to these services, because some people stay behind in digital skills or because they do not have access to (affordable) internet. To overcome this obstacle, governments can offer offline alternatives to access public services, provide training for individuals lacking digital skills, and improve accessibility in remote areas.


9.  

The IGF community should commit to taking actionable, concrete steps to increase participation in internet governance from the Global South, including island nations. The Global South is not a homogenous and different countries and regions have unique obstacles that should be addressed through global digital cooperation. Thus, requiring that leadership positions are filled by representatives from all regions, level of economic development, and unique geographic conditions will better ensure that diverse views are considered and reflected in discussions and decision-making. IGF should also be cognizant that many countries in the Global South face barriers to meaningful participation due to lack of human and financial resources and, thus, should provide funding and capacity building opportunities to meet the needs of domestic policymakers, civil society, academics, and technical experts.  


10. 

Governments should localize digital literacy resources to reach all people in their countries, regardless of language, literacy level, ability, socio-economic status, or other factors that might otherwise prevent access to these resources. Governments should also identify specific skills needed for effective utilization of new technologies in their respective countries and in collaboration with other stakeholders develop training programs and educational initiatives tailored to the region’s economic and technological landscape.  


11. 

When the global internet governance community engages in capacity building efforts with local stakeholders in different regions across the world, they should ensure that rights-based norms are mainstreamed throughout the agenda and that there is correlation between human rights, free and open internet, inclusion, and sustainable development. Local civil society organizations and technical experts should be asked to review and provide feedback on the capacity building curricula to ensure they reflect local contexts.


12. 

Governments should establish collaborative dialogue between the policymakers, industry leaders, and regulatory bodies in their respective countries to enhance policy frameworks that promote competition, innovation, and investment in the ICT ecosystem. Governments should implement policies that support local startups and businesses, fostering a dynamic and competitive digital environment, as well as policies that promote the integration of technology in healthcare, education, and government services, with a specific focus on reaching underserved communities.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy

Cross-border data flows underpin many aspects of business today — cloud services, remote work, workplace collaboration, management of human resources, customer relationships and supply chains. They also underpin distance learning, telemedicine, the fight against cybercrime and child abuse online, fraud monitoring and prevention, investigation of counterfeit products, and a broad range of other activities. The processing and transfer of both personal and non-personal data are integral to many of these exchanges, making trust a vital element for resilient and sustainable economic growth and recovery.

However, there is an increasing lack of trust, or confidence, due to concerns that policy objectives—such as privacy, national security, consumer and human rights protection, access to data or even industrial competitiveness—would be compromised when data moves abroad. This lack of trust serves as the rationale for the adoption of an increasing number of data localisation and sovereignty measures, leading to fragmented national approaches to data governance and a growing number of restrictions that prohibit or considerably encumber cross-border data flows. Failure to address this lack of trust and to find an appropriate trust model risks impeding cross-border data flows, thereby limiting economies of scale and scope, driving inefficient, unsustainable investment, and restricting innovation.

Promoting policies that facilitate the adoption of applicable technologies and the global movement of data, including through governance models that allow for data-sharing for public good, is fundamental to harnessing their significant economic and social benefits. In particular, policymakers should support open cross-border data flows, while also assuring the protection of privacy, security, as well as intellectual property, and that those protections are implemented through a risk-based approach and in a manner that is transparent, non-discriminatory and in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Trust is strengthened when governments adopt robust and comprehensive commitments to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, including the fundamental right to privacy. In addition, cooperation between governments and stakeholders including business and multilateral organisations is needed to advocate for interoperable policy frameworks that would facilitate cross-border data flows, enabling data to be exchanged, shared, and used in a trusted manner, thereby aiming for high privacy standards.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to unlock the value of data flows for sustainable development of all and enshrine trust as the prerequisite for data sharing regimes, founded on the protection of data.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

New wording for para 3: Free-flowing

LINE 28: (conclusions)

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to unlock the value of data flows for sustainable development of all and enshrine trust as the prerequisite for data sharing regimes, founded on the protection of data. The free-flow of data could then happen among countries that guarantee the same level of data protection to their citizens and companies.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user qshatti_1897

Free-flowing and trustworthy

With our life becoming more digital, misleading and false information has become a major concern for everyone. Its impact is not limited only to economic harm, but it extends to destabilize societies, harm civic peace, and threaten the lives of individuals. During the covid pandemic, it reached to the level where it harmed public health and caused the loss of lives. Therefore, it is important to adopt appropriate and acceptable mechanisms and frameworks that verify such information, its sources, and reduce its dissemination. These mechanisms and frameworks must take into consideration that the world is a mixture of cultures and ideas and that what is acceptable in one part of the world may not be acceptable in another part. Consequently, these mechanisms and frameworks must be neutral and not influenced by the ideology or thoughts of any group.

0 People voted for this

auDA (.au) support of this

auDA supports the Leadership Panel’s direction. The internet is a global network of networks. It was not designed to follow national boundaries and there is no public interest in shaping it, or the services that operate using the internet, in such a fashion.

Concerns around security and privacy of data are important, and should be dealt with through multi-stakeholder processes that would see rising standards, and thus rising trust and confidence in every corner of the internet and for all those offering services online.

Likewise, governments in particular could collaborate under IGF auspices to drive shared ideas and establish norms for consumer protection approaches. Doing so could drive compatible or somewhat harmonised regulatory and policy approaches. This is important to help make sure that national concerns and priorities can be achieved in a way that does not compromise a broadly free-flowing and trustworthy internet environment.

The alternative approach of increasingly national silos with specific regulation, lack of cross-border data flows and decreasing trust, would be a poor alternative option. It would lead to fewer opportunities for people in any given place, and overall higher costs and less efficiency. That is a high price to pay, and it is a price we can choose not to pay if we work collectively to mitigate current privacy and security risks and concerns.

0 People voted for this

Stronger Statement on the Right to Privacy

This section would benefit from a stronger statement on the right to privacy, such as by including the following: “States should recognize the right to privacy as a universal, indivisible, interdependent human right that applies across borders and media and is intrinsically linked to the effective protection of personal data. This could be complemented through the inclusion of the following recommendation: “ that the collection, processing, sharing and use of personal data be subject to personal data protection regulation that is in line with international human rights law standards.” The IWW should also emphasise that the adoption and implementation of data protection regulation should be a prerequisite for the adoption of applicable technologies and the global movement of data; these protections are even more important in light of the vast capabilities of generative AI to process personal data.

 

This section would also be strengthened by adding the following: “It is important for all stakeholders - especially policymakers - to recognise the importance of technical solutions to protecting the confidentiality of digital communications, such as encryption and anonymity, which are critical for the enjoyment of all human rights offline and online.” We would recommend adding this sentence at the end of the paragraph on trust and the right to privacy. 

 

Additionally, we suggest adding the following sentence to the call to action:  “We encourage all stakeholders to not seek to influence technical protocols and standards or their implementation in a way that would impede the free flow of information globally or otherwise act in ways that do not promote and encourage respect for human rights and/or facilitate human rights violations and abuses.”

 

To the paragraph on “....cooperation between governments and stakeholders including business and multilateral organisations,” we would suggest noting that “cooperation is needed among different stakeholders not only for interoperable policy frameworks that would facilitate cross-border data flows, but also to ensure that these security principles do not inadvertently limit the global, open nature of the Internet.”

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

4. Safe and secure - AFRINIC Contribution

Promote Encryption: Advocate for the widespread adoption of strong encryption standards to protect the privacy and security of online communications. Encryption helps safeguard sensitive information from unauthorized access and surveillance, thereby fostering trust in online interactions.

 

Strengthen Cybersecurity Measures: Work to improve cybersecurity practices and resilience across the Internet ecosystem, including networks, devices, and applications. This involves promoting best practices such as regular software updates, secure coding standards, and threat intelligence sharing to prevent cyberattacks and data breaches.

 

Empower Users with Privacy Tools: Educate users about privacy-enhancing tools and technologies that enable them to control their personal data online. This includes promoting the use of virtual private networks (VPNs), ad blockers, and privacy-focused browsers to enhance users' control over their online privacy and security. Again, Africa is lagging behind so a dedicated progarm has to be customised to address this gap, with the help of Af-STARS

 

Legislation and Regulation: Advocate for the enactment and enforcement of comprehensive legislation and regulations aimed at protecting users' rights, privacy, and security online. This includes laws addressing cybersecurity, data protection, online harassment, and digital rights.

International Cooperation: Promote international collaboration and cooperation among governments, law enforcement agencies, and relevant stakeholders to combat cybercrime, address jurisdictional challenges, and harmonize legal frameworks across borders.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy - AFRINIC Contribution

Promote Ethical AI and Algorithmic Transparency: Advocate for the development and adoption of ethical guidelines and standards for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms in Internet  services. Encourage transparency and accountability in algorithmic decision-making processes to mitigate biases, discrimination, and unintended consequences in the use of Internet.

 

Engage in Multistakeholder Dialogue: Increase Participation in multistakeholder forums, working groups, and initiatives that bring together governments, industry, civil society, and technical experts to discuss and address challenges related to online trust and safety. By fostering dialogue and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, we can develop holistic solutions that promote a free-flowing and trustworthy Internet for all.

Combat Disinformation and Misinformation: Collaborate with stakeholders from across sectors to develop and implement strategies for combating disinformation and misinformation online. This includes promoting media literacy, fact-checking initiatives, and platforms' efforts to reduce the spread of false information while respecting freedom of expression.

0 People voted for this

Importance of Trust in Cross-Border Data Flows

As an Indian researcher engaged in internet governance and security studies, the third principle highlighted by the IGF Leadership Panel—fostering a free-flowing and trustworthy digital environment remains more a question of deep study in today's interconnected world, cross-border data flows are pivotal for various business operations, distance learning, telemedicine, and combating cybercrime, among numerous other activities. However, a growing lack of trust in these data exchanges poses a substantial challenge. Concerns regarding compromised policy objectives, such as privacy, national security, and consumer rights, have led to the adoption of data localization measures, contributing to fragmented national approaches and hindering cross-border data flows. It remains imperative to address this lack of trust through the promotion of policies that facilitate the global movement of data while ensuring privacy, security, and intellectual property protection.

Developing nations relying on e-governance for citizen services can involve Indian policymakers to study for open cross-border data flows, incorporating a risk-based approach, transparency, non-discrimination, and alignment with principles of necessity and proportionality, thus gathering the required trust for robust commitments to protect individual rights, especially the right to privacy, and collaboration between stakeholders. India, with its commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach, stands ready to contribute to these discussions and endeavors on the global stage.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

Response from the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values supports an Internet that is both Free-flowing and trustworthy. 

One particular concept which needs to be associated with any description of “The Internet We Want” is the concept of a layered approach. The text in this section describes uses of the Internet and its services - from cloud services to databases, communications and information gathering - all encompassed by the general nomenclature of “data flows”. It is important that this all relates to a higher layer on how the Internet is used than on what architecture the Internet uses to connect everyone together. This layered approach helps both lawmakers and participants to understand that the challenge they are addressing is often not the Internet itself, but the use of the Internet - a challenge that is part of a wider societal problem that cannot be addressed only with an “Internet solution”. Trust needs to be achieved both on and off the Internet.

We insist on this point, already made in the introduction. Not only must governance proceed layer by layer; as much as possible, problems in each layer should be solved within the layer and, when needing recourse to another layer, layer crossings must be clearly identified and their consequences be taken into account (e.g. blocking and filtering IP addresses in order to counter cybercrime.) Further consideration must be given to the fact that much of what people want to be "governed on the Internet" actually happens at the edge, in computational services delivered by means of the Internet, such as the delivery of video and film content, games, financial services, and of course crime and political interference. 

These intrinsically non-Internet problems must be solved in their respective layers and environments, and in a combination of domestic/national jurisdiction and global, multi-stakeholder collaboration.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

Internet without hegemony based on fair international law.

Internet we want is the socio-technical ecosystem based on network of interrelated sovereign and regulated local networks that is trustworthy, ethical, lawful, neutral, fair, transparent, healthy, safe, secure, family friendly, development oriented, civilian environment designed for global public good and peaceful coexistence with international governance system that is based on principles like multilateralism, truth, public interests, justice, legal rights and digital sovereignty.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user chaficchaya

Securing Trust: RIPE NCC's Vision for a Free-Flowing Internet

RIPE NCC champions the principle of data free flow with trust, emphasising the importance of a secure and trustworthy Internet. We work towards enabling a digital environment where data can be shared freely, fostering innovation and development while also ensuring robust data protection and privacy standards. Our commitment to routing security, through initiatives like Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), is a testament to our dedication to a trustworthy Internet ecosystem.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Vittorio Bertola

This section is completely flawed

As per the comment I left on the top paragraph, I find the logic of this section entirely flawed. Internet policies should be built around end-users, not around the need of businesses (or governments) to track people and extract data to suit their business models and objectives.

By the way, governments are often prey to global companies that offer to gather data about their citizens and then provide insights useful for "development" - reality is that they often get a bit of reports but most of the value will stick with the private sector partner, making the country dependent on foreign technology and suppliers and allowing other countries to monitor the national economy and society in depth.

There is no need for "cross-border data flows" to do telemedicine. For all the law enforcement needs that are mentioned, the need is for controlled and confidential exchanges between national authorities, not for open and unconstrained "cross-border data flows". Most of these arguments are just excuses.

Moreover, "cross-border data flows" on a global scale entail unnecessary long distance communications that are a waste of energy and resources. Minimizing the quantity of data and the distance they travel is also necessary for environmental sustainability. This is also not recognized in the current text.

In the end, data localisation laws are an essential tool to protect the privacy of citizens in privacy-friendly countries (e.g. the EU ones) from attacks and surveillance by actors in other parts of the world, and now for training AIs that will then be sold to them as a service, destroying their jobs or making them economically dependent on the usual global oligopolists.

I think it is impossible to just fix this line by line - you should just rewrite it entirely starting from the basic principles of data minimization and control by individuals (I'd be happy to help).

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user israel_rosas

Internet Society Comments on 3 “Free-Flowing and Trustworthy"

It is important to recognize that the success of the Internet comes from a few fundamental principles, which include worldwide accessibility and the ability to share data across borders securely. Protecting voluntary interconnections across a general-purpose network that allows for the free flow of data is crucial to maintaining this global network. However, this approach may be challenged by a lack of adequate Internet infrastructure that improves traffic flow and Internet service, such as Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)—facilities where networks can interconnect with one another—IXPs also serve as focal points for localizing traffic—their use lowers the cost and latency of traffic exchange and increases the resilience of the Internet ecosystem. We call on all stakeholders to create an enabling environment for interconnection. By ensuring that Internet Exchange Points can be established and sustained, it is possible to make Internet access cheaper and more reliable for users across the globe. The 50/50 Vision for Internet traffic is an Internet Society initiative that illustrates how different stakeholders can join efforts to facilitate the conditions for such an environment.

Moreover, end-to-end encryption is a vital factor in increasing trustworthiness on the Internet. It supports many sensitive online activities, such as securing online transactions in the finance industry, safeguarding crucial health information online, and protecting users' information from cybercriminals and state actors. According to the Internet Society's Pulse, 96 percent of the top 1,000 websites worldwide support HTTPS. Millions of users worldwide use end-to-end encrypted messaging applications, and more services have enabled encryption by default, leading to greater public awareness of encryption as an important security tool. However, the Internet Society is concerned about threats to end-to-end encryption through policy approaches to address crime, terrorism, hate speech, and harmful content online. They argue that having access to encrypted content is necessary for safety and public security, but weakening or breaking encryption creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited by malicious actors, which will have major negative impacts on security and safety on the Internet. We encourage all stakeholders to protect users’ online interactions by promoting the widespread use of encryption, especially end-to-end encryption, across the Internet. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Dr. Olga Kyryliuk

Submitted on behalf of the…

Submitted on behalf of the Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Consortium run by Internews and uniting over 100 organizations with local, regional, and global reach across 8 regions in 39 countries.

To unlock the value of data flows for sustainable development of all and enshrine trust as the prerequisite for data sharing regimes, founded on the protection of data, we recommend setting the following goals:

Governments that still lack comprehensive and up-to-date privacy and data protection laws and regulations should prioritize adoption and implementation of such legislation, and establish robust enforcement mechanisms.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

4. Safe and secure

Cyberspace is now an intrinsic part of every country’s development, creating enormous opportunities and enabling economic and societal growth. At the same time, the indispensable nature of cyberspace in day-to-day human activities also generates growing vulnerabilities. Rapid digitalisation is testing the resilience of cyber infrastructures. The escalating vulnerabilities resulting from disparate states of cyber hygiene hinder the effectiveness of countermeasures against cyber attacks, threatening to thwart the potential economic impact of ICT and digital technologies.

The borderless nature of the Internet and the associated digital economy, the increased cyber-physical interdependency of IoT, and cybercrime paint a complex legal and operational picture for cybersecurity. A collective, collaborative multistakeholder approach is required to find meaningful ways and effective solutions to mitigate local, cross-border and global cybersecurity concerns.

To empower and protect societies from increased cybersecurity risks, the international multistakeholder community should explore practical ways to mainstream cybersecurity capacity building (CCB) into broader digital development efforts. This is also essential for building resilient societies and promoting a whole-of-society approach to dealing with threats emanating from cyberspace.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to establish and implement robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity, and strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user nocheaptraffic

Effects of Low Price of Non-targeted Web Traffic

While governmental agencies have been focusing on the topic of targeted onlline advertising and the subsequent privacy concerns, the  topic of non-targeted traffic has been left completely out of the discussion for web safety and the ethics of advertising.
 

The sale and purchase of non-targeted web traffic for the purpose of advertising has created a massive financial incentive for rampant online advertising of unregulated health products, illegitimate retailers, borderline-legal scams and predatory industries such as online gambling. These types of malignant advertisers, including many ones involved in criminal activity, depend on the low price of non-targeted traffic to continue their operations which often prey on vulnerable web users such as seniors and underage users.

A proposal as seen at https://nocheaptraffic.com suggests that the reallocation of funds from massive governmental advertising budgets could raise the price of non-targeted traffic and remove the financial incentive for the advertising of unregulated products, criminal activities and malware. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

New wording for para 4: Safe and secure

LINE 8:

The borderless nature of the Internet and the associated digital economy, the increased cyber-physical interdependency of IoT, disinformation and cybercrime paint a complex legal and operational picture for cybersecurity. A collective, collaborative multistakeholder approach is required to find meaningful ways and effective solutions to mitigate local, cross-border and global cybersecurity concerns. 

LINE 11: 

his is also essential for building resilient sustainable societies and promoting a whole-of-society approach to dealing with threats emanating from cyberspace, especially during elections times.  

LINE 17 (conclusions):

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to establish and implement robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity, and strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime. Principles of the Open internet will apply to countries that are committed to this system.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Anna Kompanek

Include perspectives from the local private sector

To assess how to ensure the digital economy remains safe and secure, multistakeholder consultations should include perspectives from local business communities from across the Global Majority, such as small and medium-sized enterprises, business associations, and chambers of commerce. These local private sector actors are important drivers of the ever-growing digital economy yet are largely excluded from crucial conversations on internet governance and cybersecurity. 

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user qshatti_1897

Safe and Secure

Cybersecurity is becoming increasingly important with the growth in internet use. Internet users are increasingly exposed to cyber risks. Economic losses from cyber risks are in the increase too. With time, we have experienced how cyber risks evolve into new patterns that we did not experience before. There is an urgent need for international and regional mechanisms to confront cyber risks and enhance cooperation in this field among all stakeholders. The need for an international convention similar to the “Budapest Convention on Cybercrime” is becoming more of an urgent matter that requires the cooperation of everyone.

0 People voted for this

auDA (.au) supports this goal

auDA broadly supports the Leadership Panel’s direction. We propose adding two areas of focus:

  • Embedding Secure-by-Design principles into the creation of all internet-connected devices, such that they are less likely to become security risks over time
  • Generating momentum - particularly in the small business and small organisation sectors - towards more effective maintenance and management of software and services, so that for example, patching and updating key systems happens more often.

Both would be best achieved by effective and well-resourced multi-stakeholder forums that bring all the relevant expertise and perspectives together so that all stakeholders are informed and can share commitments to act. Trying this approach is justified given the failure of the current global approach to deliver the levels of security that are needed.

Secure-by-Design: https://www.cyber.gov.au/resources-business-and-government/governance-and-user-education/secure-by-design#
 

0 People voted for this

Development, Data Privacy, and Int'l Peace & Security

The IWW should reiterate that international law, including the UN Charter, international humanitarian law and the international human rights law apply to the maintenance of international peace and security - including in cyberspace. The IWW should also make reference to the acquis of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, and to the establishment and operationalisation of a Cyber Programme of Action where relevant. As a call to action, the IWW should integrate the following: “We encourage all stakeholders to commit to supporting the effective implementation of the acquis, and of international law which underpins the acquis and international peace and security in cyberspace.”

 

The IWW should also recognise the asymmetries and inequalities that underlie the global digital economy, and emphasise the need for investment in digital technology for the public good by ensuring that all peoples can benefit, including groups subject to historic and structural forms of discrimination and persons in vulnerable situations. The IWW should subsequently recognise that human rights and sustainable development are not competing values but mutually reinforcing: it should reaffirm that human rights is an enabler of sustainable development – noting that the goals and targets correspond with states’ existing human rights obligations – and that attainment of the Agenda 2030 can only be achieved through the effective realisation of human rights. The IWW should also incorporate a commitment to mainstream cyber resilience across international development programming and the integration of cyber capacity building community of practise with the development field.

 

Finally, the IWW should reiterate that the protection of personal data is intrinsically linked to the right to privacy, and emphasise the importance of the adoption and implementation of comprehensive data protection frameworks The IWW should also emphasise the important role data protection safeguards play in enabling effective cybersecurity and of peace and security in the use of data-driven technologies.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

Safe and secure - AFRINIC Contribution

Promote Encryption: Advocate for the widespread adoption of strong encryption standards to protect the privacy and security of online communications. Encryption helps safeguard sensitive information from unauthorized access and surveillance, thereby fostering trust in online interactions.

 

Strengthen Cybersecurity Measures: Work to improve cybersecurity practices and resilience across the Internet ecosystem, including networks, devices, and applications. This involves promoting best practices such as regular software updates, secure coding standards, and threat intelligence sharing to prevent cyberattacks and data breaches.

 

Empower Users with Privacy Tools: Educate users about privacy-enhancing tools and technologies that enable them to control their personal data online. This includes promoting the use of virtual private networks (VPNs), ad blockers, and privacy-focused browsers to enhance users' control over their online privacy and security. Again, Africa is lagging behind so a dedicated progarm has to be customised to address this gap, with the help of Af-STARS

 

Legislation and Regulation: Advocate for the enactment and enforcement of comprehensive legislation and regulations aimed at protecting users' rights, privacy, and security online. This includes laws addressing cybersecurity, data protection, online harassment, and digital rights.

International Cooperation: Promote international collaboration and cooperation among governments, law enforcement agencies, and relevant stakeholders to combat cybercrime, address jurisdictional challenges, and harmonize legal frameworks across borders.

0 People voted for this

Embracing Secure and Inclusive Internet Governance

The fourth principle articulated by the IGF Leadership Panel for "The Internet We Want," focusing on a safe and secure digital space remains crucial recognizing cyberspace's intrinsic role in national development and societal growth. The escalating threats posed by cyber attacks, often exacerbated by varying states of cyber hygiene, underscore the critical need for effective countermeasures. The borderless nature of the internet and the complex interdependency of the cyber-physical landscape necessitate a collective, collaborative multi-stakeholder approach to address local, cross-border, and global cybersecurity concerns. India being acutely aware of the enormous opportunities it brings, coupled with the growing vulnerabilities resulting from rapid digitalization, through its active engagement in international forums like the Internet Governance Forum and ICANN, supports such collaborative efforts.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

Response from the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values’s work in 2017 gave rise to an additional Core Internet Value which was required due to the evolution of the Internet itself: Freedom from harm. 

The Internet needed to become a much safer place and the people that designed it did not foresee misuse of devices. Malware is a technical challenge and there is difficulty in applying software updates across the network, especially for the Internet of Things (“IoT”) - and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet of Things (DC-IoT) excellent work on standards relating to this topic is to be noted.

The DC-CIV proposal of Freedom from Harm (“FFH”), addressed Internet safety issues by suggesting Transparency in development of safe devices, standards development to make the Internet safer, development of these safer practices in a multi-stakeholder way, coordination between governments and organisations, and certification / good practice. We would recommend that elements of this “Freedom from Harm” are included in the above paragraph. As Freedom from Harm is essentially and traditionally a function of society and States, we call on a risk-based approach that starts from the bottom and involves other actors as necessary, with efficacious and efficient institutional design, and the participation of all stakeholders.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

Internet whitout hegemony based on fair International Law.

Internet we want is the socio-technical ecosystem based on network of interrelated sovereign and regulated local networks that is trustworthy, ethical, lawful, neutral, fair, transparent, healthy, safe, secure, family friendly, development oriented, civilian environment designed for global public good and peaceful coexistence with international governance system that is based on principles like multilateralism, truth, public interests, justice, legal rights and digital sovereignty.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

Internet without hegemony based on fair International Law.

Internet we want is the socio-technical ecosystem based on network of interrelated sovereign and regulated local networks that is trustworthy, ethical, lawful, neutral, fair, transparent, healthy, safe, secure, family friendly, development oriented, civilian environment designed for global public good and peaceful coexistence with international governance system that is based on principles like multilateralism, truth, public interests, justice, legal rights and digital sovereignty.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user chaficchaya

Fortifying the Net: RIPE NCC's Cybersecurity Imperative

Ensuring a safe and secure online environment is paramount for the RIPE NCC. We advocate for increased efforts in cybersecurity, recognising its critical role in protecting infrastructure and users alike. Our involvement in developing and promoting security best practices, alongside fostering collaboration among stakeholders, is aimed at enhancing the Internet's overall security posture, safeguarding it against evolving threats.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user akmeemana palliyaguru.rohana chaminda_53916

Legal enforcement for cross border cybersecurity matters

It is not sufficient to have cybercrime conventions to handle and obtain support for cross border cybercrimes. Such conventions does not enforce signatories to provide legal assistance, support for cybercrimes evidence collection and investigations. Most of the time to obtain personally identifiable information  (PII) related to cybercrimes it is required to go through mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) disregarding such conventions.

If there is an international cyber law, the above issues can be resolved and it will help the countries to investigate and prosecute cybercrimes in a timely and efficient manner with mandatory cross border support.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user info_7211

A safe and secure online environment for all

The Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) supports the call for a safe and secure online environment. The Coalition’s Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet highlights in Article 3 "Right to Liberty and Security on the Internet" the importance of ensuring  the  “protection against all forms of crime committed on or using the Internet” and “from services and protocols that threaten the technical functioning of the Internet”.

The IRPC notes and fully supports the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values  proposal of Freedom from Harm (“FFH”) and its suggestion of “Transparency in development of safe devices, standards development to make the Internet safer, development of these safer practices in a multi-stakeholder way, coordination between governments and organisations, and certification / good practice.”

The IRPC also highlights the crucial need for further multistakeholder collaboration to support, protect and empower minority, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups which are at higher risk of being targeted and harmed by online crime.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user israel_rosas

Internet Society Comments on Section 4 “Safe and Secure”

We agree on the need to explore and discuss the implementation of robust frameworks for a safe and secure Internet. One of the challenges facing these initiatives is an increased appetite to maintain closed discussions without securing full participation from all stakeholders, including the technical community. The members of the technical community are indispensable in the discussions, as they’re directly responsible for developing and operating crucial parts of the Internet. They can contribute with their experience and insights to avoid compromising the Internet’s critical properties that have contributed to shaping the Internet we know today. 

The development of the Internet has been based on voluntary cooperation and collaboration. Both aspects have remained essential factors for the Internet’s prosperity and potential. That’s why the success story of the Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security (MANRS) is an important achievement. MANRS is a global, community-driven initiative to improve the security and resilience of the Internet’s global routing system, Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). With support from the Internet Society, MANRS was created in 2014 by a small group of network operators who recognized the need to join forces to improve the system. MANRS has grown from nine original operators to a community of more than 1,000 participants within a decade.

The innovation fueled by the Internet would not be possible without increasing the security and trustworthiness of online interactions. Enabling technologies such as HTTPS and DNS-over-HTTPS, DNS-over-TLS, have helped ensure users can confidently bring themselves into online environments, from social life to health care to all kinds of economic interactions. Internet Society Pulse curates indicators of DNSSEC adoption by the registries for country-code domain names and data on worldwide adoption of TLS1.3 and HTTP/3. We call on all stakeholders to promote developing and using technologies and practices that enhance Internet security and safety.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Dr. Olga Kyryliuk

Submitted on behalf of the…

Submitted on behalf of the Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Consortium run by Internews and uniting over 100 organizations with local, regional, and global reach across 8 regions in 39 countries.

To establish and implement robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity, and strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime, we recommend setting the following goals:


1.  

The IGF community should undertake efforts to increase the capacity of stakeholders in cybersecurity. This can be achieved by lowering the barrier of entry for stakeholders to engage with matters relating to cybersecurity, for example: making knowledge about cybersecurity more accessible by simplifying overly technical language and translating cybersecurity policies and frameworks into national languages; undertaking collaborative efforts particularly between Global North and Global South countries; ensuring that cybersecurity protocols and regulations are grounded in respect for human rights, such as the right to privacy.


2.  

All stakeholders should tailor cybersecurity capacity-building programs to address the specific challenges faced by different countries, ensuring accessibility for those with limited resources and technical capabilities. In many countries rapidly progressing digitalization lacks nationwide awareness campaigns about potential negative consequences of uninformed decisions. Governments should also promote cybercrime incident reporting by end-users, which will improve actions directed on combatting cybercrimes. By empowering individuals and organizations with cybersecurity knowledge, we foster a culture of online safety and responsible data practices.


3.  

Ensuring a truly safe and secure internet requires ensuring inclusivity and empowering marginalized communities, including but not limited to women, indigenous peoples, and LGBTQ+ people. This includes incorporating their unique challenges and obstacles in navigating the internet into design of safety measures. One way this can be achieved is by ensuring meaningful representation of members from marginalized communities in internet governance mechanisms and bodies, as well as ensuring their meaningful participation in internet policy-making processes at the local, regional, and global levels.


4.  

Governments and private companies should commit to refraining from the use of spyware and engaging in extra-legal or disproportionate targeted surveillance practices.


5.     

Governments should ensure that their national policy and legal cybersecurity frameworks remain adaptive and effective and that they do not include vague provisions or disproportionate measures that unduly restrict fundamental human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. When adopting sectoral regulations, policies, and practices on combating cyber extremism and terrorism, governments should adhere to the UDHR and ICCPR, including the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Derogation of rights during emergencies is not absolute.


6.  

Governments should undertake multistakeholder approach when designing their cybersecurity policies with the aim to enhance cooperation and skills sharing, which is a cornerstone of effective prevention of cybercrimes.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

5. Rights-respecting

Human rights must be respected online and offline. Governments are responsible to ensure that human rights are respected, protected, and promoted, while businesses and digital service providers are obliged to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights. Governments must refrain from internet shutdowns. Any restriction of access to the Internet must be lawful, legitimate, necessary, proportional, and non-discriminatory.

All stakeholder groups have the responsibility to promote transparency, accountability, and human rights due diligence throughout the lifecycle of existing, new and emerging technologies. We have learned that certain behaviours on the Internet can be very harmful to our societies. The Internet we want will protect us from them.

A human rights-based approach to Internet governance is required in order to realize the full benefits of the Internet for all, including the rights to education, to participation in public and cultural life or to access to information, as well as empowering businesses of all sizes. To that end, standards development organisations should introduce processes to ensure due consideration of human rights in their work, including by inviting participation of experts from all stakeholder communities.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to ensure a human rights-based approach to Internet governance, and to promote human rights in the digital space.

If we are to achieve the Internet we want, we have significant multistakeholder work ahead of us, including collaboration with existing and ongoing initiatives.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

New wording for para 5: Rights respecting

LINE 3:

Human rights must be respected online and offline. Governments are responsible to ensure that human rights are respected, protected, and promoted, while businesses and digital service providers are obliged to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights, including the one of the citizens to be properly informed. Governments must refrain from internet shutdowns. 

LINE 14: 

To that end, standards development organisations should introduce processes to ensure due consideration of human rights in their work, including by inviting participation of experts from all stakeholder communities, with the aim to deliver HR compliant-by-design standards.

LINE 18:

If we are to achieve the Internet we want, we have significant multistakeholder work ahead of us, including collaboration with existing and ongoing initiatives, starting from WSIS follow up and the GDC, plus all the others concerning Artificial Intelligence.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Anna Kompanek

Embed rights considerations into the internet governance process

Multistakeholder consultations that include perspectives from Global Majority stakeholders from civil society, the local private sector, and independent media are essential in achieving a rights-respecting digital space. However, these important stakeholders are often absent or underrepresented during the development and implementation of national legislation and regional frameworks that impact the future of the internet and human rights on- and offline. Similarly, international technical bodies on internet governance should provide more opportunities for inclusive consultations across diverse stakeholder groups. Therefore, we recommend that the IGF Secretariat considers including goals for both governments and international multilateral organizations to expand opportunities for multistakeholder consultations on how to achieve a digital space that respects human rights in the digital age. 

1 People voted for this

auDA supports this goal (.au)

auDA supports the Leadership Panel’s contention that human rights apply offline and online. The human rights framework is substantially intergovernmental in character, given the nature of such frameworks are grounded in law and protected by the state (noting also the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights).

In many areas of life, it is the technology industry and the Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) that underpin the design and deployment of new and emerging technology. It is essential that, in pursuing innovation, human rights centered designs are the norm and appropriate human rights guardrails are included.  Where they are not, new and emerging technologies can pose an increased risk to human rights.

It may be that internet governance and human rights stakeholders should be convened (under the auspices of the IGF) to consider the issue of how the internet governance system – not just SDOs but, the IGF processes, WSIS, and indeed all parts of the community – can better integrate human rights-supporting approaches in their work, and come to a common understanding of how the human rights framework can best be included and fully implemented online.

Given the rapid pace of change in technology, including those that rely on the internet, this may need to be an ongoing dialogue over time.

0 People voted for this

Ensure Grounding in IHRL and Frameworks

This section would be strengthened if it begins with reference to the “universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, other relevant instruments relating to human rights, and international law" and then followed by “any restriction of access to the Internet must be lawful, legitimate, necessary, proportional, and non-discriminatory.” This could be in addition to the point that “Governments are responsible to ensure that human rights are respected, protected, and promoted while businesses and digital service providers are obliged to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights.”

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Brice_ABBA

5. Rights-respecting - AFRINIC Contribution

Legal Frameworks and Protections: Advocate for the development and enforcement of legal frameworks that protect fundamental human rights in the digital space, including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, access to information, and non-discrimination. This includes updating existing laws and international treaties to address emerging digital issues and ensuring that digital rights are upheld both online and offline.

 

Digital Privacy and Data Protection: Promote strong data protection laws and regulations that safeguard individuals' privacy rights and limit the collection, use, and retention of personal data by governments and corporations. Advocate for transparency and accountability in data processing practices, including clear consent mechanisms, data minimization, and user control over personal information.

 

Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: Facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration among governments, civil society organizations, technology companies, academia, and other stakeholders to address complex digital rights issues and develop inclusive, rights-based solutions. Support initiatives that promote transparency, accountability, and meaningful participation in decision-making processes related to digital policy and governance.

International Human Rights Standards: Uphold and promote international human rights standards and principles in the digital space, including those articulated in treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Advocate for the application of human rights principles in digital policymaking, regulation, and practice at the national, regional, and international levels.

0 People voted for this

Embracing a Rights-Respecting Internet Future

In alignment with the fifth principle set by the IGF Leadership Panel, emphasizing a rights-respecting digital space, it is imperative that human rights must be upheld both online and offline. Governments play a vital role in ensuring the protection, promotion, and respect of human rights, while businesses and digital service providers must adhere to applicable laws and uphold these rights. The unequivocal rejection of internet shutdowns and the insistence that any restriction on internet access must be lawful, legitimate, necessary, proportional, and non-discriminatory underscores the commitment to safeguarding individual liberties leading to an internet wanted by all. Recognizing the potential harm certain behaviors on the Internet can inflict on societies, the desired digital future prioritizes protective measures. Embracing a human rights-based approach to internet governance is deemed essential for unlocking the Internet's full benefits, including the rights to education, participation in public and cultural life, access to information, and empowerment for businesses of all sizes. As part of this commitment, standards development organizations are urged to incorporate processes ensuring due consideration of human rights in their work, actively inviting experts from diverse stakeholder communities to contribute to a rights-respecting Internet.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

Response from the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

The Core Internet Value of User Centricity places the end user at the centre of the Internet’s purpose. In the face of all the challenges to the Internet’s Core Values, the only way to keep the end user at the centre of the Internet is to follow a human rights-based approach to Internet Governance, Coordination and Development. Human rights are fundamental to keep the Internet serving humanity and the greater good. As stated in our introductory comment, extreme care is needed in order to preserve the entire, global, interoperable, open Internet as a part, and not in opposition, to all other human rights. The problem of conflict of rights must be transformed into one of coexistence of rights over an Internet infrastructure that continues to evolve, adapt, and provide benefits to all.

A like-minded initiative to be noted is the work led by our sister coalition, the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC), with its Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet, on awareness raising and promotion of Human Rights in the online environment. We highly recommend the use of their work in the context of “rights-respecting”.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

Internet whitout hegemony.

Internet we want is the socio-technical ecosystem based on network of interrelated sovereign and regulated local networks that is trustworthy, ethical, lawful, neutral, fair, transparent, healthy, safe, secure, family friendly, development oriented, civilian environment designed for global public good and peaceful coexistence with international governance system that is based on principles like multilateralism, truth, public interests, justice, legal rights and digital sovereignty.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user chaficchaya

Rights-First Internet: RIPE NCC's Human-Centric Approach

The RIPE NCC is steadfast in its commitment to a human-centric Internet that respects fundamental human rights. We believe in the Internet as a platform for freedom of expression, access to information, and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. Through our policy development processes and community engagement, we strive to ensure that the Internet remains a space that upholds and protects individual rights.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user info_7211

5. Rights respecting 6. Environmentally sustainable

The Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) fully supports the call to ensure a human rights-based approach to Internet Governance. This coalition was established in 2008 and has been working under the umbrella of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) “to uphold human rights on the internet and to embed internet governance decision making processes and system designs in human rights standards”.

The coalition’s main output document, the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet and its 10 Internet Rights and Principles connects existing human rights law and norms with rights-based aspirations for the online environment. It draws on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other covenants that make up the International Bill of Human Rights at the United Nations and it is the outcome of a collaborative work among all stakeholders. Its goal is to provide a recognisable and authoritative framework anchored in international human rights for upholding and advancing human rights for the online environment.

The IRPC agrees that States are legally obliged to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of their citizens online and offline and that the “right to access the Internet” as per Article 1 of its Charter is not only necessary but increasingly indispensable for the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Any restrictions, including internet shutdowns, must therefore be lawful, non-discriminatory, time-limited, legitimate and necessary in a democratic society.

The IRPC agrees that other stakeholder groups, including the private sector - in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, have the responsibility to respect human rights in the online environment.

This coalition believes that the Internet Governance Forum with its multistakeholder model is crucial to promote an open and transparent discussion on issues related to digital human rights. Its intersessional work, particularly its Dynamic Coalitions are vital spaces for multistakeholder dialogue and collaboration among different stakeholder groups.

The challenges to human rights in the digital environment are a growing concern and stakeholder groups must come together to tackle the worrying spread of disinformation and misinformation campaigns, online discrimination, online hate speech and other forms of cybercrime.

Cooperation in Internet Governance is vital to ensure that current and emerging technologies are inclusive, sustainable, non-discriminatory and rooted in democratic processes, the rule of law and human rights. 

Multisatkeholder collaboration is also necessary to ensure transparency, accountability and the development of clear regulatory frameworks, the incorporation of human rights and sustainability frameworks into AI systems and their regular monitoring. 

A multistakeholder effort is crucial to ensure that the rights of minorities and vulnerable and disadvantaged groups - including the rights of refugees and displaced people, disabled people, indigenous people, women, children and the elderly, journalists and human rights defenders are protected in the online environment. 

Solutions must be sought through multistakeholder cooperation for the protection of the Internet and internet-connected technologies and services in times of crisis and conflict to ensure that meaningful access is not disrupted and to promote promote peace and cooperation. This may take the form of humanitarian ICT services and peace infrastructure projects to provide assistance when Internet access is severed.

The IRPC also suggests the following edits:

First paragraph:
Where it reads: “Governments must refrain from internet shutdowns. Any restriction of access to the Internet must be lawful, legitimate, necessary, proportional, and non-discriminatory.” 

Add sentence: “Governments must uphold and protect the fundamental rights and freedoms online particularly the rights of minorities, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.”

Second paragraph:
Where it reads: “We have learned that certain behaviours on the Internet can be very harmful to our societies. The Internet we want will protect us from them. “

Replace with: “Certain behaviours and practices on the Internet including internet shutdowns, disinformation and misinformation campaigns, online discrimination, online hate speech and other forms of cybercrime have very harmful impacts in society. Multistakeholder cooperation can help eradicate those harmful practices and will help us achieve the Internet we want.”

Third paragraph
Where it reads: “To that end, standards development organisations should introduce processes to ensure due consideration of human rights in their work, including by inviting participation of experts from all stakeholder communities.

Replace with: “To that end, standard-setting organisations  should introduce processes to ensure due consideration of human rights in their work including the  invitation of experts from all stakeholder communities to participate in these discussions.

 


 

6. Environmentally sustainable 

In line with the call for the adoption of environmentally friendly practices shared above and drawing on this IRPC's work through Article 4 of the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet: "Right to Development Through the Internet", this coalition believes it is crucial to ensure the promotion of an environmentally sustainable digital transformation. 

Human rights and environmental sustainability are intrinsically connected and should be at the core of Internet Governance. The IGF community has a responsibility to ensure that both are fully embedded in the Internet Governance practices and discussions to promote an inclusive and sustainable internet for all.

The IRPC suggests the following addition:

“6. Environmentally sustainable 
As the UN SDGs look to connect the next billion, human rights and environmental sustainability must be fully considered in Internet Governance agendas and beyond and embedded in the rules, policies, standards and practices that coordinate and shape the Internet.  A human-centric digital transition that is diverse, inclusive, democratic, and sustainable is needed to ensure that Internet-connected technologies cause no harm to people and the environment. 

  • All stakeholders, particularly governments and the private sector and the technical community, must make environmental sustainability an integral part of all internet policy-making agendas, and investment decisions into new and emerging technologies.
  • The technical community and the private sector must lead the way by including life cycle assessment experts in all teams and ensuring and promoting human rights and sustainability by design.
  • Civil society has an important role to play by providing crucial education and raising awareness in their communities so that everyone can be empowered to demand a human-centric and environmentally sustainable digital transformation.
  • Multistakeholder collaboration is vital for effective solutions. Dialogue and collaboration is key to avoid siloed decisions, to promote the development of informed policy frameworks and create a space for sharing good practices that promote rights and sustainability by design. The private sector,  governments, civil society, and the technical and scientific communities must come together to better develop and promote a green digital transformation.
     

We must ensure the promotion of:

  • A standardised methodology and indicators which are vital to assess and monitor the environmental and social impact of digital technologies, to avoid greenwashing, to promote transparency, and to enable evidence based decision-making at the regulatory and political levels. International coordination is imperative in this regard as it can help promote  a circular economy, facilitate the sharing of environmental data and ensure transparency;
  • Accountable, practical and effective regulatory frameworks that ensure sustainability throughout the entire life cycle of technologies: from the use of natural resources design and production to their consumption and disposal;  measure the impact on Internet-connected technologies on the environment and ensure transparency;
  • Circular production and consumption, clear standards in procurement and  sustainable business models;
  • Education for sustainability for more sustainable and informed choices. 

We call for multistakeholder dialogue and cooperation for better governance and to ensure the development of human rights-based and sustainability-by-design approaches to new and emerging technologies.”

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user israel_rosas

Internet Society Comments on Section 5 “Rights- Respecting”

The Internet has become an indispensable resource for information, communication, human connection, and human rights. It has fueled extraordinary economic growth and catalyzed social progress, enabling more and more people and communities to achieve their full potential in improving their quality of life. We reaffirm the commitments needed to bridge the digital divide, which can only be achieved by adhering to the multistakeholder model for Internet governance.

Emerging major threats to the open Internet—such as fragmentation and shutdowns—can negatively impact the Internet and its properties. Some pose a serious risk to the Internet as we know it today and to its future, with the potential of creating barriers not only for exercising human rights but for the full range of opportunities enabled by the Internet. The Internet Society believes Internet shutdowns harm societies, economies, and the Internet's technical infrastructure, as the NetLoss Calculator illustrates. We are therefore working to encourage governments and decision-makers everywhere to support policies that keep the Internet on and resilient as the foundation for modern societies that offer people the opportunity for a more prosperous and secure future. Internet shutdowns constitute a major risk for many businesses and investors, including those building infrastructure and/or developing services.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Dr. Olga Kyryliuk

Submitted on behalf of the…

Submitted on behalf of the Greater Internet Freedom (GIF) Consortium run by Internews and uniting over 100 organizations with local, regional, and global reach across 8 regions in 39 countries.

To ensure a human rights-based approach to Internet governance, and to promote human rights in the digital space, we recommend setting the following goals:


1.  

Governments should establish rights-respecting legal frameworks fostering more inclusive and trustworthy digital future for all. To ensure a just and secure online environment, governments should prioritize the continuous development and revision of respective digital policies, laws, and regulations, while ensuring that these legal frameworks protect fundamental human rights, including privacy, personal data protection, freedom of expression, and equitable access to information and resources. 


2.  

Governments should adhere to the multistakeholder approach to public consultation on relevant digital policies and legislation, as well as engage all relevant stakeholders in their respective roles in the monitoring mechanisms over the implementation of approved policies and legislation.


3.  

Given the increasing frequency of government-mandated internet shutdowns across the world, governments and the IGF community should seek to enact legally binding obligations, at both local and international levels, to make governments explicitly commit to refrain from internet shutdowns. To ensure its effective enforcement, an international mechanism can be established to document instances of internet shutdowns and bring governments to accountability for arbitrary internet shutdowns.


4.  

Recognizing the role of private sector actors in ensuring respect for the enjoyment of human rights in the digital space, IGF community should explore ways to identify how the private sector affects the enjoyment of human rights in the digital space and demand accountability in situations where private sector actors have been violating their commitment to respect human rights. One way this can be achieved is through the enactment and enforcement of mandatory human rights due diligence for tech companies in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.


5.  

To avoid arbitrary and undue interference with human rights in the digital space, governments and other stakeholders should collaborate to provide adequate and continuous capacity-building to state authorities, including law enforcement officials, public prosecutors, judges, and national human rights institutions, on the application of international human rights law and standards concerning human rights in the digital space.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Report from Expert Group Meeting

Report from Expert Group Meeting

Below are the key action points from the IGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) hosted in New York on 30 March - 1 April 2022. The EGM action points are subject to public commenting. Comments can be added through the platform below after each section by clicking on ''View and Add Comments for Paragraph''.
A full report of the EGM is available here.

Deadline to post comments is 26 May 2022.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anonymous Wed, 13/04/2022 - 22:35

[EGM REPORT]

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) convened an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) from 30 March to 1 April 2022.  The Meeting was hosted by the Mission of the Government of Finland in New York. 

The meeting was convened, in the context of the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and report on Our Common Agenda, to consider:

  • how the IGF can contribute to ‎advancing digital cooperation and implementing proposed initiatives related to it; and
  • the ongoing process on strengthening and improving the IGF as a space for ‎global multistakeholder discussion on Internet policy issues. 

The meeting was attended by 35 invited experts from developing and developed countries and from diverse stakeholder groups concerned with Internet governance and the IGF including governments, international and intergovernmental organisations, the private sector, civil society and the technical community.   

The agenda was structured through a series of sessions exploring different aspects of its theme.  These began on Day 1 with discussion of the role of the IGF in relation to the Digital Cooperation agenda and the development of ‘actionable’ outputs; continued on Day 2 with discussions, in the light of those held on Day 1, of the IGF’s plenary and intersessional activities and the future roles of its Leadership Panel and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG); and concluded on Day 3 with discussion of fundraising, outreach and capacity development. 

This short report lists the observations and suggestions made during each session on which there was significant consensus.  A longer version of this report includes more detail concerning discussions at the Meeting.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

35 invited experts from developing and developed countries

IGF is a Multistakeholder group or concept with bottoms up approach. 
why is it that every time when it comes to topics like representation, inclusion and diversity the lower economic region  countries are missed out. I see the same people in the internet community with the same issue and same agenda. IGF has to grow better than the concept of gender in the inclusion, New and fresh leaders in the concept of representation and  diversity.

I highly recommend  to the IGF secretariat to have better inclusive and collaborative approach with new and fresh leaders from the community. 
 

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

EGM Report consultation process

It is important to read the full EGM report (only 21 pages covering 11 themes) at  https://www.intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/8/21302  because it provides the necessary context and explanations in order to fully understand the rationales for all the observations and suggestions.

More time should have been allowed for large corporate organisations and public agencies, governments and regulators, and for the NRIs and dynamic coalitions in the IGF eco-system, to consult their stakeholder communities and members on the EGM's proposals. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Introduction

The EGM held detailed and active discussions on each item on its agenda, beginning with the framework for digital cooperation identified by the Secretary-General and, in that light, considering how the IGF can most effectively contribute to digital cooperation, improve and develop its own work, and establish partnerships and directions for the future. 

Participants recognised that the Internet has changed markedly in the seventeen years since the mandate for the IGF was established at WSIS, and that the Forum needs to adapt, innovate and reform in response to this.  Critical changes since that time relate not just to the technology and services that constitute the Internet, but to its increasingly pervasive reach; its impact on economy, society and culture; its effects on relations between government, business and the citizen; and its relationship with further innovations in digital technology, such as artificial intelligence.  International discourse on these issues is increasingly concerned with the interface between the Internet and other areas of public policy, and with risks as well as opportunities associated with pervasive digitalisation as this reshapes societies in ways that are often unpredictable.  It now takes place within a much larger range of institutions and decision-making fora than was the case when the IGF was founded.

It was generally recognised in the Meeting that the modalities established at the Forum’s outset have served it well, and that its model of multistakeholder dialogue has been both successful and influential.  It was also recognised that these modalities need to evolve.  The Forum itself has changed over the years, transitioning from an annual conference to an ecosystem that includes intersessional activities and regional and national fora alongside its global meeting.  There have been a number of discussions over the past decade concerning possible improvements to the IGF, especially concerned with the call for it to develop more substantive outcomes.  There has been increased focus recently on finding ways for the Forum to become more coherent and cohesive, taking a more holistic view of its various components and leveraging these for greater impact.  The emergence of the Digital Cooperation agenda and the introduction of the Leadership Panel reflect heightened awareness of digital issues across the UN system and provide an opportunity for the IGF community and stakeholders to reflect on how it should develop and revitalise, and implement improvements, ahead of the scheduled mandate review in 2025.

Observations and suggestions

The following observations and suggestions arose from the discussion.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

International discourse on these issues is increasingly concerne

IGF has a bigger hinderance of 
1. communication barriers 
2. lack of core values 
3. Language barriers 
4. Many more 

At regional level generally what happens is the bigger nation eats up the smaller nation issues. The major focus goes to the good communication skills and a lot of the times proposal and discussion happens on the basis of merit of evaluation  not on seriousness  of the issue.

Asia is dominated by the few developed nation where the focus goes to those nation whoes representative have good English and china is excluded out of it. There is a greater part of the politics that goes hand to hand with this   

The core issue of the multistakeholder challenges at grassroots level remains same and untouched. 

At national level a lot of the times NGOs and INGOs manifests their problems and challenges exploiting the opportunity  where the grassroots level issues and problems remains untouched. 

 

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Kapil Goyal

Reply to

Lack of political will power

Dear Shri, 

Apart from said concerns, I believe Lack of strong support from regional and state government is one of the key issue. We all need to voice our concern at various stakeholders meet both online and offline to address this issue. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

On how internet has changed, and pervasive reach/digitalization

Within the Internet ecosystem, change is inevitable. The "change" is not technical but largely driver by the users. But what the participants in this meeting should have weighed is whether this mutated internet ecosystem over the years has served the IGF's interests which was mandated 17 years ago. Where have we failed and where have we succeeded? Have we really endorsed the multistakeholder governance model? Have we made taken substantial leaps every year(or an assigned timeframe) to practice this model?

In choice of words, "pervasive" should be balanced with "progressive" too. Use of only one word can bring negative connotations. 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

IGF and the Global Digital Compact (GDC)

I agree with the report's advocacy of the IGF being the preeminent multistakeholder platform for developing the Global Digital Compact  which will also be an important milestone in the lead up to the WSIS+20 review and the UN's review of the IGF mandate in 2025. The Compact  will also be an important milestone in the lead up to the WSIS+20 review and IGF mandate review in 2025. The timeline for agreeing the Compact ahead of next year's Summit for the Future includes the holding of only one IGF meeting. The planning now for this year's IGF in Addis Ababa should therefore include an open preparatory phase for agreeing and delivering  a substantive contribution to the Compact that is based on inclusive multistakeholder discussion involving communities in all regions of the world. The global network of over 150 regional, sub-regional, national and youth IGFs needs to be involved in this process as soon as possible in order for them to hold stakeholder consultations within their own timelines and schedules of events. The views of young people need to be taken into account in the Compact.      

1 People voted for this

The Forum itself has changed…

The Forum itself has changed over the years, transitioning from an annual conference to an ecosystem that includes intersessional activities and regional and national fora alongside its global meeting. 

credit card processing 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

1.   The role of the IGF in relation to the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Our Common Agenda

  1. The IGF is an ecosystem and should act as a platform for stakeholder engagement on implementation of the Roadmap and development of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) which is to be prepared ahead of the Summit of the Future.  Steps towards this would include consultation within and beyond the IGF community and could include aggregation by the Forum of inputs from diverse organisations.
  2. National, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives (NRIs) should be invited to support this process, in order to enable comprehensive local input, by conducting their own consultations and discussions on their own agendas.
  3. The Secretariat should consider what existing outputs from the IGF ecosystem could contribute towards the GDC, and how this contribution might be realised.
  4. The annual meeting in 2022 should focus on the GDC, building on the MAG’s decision to align the agenda with its overarching theme and five focus areas.  The MAG should consider how to facilitate this, in order to encourage more focused discussions, leading to more substantive messages of particular relevance to the GDC.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

National, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives (NRIs)

Should add and highlight independent "individuals" in the process.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user amritachoudhury8_1459

Role of IGF wrt Roadmap of DC and GDC

Agree with all the recommendations mentioned under Point 1.   The role of the IGF in relation to the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Our Common Agenda.

Additinally,  IGF will also have to play a role with the help of the NRIs need to conduct capacity building sessions to explain to different communities spread across the globe (who may not have a similar understanding) on what the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Our Common Agenda is. This will help to get inputs from communities who till now have not engaged in IGF processes. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

2.   The relationship of the IGF to intergovernmental, international and other decision-making bodies, including those within the Internet governance ecosystem and those in wider global governance

1.   The MAG should consider the needs of other organisations and decision-making bodies, concerning the Internet itself and issues impacted by the Internet, when deciding its agenda.  To achieve this, it should identify/map organisations and decision-making spaces that are particularly relevant to its work and prioritise the development of relationships with them.

2.  Stronger interactions should be built with other UN and international entities, including the General Assembly, the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, the Office of the Envoy on Technology, lead agencies within the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) that facilitate the implementation of WSIS outcomes, and the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development.  IGF outputs should be communicated to UN entities and consideration given to how these can disseminate them and raise the visibility of the Forum with Member States.

3.   The Leadership Panel should play a leading role in promoting IGF outputs and building relationships with senior staff including those in government and business communities, not least by encouraging participation by senior personnel in the annual meeting’s high-level and parliamentary tracks.

4.   The work of the Leadership Panel should, as resources permit, be supported by a dedicated member of the Secretariat staff with responsibility for liaising with decision-making bodies and enhancing the Forum’s visibility.

5.   The annual IGF meeting could consider including an additional special track for judges, lawyers and law enforcement specialists, in addition to the existing high level and parliamentary tracks.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The Leadership Panel should play a leading role in promoting IGF

The most important role of MAG or leadership panel is to give continuation of what our MAG chair Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen achieved. The MAG process needs to be fluid and open,  transparent and more collaborative with the community and people. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

Stronger interactions should be built with other UN and internat

maybe including that stronger interactions should be built between National and Regional initiatives and the UN entities. For example this year for the first time we had some sinergies between the Youth Coalition and the UNGMCY, maybe that could be the start of a relationship that is mutual benefit for widening the IGF worldwide.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

Top priority should be to fulfill SDG, target 9.c

The Sustainable Development Goal -target 9.c commits to “Significantly increase access to information and communication technologies and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the internet in least developed countries by 2020.” But nearly two year has passed since the deadline.  It is becoming more urgent to achieve this goal- hence all the UN agencies and respective stakeholder should concentrate and progress towards achieving this as the foremost priority. "Access" is the most important thing and LDC's are decrying for what they think is  a "privilege"- while this is a fundamental "right". 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Role of the Leadership Panel

I support the role of the Leadership Panel as "ambassadors for the IGF", promoting worldwide the IGF model of multistakeholder governance and the impact of the IGF's  outputs. The Panel has a key role in increasing the diversity of participation in all IGF sessions so that they include more high level policy makers from governments and regulators, more decision-takers from industry sectors and representative organisations outside the Internet's technical community and service providers, and more representatives of youth organisations. The Panel should work in close coordination with the MAG in identifying priority themes, and key global/regional issues for the IGF's multi-year strategy. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

3.   Development of outputs and expected outcomes that will facilitate the extended role of IGF in the international decision-making ecosystem

1.   The MAG, supported by the Secretariat, should plan strategically to develop actionable outputs that address issues which matter to decision-making bodies, on which it can make a substantial contribution (building on its unique multistakeholder character and ecosystem), and consider how to build consensus towards such actionable outputs.  This goal relates to consideration of issue focus and multi-annual programming (see session/theme 7).

2.   Outputs should be focused on the needs of target audiences.  A limited number of concise messages, focused on programme themes, should be prepared at or following the end of annual meetings.  These should be forwarded to the Secretary-General for the attention of the General Assembly, and separately addressed to Internet governance entities and senior decision-makers.  The Leadership Panel could play an important role in ensuring that IGF messages reach these intended targets.  More substantial, evidence-based supporting outputs are appropriate for policy advisers and for subject experts. 

3.   The development of outputs should involve all parts of the IGF ecosystem, including discussions and participants in NRIs as well as the main meeting and intersessional activities, in order to maximise the value of experience within the IGF community.

4.   The Secretariat should map outputs that have already been prepared, identifying those that could be used now to contribute to decision-making processes and to the GDC. 

5.    The MAG should consider what outputs might result from IGF discussions when structuring the annual agenda.  It should encourage session organisers to have the scope for potential recommendations and outputs in mind when planning sessions.  The meeting programme should be structured in ways that build momentum towards outputs (see session/theme 7).

6.  A new communications strategy should be developed to enhance the visibility of the Forum, including the promotion of outputs/messages.  This could include new dissemination mechanisms such as senior-level and “ambassadorial” endorsements, policy briefings, seminars and improved website content.  Modalities should be included to enable impact assessment.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

A new communications strategy should be developed

Communication has been a major challenges in the community
1. From collaborating with the leaders to getting feedback from the community, Ambassadors, leaders,  fellows  and new leader should also be given responsibility and opportunity to grow 
2. A collaborative inter communication strategy should be developed with all (I star organization ) for better collaboration 
3. Better engagement strategy is also needed 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

Development of outputs and expected outcomes that will facilitat

This was widely discussed at least since 2016, about maintaining a real bottom-up structure, that is, where the outputs of the national IGF events go to the regional ones (this does not have to be ordered in 1 year but in a process continuous). From the regional to the global, in this way, all the workaround public policies, replication, and other elements of digital cooperation that are being lost today can be captured.

The idea then would be to fine-tune these processes of multistakeholderism, including artificial intelligence for consensus and having a single text-based platform like the IGF Review platform that we're using right now, extended to really be able to seek consensus. There should be some committee of volunteers or experts in the area who carry out the consensus with the help of some AI tool.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

On Communication Strategy

The communication strategy should be revamped every year in accordance with the new trends and platforms. Transmedia storytelling could be a great way to move forward for wider reach and simplified content.  Different mediums and platforms for communication can be used for disseminating variety of content. Let's focus on identifying, how the same content can be modified for serving various mediums. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

IGF Outputs

It is important for the impact of the IGF's more substantive outputs to be measured,  reported and promoted worldwide through the UN system with the help of the Leadership Panel. The IGF session organisers have an important role in contributing to the definition and context of key "messages" and tangible outcomes such as menus of policy options, charters of principles, toolkits and guidelines, so that they can be promoted by the Panel as based on the authoritative consensus of experts convened by the IGF. The leaders and coordinators of the intersessional work of the IGF's policy networks, best practice fora and the dynamic coalitions should also be regularly consulted by the Leadership Panel on the definition, progress, reporting and dissemination of IGF outputs.  This will also help to achieve more cross-fertilisation and coherence within the IGF eco-system on issues of shared concern, and reduce the incidence of work being conducted  in silos of IGF activity.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

4.   The IGF ecosystem

1.   The IGF should describe itself as an ecosystem rather than an annual conference that has accrued associated activities.  This will recognise the importance of intersessional activities and NRIs.

2.   MAG and Leadership Panel terms of reference should pay more attention to the wider ecosystem.  Named members of the MAG should take responsibility for liaison with intersessional activities and NRIs.  Members of the Panel could also engage with these initiatives.

3.   Intersessional activities should be integrated in the work of the annual meeting.  They should be offered enhanced opportunities to contribute to main sessions and other programme components, rather than being directed into siloed sessions that focus on their own activities.  Intersessional activities should also consider how they can contribute most effectively to the programme of the annual meeting.

4.    Intersessional bodies and NRIs should be invited by the MAG to play a more substantial role in developing the annual programme.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Intersessional bodies and NRIs should be invited by the MAG

The NRI is a loose network of national and regional level initiatives which has to be driven in a more progressive way.

1. There has to better opportunity of learning, funding and collaboration  
 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Integration of Dynamic Coalitions in the IGF meeting

The IGF's Dynamic Coalitions have great potential as pools of global expertise that can serve as policy incubators for the overall IGF process. Representatives of the Dynamic Coalitions should therefore be invited by the MAG to participate in the IGF programme planning, the various activities and events in the IGF’s preparatory phases, in the development of the IGF’s multi-year strategy  and the process for agreeing priority themes. I agree therefore with the suggestion that IGF main session organisers reach out to dynamic coalitions for their participation in particular when a clear thematic linkage has been identified.   

It must be borne in mind that the DCs are voluntary associations of stakeholders who bond together in the global IGF eco-system in order to advance a shared interest and objectives in a specific policy area or issue. As such they do all not easily conform to a single template or set of rules of procedure. However, they should be mindful of the importance of demonstrating transparency and accountability in their process for reaching decisions based on rough consensus so that their outputs are received by target audiences as credible for adoption and implementation.

The suggestion in the report that the MAG "should....encourage DCs to focus on issues related to the main themes of the annual meeting" runs counter to the DC concept because it introduces an external direction of their activities and priorities. In the follow up to the EGM report, the MAG should therefore discuss this suggestion with the Dynamic Coalitions Coordination Group (DCCG).  

I agree that intersessional activities would benefit substantially from enhanced reporting, profiling and visibility generally in the IGF eco-system. This would enable them to gain strength and diversity of participation, enhance their sustainability in resources, and recognition of their outputs by policy-makers and decision-takers worldwide. I support the EGM  report's suggestion of achieving this through greater prominence on the website and other media, and updating of their progress for example in regular online bulletins and opportunities such as media interviews with the lead coordinators for individual PNs, BPFs and dynamic coalitions.   

 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

5.   The role and work of intersessional bodies, including dynamic coalitions (DCs), best practice forums (BPFs) and policy networks (PNs)

  1. The MAG should commission BPFs and PNs and encourage DCs to focus on issues related to the main themes of the annual meeting.  With multi-year programming, this could enable iterative dialogue between the annual meeting and intersessional activity which would enhance the quality of outputs.
  2. Intersessional activities should establish focal points responsible for reaching out to potential participants within and beyond the IGF community, including UN bodies, in order to engage them with their work.
  3. Modalities should be identified to strengthen the work of Dynamic Coalitions, including procedures and responsibilities to IGF stakeholders; guidelines for participation and deliberation; and quality standards for the work they produce.  This would help to validate the work presented by DCs and facilitate their contribution to IGF outputs.  Appropriate models may be available from other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. 
  4. The Secretariat should seek to raise awareness of intersessional outputs through the website, social media and other communications.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

6.   The role and work of national, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives (NRIs)

  1. The MAG should consider ways of enhancing the participation of NRIs at the annual meeting.  It was suggested, for example, that they might be invited to contribute more substantially to the development and/or delivery of main sessions rather than focusing primarily on a collaborative session.
  2. MAG and Leadership Panel members should be encouraged to play an active part in their communities’ and regions’ NRIs.  At least one member of the MAG should take responsibility for liaison with NRIs.
  3. NRIs should be encouraged to discuss some or all of the forthcoming annual meeting’s selected themes/topics in the year before each annual meeting, and to submit observations concerned with national experience to that meeting.
  4. More attention should be paid to networking between NRIs to share experience.  A common platform, for instance, could be developed for coordination of youth NRIs.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The role and work of national, regional, sub-regional and youth

The most important things for any national, regional, sub-regional and youth initiative has to be transparent, accountable  and open to all. A lot of the times these initiatives is run by selective group and people with vested interest. These initiative have to be monitored and most importantly cross checked.  

IGF funding in such initiative has to be open and accountable and needs to have a process to verify its social existence. 

Values 
1. Openness 
2. Accountable 
3. Transparent 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Integration of NRIs and youth initiatives

The NRIs provide an extremely valuable two-way channel between discussions at the global level and the diversity of regional and local experience. Youth initiatives such as the Youth Coalition of Internet Governance (YCIG) and YouthDIG in the European region provide the route for young people and young professionals to bring their perspectives for the future to the forum at the centre of the global Internet governance eco-system, for the attention of policymakers in governments and decision-takers in industry. There needs therefore to be much more effective engagement with them in the programme development of the IGF. Session organisers should seek to involve NRI and yout representatives in the conduct of their sessions.

Annual NRI events and related youth events take place throughout the year so ways need to be found to mitigate the practical challenges of integrating the IGF's annual timeline of for calls for themes etc leading to an end-of-year meeting with the highly varied timelines of NRI processes for stakeholder consultations etc.    

  

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

7.   The annual meeting of the IGF, including multi-year programming, hybrid format and issue focus in programme development

  1. Future annual meetings should be hybrid, with attention paid to enabling equal participation by online and face-to-face participants.  This will require further improvements in the Forum’s online facilities and innovative approaches to facilitating networking.  Adjustments to cater for time zones will need to be considered.  The technical community may be able to assist in developing appropriate modalities.
  1. The MAG, supported by the Secretariat, should develop a multi-year programme, integrating the annual meeting with intersessional activity and, where appropriate and desired, with NRIs.  This could include iterative dialogue between successive annual sessions and intersessional activities, allowing the latter and NRIs to participate more effectively in output generation.  The Leadership Panel should work with the MAG in developing this programme.
  2. Within this context, the MAG should focus each annual meeting on a smaller range of more specific topics, concerned with issues of importance in international decision-making on the Internet and impact of the Internet.  These should be selected following consultation with IGF stakeholders, discussion with other stakeholders including UN agencies, and input from the Leadership Panel.  There should be opportunities for emerging and urgent issues to be added to the programme if required.
  3. The MAG should invite proposals for workshop and other sessions to be submitted on these selected topics, thereby enabling greater focus to be achieved across the programme.  Session types should be reviewed and consolidated, and opportunities taken to experiment with modalities like ‘open space’.  There should be dialogue between the MAG and session organisers throughout the period between session approval and the annual meeting, to ensure quality of delivery and maximise the contribution that all sessions make to the Forum as a whole.
  4. More attention should be paid to integrating the high-level and parliamentary tracks with main and other sessions.  In particular, the high-level track could be moved from the beginning of the meeting to the end, when it would be informed by discussions in main and other sessions that had already occurred and contribute to the finalisation of messages and other outputs.  The Leadership Panel should actively encourage participation in these tracks.
  5. The MAG should focus on broad programming issues and revert much of the responsibility for workshop evaluation to the Secretariat. 
  6. Expertise from the technical community could assist in supporting technical implementation of the meeting, including improvements to the website display of the programme, search functions, and adjustments to the modalities of online participation.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

hybrid format and issue focus in programme development

A better engagement strategy has to be developed at leadership, communication and operation level. The efficiency of the event  cannot be evaluated with the number of people who have participated but how many communities have been reached and what are take their away from the forum.

Regarding the submission of the proposals a relative strategy have to developed promoting generic issues and problems of the region. As a lot of the times evaluation is based on merit basis where stereotype representation is done on the basis of gender, population, people and region....

Just because a person is not able to communicate doesn't mean he or she is not part of the multistakeholder engagement. It is our responsibility to bring such voice to the table as we are the privilege ones to lead the community.       

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

The annual meeting of the IGF, including multi-year programming,

In order to widen the IGF, a possibility could be to shape it more like the IETF is. The IETF has 3 hybrid sessions each year, but the actual work happens at the mailing list and drafts, ordered by WG and area. The IGF is similar to the IETF process, but it lacks best-ordered documentation processes. In order to achieve recommendations and best practices for the worldwide Internet-related matters and public policies, and in order to widen the voice of IGF I come up with 4 opportunities:
* Take the Leadership Panel as a session for compile the results of the intersessional process at the time of the panel.
* Creation of a platform for policy recommendations based on the bottom-up multistakeholder model including NRI, DCs, BPFs and PNs and the MAG.
* Follow an SDGs/HR approach, via software so people can match with concepts for consensus-driven discussions.
* Expand the sessions at the GLOBAL IGF to include different timezones and maintain a IGF Review platform sites with public comments linked for every session. so the more disadvantaged in terms of language barriers, and timezones could catch up with the content of the session and put comments and questions for 1 or 2 weeks period, so the meaningful part of the session will happen via the platform instead of the session itself (more like the IETF)

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

Developing sophisticated platforms to secure online format

It is important to develop better platforms for online participants. In 2021, online platforms were zoom bombed with explicit contents which was a shame for all of us. We should ensure, better safety when it comes to online platforms. We should  concentrate on solving this problem for this year's hybrid IGF.

While hybrid is a great way to ensure more participating it comes with more challenges. Unstable internet, power cuts and lower bandwidth can hassle users from lower economies. IGF should facilitate access to the needy ones who require uninterrupted access. Also, the sessions should also be scientifically allocated considering the time zones. All my pleas from last year's online event.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Benefits of IGF's Hybrid Format

Experience has broadly demonstrated that the hybrid format enables more diverse participation of stakeholders who in the past would not have had the capacity and resources to travel to a physical venue.  Furthermore, senior government representatives, parliamentarians and senior business representatives are more likely to agree to participate online in view of the significant opportunity cost arising from participation on site.

The advent of the fully open hybrid forum with online participation fully equivalent to on site participation therefore presents an important opportunity to correct some of the long-standing deficiencies in representation at the IGF from senior levels in government and the business sectors, and from the Global South and small island developing states. I support the proposal that the IGF Secretariat and the MAG examine the rapidly evolving potential of the hybrid formatting of the MAG consultation meetings, the IGF preparatory phases and the IGF meeting programme, in achieving this critical objective.      

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Smaller range of specific topics

It is important that decisions to narrow the scope of the IGF meeting in terms of number of specific topics are taken in full and open consultation and endorsed by the MAG, ideally within a  structure of multi-year programming to avoid the risk of gaps in issue coverage. 

Programme space should always be provisioned for emerging and urgent issues.  

Transferring the major task of workshop proposal evaluation from the MAG to the Secretariat would require the latter's resources to be substantially expanded.  Implementation of this suggestion needs further discussion of the implications for resources and process therefore.   

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

8.   The Leadership Panel, the MAG and the place of the IGF within the United Nations system

  1. The development of a constructive, cooperative and complementary relationship between the Leadership Panel and the MAG should be a priority.  This will require clarification of the responsibilities of each, and of the Secretariat in relation to them, defining what each body does and does not do, and establishing modalities for collaboration.  The chairs of the Panel and MAG will need to establish effective liaison arrangements. 
  2. The Leadership Panel should focus on its strategic roles in relation to strategic and urgent issues, the engagement of high-level personnel including those from government and business, the promotion of IGF outputs, and fundraising.  Members of the Panel could act as ‘ambassadors’ for the IGF.  They should engage with the whole IGF ecosystem, including NRIs, and could be invited to participate in MAG meetings when appropriate.
  3. The Leadership Panel should, in future years, comment on strategic priorities for the Forum’s annual meeting before the MAG begins to work on programme design.  Collaboration on strategic and programme aspects of the 2022 meeting, with its focus on the digital cooperation agenda, could be crucial in determining the effectiveness of the IGF’s contribution to the GDC and should be prioritised once the Panel is established.
  4. The MAG’s terms of reference should be reviewed, on their own terms and in relation to those of the Panel, perhaps with the assistance of a MAG working group.   More clarity should be introduced concerning MAG members’ responsibilities, including the MAG’s engagement with intersessional work.  MAG working groups could assume responsibility for activity in areas such as capacity development.
  5. The Secretariat should resume responsibility for some aspects of programme development currently undertaken by the MAG, particularly workshop evaluation, in order to free MAG time for more proactive developmental work, such as that concerned with issue focus, multi-year programming, the integration of the main Forum and intersessional work, and preparation of outputs.  Forward planning and additional resourcing for the Secretariat will be required for this.
  6. The MAG should consider ways of engaging all MAG members more effectively in its discussions.  More should be done to assist new MAG members to participate in meetings, particularly where they are not experienced Forum participants.  The expertise of former MAG members could help in this regard.  Experienced current MAG members should avoid acting in ways that dominate discussion, and should actively encourage engagement by new members.
  7. Past experience of the IGF – and/or NRIs – could be made a requirement for selection as MAG members.  Eligibility for annual renewal could be associated with demonstrated active participation in MAG work.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The MAG should consider ways of engaging all MAG members

The role and responsibilities of a MAG members is immense as they are the representation of the different stakeholders and communities. Even the MAG member selection process needs to be further made open and transparent. The current process of selection is hugely politicized and a group of people have been controlling the process, this needs to be made scientific and processed so that better and new group of people with better voice can join and further have efficiency and effectiveness in the MAG enagagment process.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

More engagement and outreach

I have been following IGF activities for a few years and feel it is dormant for most of the year. While a lot takes to organize an annual conference, IGF could do more for rest of the year. I also feel that the outreach and engagement programs could be done more extensively in various regions. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Xiaobo YANG

Concerns on the Secretariat's workload

There are hundreds of workshop proposals needed to be evaluated each year (in a short few months). As pointed out in this report, the Secretariat is "under-resourced and over-stretched". Will the evaluation work further increase its burdens? Considersing that the Leadership Panel will definitely need the Secretariat's support. A rough idea: will it be able and feasible to form a global evaluation work supporting team and get representatives from the NRIs involved?

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Decisions relating to the IGF's strategic priorities.

I agree with the report's observation that defining the separate but complementary roles of the MAG and the Leadership Panel  should now be a priority as the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation proceeds to implementation - including the reforms of the so-called "IGF Plus" - and the IGF's role as the central platform for the Global Digital Compact beds down in the year ahead.

Consistent with the "bottom-up multistakeholder model," I believe the MAG should continue to take the lead in setting the IGF's strategic and thematic programming decisions. The Leadership Panel, drawing on its diversity of experience and expertise, should be invited by the MAG to contribute its views, ideas and suggestions for the overall direction of the IGF's strategy, the relative urgency of specific issues, the allocation of resources, and the phasing of the IGF's multi-year programming of activities and events.    

The process for reviewing and updating the MAG's terms of reference and responsibilities should be full open to stakeholder participation and consultation on proposed amendments and revisions. 

 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

9.   Funding of IGF activities including the IGF Secretariat

  1. The IGF needs a clear fundraising strategy, to bring more financial sustainability to the Forum and enable the Secretariat to meet expanding responsibilities including those related to the Leadership Panel.  It will also be important to focus on effective resource mobilisation.
  2. The Leadership Panel should play a significant role in fundraising, leveraging the senior status of Panel members to encourage more governments and other stakeholders to make contributions to the Trust Fund.
  3. The Forum should seek to diversify funding sources, for instance by approaching development banks, national development agencies and foundations for funding for specific activities, and by encouraging small donations.
  4. The Secretariat should provide more information about income and expenditure, including quarterly or half-yearly reports to donors and the wider IGF community.
  5. DESA should review the bidding process for countries to host the annual meeting to improve visibility, clarity, openness and hosting criteria, including financing arrangements.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Funding of IGF activities

Funding of IGF activities or regional activities have to be 
1. Open Any funding activities has to be open and  transparent
2. Transparent Any funding activities has to be transparent and open 
3. Accountable  Local Level Audit at countries law must be adopted 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user amritachoudhury8_1459

Funding for IGF Secretariat

Apart from the points mentioned under 9.   Funding of IGF activities including the IGF Secretariat   want to reiterate the importance of increasing funding for the IGF Secretariat.  Especially considering the workload of the IGF Secretariat that is ever increasing.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

IGF Funding

The deficiency in IGF funding which arguably has constrained the IGF's range of year-round activities, is a key challenge that the Leadership Panel is empowered to resolve through members' high level contacts and channels of engagement in government and industry circles.  Success in sourcing additional donor funding will result in a strengthened Secretariat with more capacity to support and coordinate the expanding range of "IGF Plus" year-round activities.   

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

10. Modalities to extend outreach, engagement and participation in the IGF

    1. The Leadership Panel should encourage high-level participation in the annual meeting.  Members of the Panel could act as “ambassadors” for the IGF, encouraging participation from within their regions and stakeholder groups and from decision-making bodies in which they participate.
    2. The MAG should consider whether the high-level track should be moved to the end of the annual meeting so that it can focus on outcomes from previous discussions and contribute to the development of IGF messages/outputs.
    3. The annual meeting agenda should include headline speakers whose presence would attract participation from a wider audience.
    4. More detailed assessment should be made of participation in IGF activities, including active engagement in annual meeting sessions, intersessional activities and NRIs.  NRIs should be encouraged to act as channels for input to the annual meeting from under-represented groups.
    5. The Leadership Panel, MAG and Secretariat should develop a communications strategy for the Forum aimed at building awareness and disseminating outputs.  This would benefit from professional public relations support.  DESA and the Office of the Envoy on Technology could support and promote the work of the Forum within the UN system.
    6. The MAG should consider innovations in the annual meeting structure that would be attractive to under-represented groups, such as “hackathons” and sessions concerned with the impact of the Internet on particular sectors or public policy issues (such as climate change).  NRIs could consider similar innovations.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

All engagement activities should disseminated to the community

There is a rising trend of tokenism and crony circle within internet governance activities. IGF's mandate should make sure that everything should be shared with everyone and not limited to a circle of people. An appeal should be sent out to all internet governance bodies and its ramifications- to make sure that "no one is left behind". Everyone should know about every initiative- which is the core idea behind the celebrated multistakeholderism. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user amritachoudhury8_1459

Increasing outreach engagement and participation in the IGF

Apart from what has been mentioned, there is clearly a need to relook at the communication, outreach and engagement strategy adopted so far, in terms of what has worked and what has not. This will help to better strategies.

Further new modes of communication should be adopted to reach out to different age groups or stakeholder communities from different parts of the world.

Engaging the IGF Community members (NRIs, DCs etc) for outreach and communication may help to reach out to local communities with the information.

Further apart from the UN languages, if important messages can be translated and sent in other languages (that are used widely) it may help to connect to new people.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Reply to

Increasing outreach engagement and participation in the IGF

I agree 100% with Amrita's points concerning the need for a strategic communications strategy for the IGF. The new website is a step forward in enhancing the messages and online interaction but much more can be done to converge the range of thematic inputs from the various intersessional activities in the IGF ecosystem. It still seems fragmented and difficult to navigate: as Amrita says, a review would identify a more coherent ands strategic approach. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

11. Strengthening the IGF in relation to capacity development

1.   The Secretariat should work with other organisations that already offer capacity development programmes on Internet governance (including the Schools on Internet Governance) to add maximum value with limited resources. 

2.   The Secretariat should provide information and access links to capacity development resources through its website.  Capacity development experiences could also be shared online.

3.   Capacity development initiatives concerned with participation in the IGF itself should recognise the needs of diverse audiences, seeking to maintain the engagement of established as well as new participants, and reaching beyond the governance of the Internet to include its impact on other areas of public policy.

4.   The global meeting and NRIs should discuss and communicate priorities for capacity development to other stakeholders. 

5.   The Secretariat should consider other options for capacity development, including internships and the establishment of an alumni network.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

IGF in relation to capacity development

At grassroots level there is a greater need of core values development in terms of Internet and need to create better awareness about openness, transparency and accountability. 

The secretariat had developed a toolkit ages back which further needs to be reviewed and updated with  better engagement tools and techniques. 

Collaborative initiative and efforts are need in creating better engagement and awareness tools.  

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

IGF, capacity building and the Sustainable Development Goals

It is widely recognised that ICTs and digital technologies are enablers for all 17 SDGs because they provide the backbone for an inclusive global digital economy that is a catalyst for sustainable development of all sectors of national and regional economies. I agree that the IGF should use its website for providing resources for capacity development in the cyber and digital sectors. There is a strong fit here with digital cooperation initiatives in support of the SDG targets. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

12. Follow-up and implementation

  1. The Leadership Panel and the MAG will need to work rapidly, with DESA and the Secretariat, to establish cooperative working modalities that will enable them to initiate the Panel’s work, implement proposals from the EGM and develop the IGF’s contribution to the GDC.
  2. This will require clarification of the relationship between the Leadership Panel and the MAG, including review of terms of reference.
  3. The MAG should determine modalities for the work of the 2022 meeting in relation to the Roadmap and the GDC, encourage contributions to discussion of this theme from intersessional fora and from NRIs, and invite session proposals from the IGF community related to it.  It should also consider modalities for the preparation of an output document related to the Compact.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Conclusion

The EGM started from the premise that the IGF should do more than maintain its current role and level of activities, but respond to the changing Internet and Internet governance environment and achieve greater impact from its work.  The observations and suggestions listed in this report stem from the desire of Meeting participants to fulfil those goals.

A number of clear priorities can be identified.

  • In the immediate term, the Forum needs to establish effective collaboration between the Leadership Panel and the MAG, enabling it to implement improvements along the lines identified by the Meeting.  Participants recognised that the quality of the relationship between the Panel and the MAG will be crucial to achieving progress towards a more impactful IGF.
  • In the short term, the MAG, with support from the Leadership Panel, needs to ensure that the 2022 annual meeting enables the IGF to make an effective contribution to development of the Global Digital Compact which is to be presented to the Summit of the Future in 2023.  Participants recognised that the quality of the IGF’s contribution to this will affect perceptions of its ongoing value to digital cooperation.
  • In the longer term, participants agreed, the Forum needs to build more coherent collaboration within the ecosystem that has evolved around its annual meeting, intersessional activities and NRIs, leading to more substantive, evidence-based discourse and to the production of actionable outputs which will have more substantial impact within the United Nations and in international decision-making fora concerned with the Internet and its impact on society.  Its ability to achieve this will have substantial influence on the scheduled review of the Forum’s mandate by the General Assembly in 2025.

Participants recognised that substantial work towards these goals has been realised in recent years, and were optimistic that their suggestions would enable them to be achieved.  While some of those suggestions would require additional funding, which should be sought as a priority, others were cost-neutral and could be implemented quickly.  The short time now available between the EGM and the 2022 Forum should encourage all stakeholders to progress improvements with a sense of urgency.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

more substantive, evidence-based discourse and to the production

As I stated earlier, the IGF needs evolution in terms of "grounding the processes" on a single platform.
Many discussions about public policies on the Internet take place in a disaggregated manner, beyond the efforts to consolidate the reports, there is no automated mechanism for crossing discussions and opinions between events and processes, the important thing here would be to focus on specifying PDP processes, which remain non-binding and open but where the statements are submitted for review and consensus, by a specialized group such as the IGF Leadership panel.
Year after year we have seen that little by little the NRIs align in a certain way and achieve joint results, but many times the disaggregated nature is not respecting the bottom-up from subnational to national to sub-regional to regional to global and that is where I see an opportunity for improvement to achieve a more contemplative and inclusive process.

1 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Report of the UN Secretary-General’s ‎High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation

Report of the UN Secretary-General’s ‎High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation

About the Report

The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. António Guterres, convened the High-Level Panel on ‎Digital Cooperation to advance proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space among ‎Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, academia, the technical ‎community and other relevant stakeholders.‎

The 20-member panel, co-chaired by Ms. Melinda Gates and Mr. Jack Ma, was expected to raise ‎awareness about the transformative impact of digital technologies across society and the ‎economy, and contribute to the broader public debate on how to ensure a safe and inclusive ‎digital future for all, taking into account relevant human rights norms.‎

During its work, the panel broadly consulted with various stakeholders, including the IGF ‎community.‎

The Panel submitted the final report to the Secretary-General on 10 June 2019. During the ‎launch, the Secretary-General called for a broad consultation process on the topics covered in ‎the report. ‎

While the consultation launched below focuses mainly on Digital Cooperation and the IGF/IGF ‎Plus, the full report is also available for consultation (here) and there are many important topics ‎and recommendations that deserve consideration and careful review.‎


Digital Cooperation at the IGF 2019 

The IGF 2019 Annual Meeting will feature a main session dedicated to Digital Cooperation, ‎scheduled to be on 26 November, from 10:00-13:00 p.m. CEST, Main Hall. This session will ‎reflect on the HLPDC Report recommendations, with special focus on the Recommendation 5 ‎and the proposed model for global digital cooperation called: The Internet Governance Forum Plus ‎‎(IGF Plus). ‎

In preparation for this session, the IGF community is invited to provide feedback to the Recommendation 5 - Global Digital Cooperation and the IGF Plus model. Relevant sections of the Report are extracted further below. Respondents can also email written contributions to [email protected]. These contributions will be posted on the IGF website.

All received inputs will be synthesized in a written output document and this will be posted in late October as an input to the above-mentioned main session during the 14th IGF in Berlin, where we will facilitate online as well as physical participation.

It is very important that this report and subsequent discussions have a very broad outreach. We ‎need to do all we can to include those voices not historically engaged in discussions on Internet ‎Governance or Digital Cooperation. This is a great opportunity to reach out and increase ‎engagement from marginalized groups as well as other ‎disciplines. Concrete and actionable feedback will help all our improvement efforts. ‎

Please log into the IGF website and post your comments by clicking on 'Add new comment at this ‎section'. ‎


Received contributions, in addition to the below in-line comments:

  1. CGI.br - Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
  2. Microsoft
  3. Web Foundaton
  4. Government of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
  5. Government of France, Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs 
  6. République Française, Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères
  7. Government of Finland, Ministry for Foreign Affairs
  8. Governance Primer, Brazilian Association of Software Companies (ABES), AR-TARC Certification Authority
  9. Mercari Inc.
  10. RIPE NCC
  11. Government of Denmark, Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs
  12. Government of Switzerland
  13. Raúl Echeberría 
  14. Instituto de Pesquisa em Direito e Tecnologia do Recife - IP.rec
  15. ICC Basis
  16. Pathways for Prosperity Commission 
  17. Government of Germany
  18. UK Government
  19. European Broadcasting Union
  20. Group of stakeholders gathered around IGF 2019 Best Practice Forums
  21. Media 21 Foundation
  22. United States Council for International Business
  23. The Association for Progressive Communications  (APC)
  24. Internet Society (ISOC)
  25. Juan Alfonso Fernández

See the Consolidated Summary of Received Feedback 


 

Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:42

CALL FOR FEEDBACK: Section 1

GLOBAL DIGITAL COOPERATION

Recommendation 5A


We recommend that, as a matter of urgency, the UN ‎Secretary-General facilitate an agile and open consultation ‎process to develop updated mechanisms for global digital ‎cooperation, with the options discussed in Chapter 4 as a ‎starting point. We suggest an initial goal of marking the UN's ‎‎75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation” to enshrine shared values, principles, ‎understandings and objectives for an improved global digital ‎cooperation architecture. As part of this process, we ‎understand that the UN Secretary-General may appoint a ‎Technology Envoy.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation

Global digital cooperation is certainly a need but with the growing trend of control over the internet and technology, the possibility of creating a uniform practice is a question of standard. The problem with the variation of interpretation and values has resulted in a chaos of Internet being manipulated by the rich and the powerful. Still today in major parts of the developing world, internet is not a choice but a question of access. In such scenario where the world is reaching the next billion, the question of Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation is a bigger issue. Yes, shared values, principles, ‎understandings and objectives for an improved global digital ‎cooperation architecture is a basic need but at the developing level these values differentiate at individual country and region.
We must collaborate and understand the dynamics of such commitment where the role of multistakeholder is eminent. 

0 People voted for this

Reply to

Role of third world countries in digital era

The third world countries will bring the digitalization into mainstream. This will be an era of change where the leaders will follow these developing nations. This will be the start of digital cooperation. The best alternatives to the heavy economies will be small but composite economies of these developing nations.

0 People voted for this

Global commitment need uniformity

Global digital cooperation is certainly a need but with the growing trend of control over the internet and technology, the possibility of creating a uniform practice is a question of standard. The problem with the variation of interpretation and values has resulted in a chaos of Internet being manipulated by the rich and the powerful. Still today in major parts of the developing world, internet is not a choice but a question of access. In such scenario where the world is reaching the next billion, the question of Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation is a bigger issue. Yes, shared values, principles, ‎understandings and objectives for an improved global digital ‎cooperation architecture is a basic need but at the developing level these values differentiate at individual country and region.
We must collaborate and understand the dynamics of such commitment where the role of multistakeholder is eminent.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user vukovinski

The Role Of The UN

Concomitant to the recommendation 5A, which is sound, and together with the realization that a global digital cooperation mechanism requires a certain technical solution, I feel that a part of the UN's role in this process is to share their experiences with large technical solutions facilitating cooperation. Maybe this could be a task for the purported technology envoy.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user bwanner

Global Digital Cooperation

The U.S. Council for International Business  would support marking the UN’s 75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation,” using the nine values outlined in the report as the foundation and identifying the IGF Plus model as the mechanism. We urge revision of the final value – “harmony” – as follows:

Harmony and Cohesiveness – The use by governments and businesses of digital technologies in ways that earn the trust of peers, partners and people, and that avoid exploiting or exacerbating divides and conflicts and causing the Internet to fragment.

§  The italicized revision reflects our view that policies must ensure an open, safe, highly secure, stable, interoperable, seamless, and sustainable global Internet to fully realize the economic and social benefits of digital transformation.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

Technology Envoy

A Technology Envoy would be valuable were they a respected member of the community that most would find able to accurately represent and describe the issues being faced by the involved stakeholders. Were the person somebody appointed for reasons other than their unmistakable expertise, this would just generate a large degree of distrust in the community. This is a nomination that should require much thinking from those responsible for making the choice.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Recommendation 5B

We support a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age.

Proposed questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome):

  1. How would you improve the current existing frameworks for digital cooperation?
  2. ‎What/if any new frameworks/mechanisms would you recommend?‎
  3. ‎How might we strengthen the practices/impacts of digital governance mechanisms?‎
  4. ‎How can we properly resource and fund multi-stakeholder processes to ensure:‎
    • Broad, inclusive and adequate participation
    • Ability to implement desired programmes
    • On-going improvement efforts are successful
  5. How do we further enhance our collaboration to advance our shared values, principles, understandings ‎and objectives for digital cooperation? ‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Multistakeholder also leaves space for politics and manipulation

Multistakeholder environment has been collaborated in various process and practice but in developing countries the push of multistakeholder approach is more complex in terms of lack of values and leadership. Representation and inclusion are a higher concern when it comes to global level but at national or country level right person and right choice is a major priority.
From multistakeholder to collaborative environment there are challenges of resource and commitment.
Multistakeholder is not just a concept of diversity or inclusion but it is the democratic value which we all have undermined. Reality is Multistakeholder concept is hugely misinterpreted by wrong interpretation and manipulated in developing countries, so it needs better core values and collaboration in terms of creating that dynamics.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Uffa Modey

Reply to

power sharing between stakeholders

Global diversity makes it a bit difficult for there to be simiar sets of values and leadership universally. The differences becaome more apparent as you move down the levels from global to regional to national. For developing countries, the power assigned to the stakeholder groups is not usually done equally. A possible rason for this is the lack of the need to bear responsibilty by some groups and the need for ultimate control by some other groups. All the stakeholder groups should be able to showcase equal committment towards global development. This will enable collaboration among them.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user susanders02_17132

Extended & Enhanced Framework

  1. The report identifies the shortcomings in the current existing frameworks for digital cooperation and identifies architectures. It does not document how and what low cost, high impact detailed processes it can use to resolve the issues, including but not limited to the need to:
    1. Distribute the Internet and its economy to all nations and peoples;
    2. Promote the development of local content that is culturally and linguistically relevant to the different regions to welcome existing users and on-board new users;
    3. Create an online local entry point into Internet Governance for bottom-up, inclusive participation in building and governing the Internet;
    4. Track trends and progress in resolving identified technical, security, policy or online Human Rights violations at the local, regional and global levels using documented, standardized processes for transparency;
    5. Identify, adopt, and distribute the Stakeholder Group portals/sub-portals to all 193 countries with escalation paths to regional and global levels;
    6. Move from discussion to operation;
    7. Grow new Internet Governance leaders from all countries and across identified Stakeholder Groups;
    8. Balance the disparate voices and needs between developing and industrialized countries;
    9. Balance the disparate voices and needs between Private Sector Stakeholder Groups and those of the public good;
    10. Facilitate and promote vertical and horizontal collaboration within and across Stakeholder Groups that promote the public good so they can share the knowledge, plans, needs and resources required to meet the 2030 deadline for implementing the SDGs;
    11. Fund the development and operation of the Internet and its Stakeholder Groups so the Internet can remain an independent global public asset; and
    12. Support the existing Internet Governance mechanism(s).
  1. I recommend the IFG incorporate “new ways” and “new mechanisms” by adopting and implementing the Search Skate system (https://searchskate.com). The system’s patent was issued in 2013, and between 2013-2016 an embodiment was specifically designed to deliver workable, low cost solutions to resolve the identified needs of the Internet Governance Community while working within the existing Internet Governance mechanisms. The patent has not been moved to the Creative Commons in order to reserve the rights to the system and its multi-billion-dollar revenue stream to benefit of the Internet and its stakeholders; and to ensure the Internet can remain an independent global public asset. It is Search Skate’s intent is to permanently license the system with $0 licensing fees to the Internet and the global non-profit it chooses to run the system.

The Search Skate system:

  1. Creates tens-of-thousands of locally owned and operated, interest-based portal businesses that can distribute both the Internet and its economy across all 193 nations. The portals make a profit by providing value added services such as website design, development, hosting, translation and other aids to related businesses and individuals. Their existence in an area can grow the local Internet economy while fueling the need to improve the infrastructure and growing the demand for inclusiveness. But the real bonus is Search Skate’s Portal Businesses can be equipped to serve as Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), improving connectedness, reaching the “forgotten” and systematically closing the digital divide;  
  2. Links interest-based portal businesses to existing related local content and promotes the development of new content. This creates culturally and linguistically comfortable digital spaces that welcome existing local users, and on-board new users. Spaces where users can connect with others who share similar interests; network; post or collaborate to resolve issues. In addition, users can easily access links to sites on literacy/training/education, healthcare, jobs, Internet Governance system, digital skills enhancement or building the Internet;
  3. Increases local, bottom-up participation by providing a local entry point to its online Governance System and its “Common Workflow/Service Management System.” Users at the local level can submit and track their concerns about the misuse/abuse of the Internet including technical, security and on-line human rights violations; or offer ideas for solutions or enhancements to the Internet. The workflow system then uses standardized, transparent processes to evaluate, route the concern to the appropriated stakeholder group or committee at the local, regional or global level, tracks and reports the progress back to the contributor for transparency;
  4. Creates standardized top-tier Stakeholder Groups in each country along with escalation paths to the regional and global levels (MAG and IGF) to move from discussion to operation. Links to the Stakeholder Groups from each interest-based portal increases visibility and encourages local users to grow their leadership skills by participating in on-line meeting or volunteering to work in a group or committee;

 

                              

 

  1. Balances the disparate needs between the developing nations and the more industrialized nations. By bringing the countries of the Southern Hemisphere (plus Haiti) together as a “region” they can work together to develop a unified plan for advancing their needs and a stronger voice in discussions, and with the more heavily industrialized countries of the Northern Hemisphere “region;”
  2. Balances the needs of the Private Sector Stakeholder Groups and those of Stakeholder Groups promoting the public good.  Search Skate noticed they’re quite different!  The Private Sector is profit driven, built on marketing and selling of goods and services and there’s competition between organizations. The components of Civil Societies focus on meeting the basic human needs to survive and thrive (food, water, shelter, health, literacy/training/education and employment.) To achieve this, Civil Society organizations need a collaborative, cooperative way to work together locally, regionally and globally. Search Skate’s solution? Keep and enhance our existing Commercial Function of the Internet, but add a new, separate but integrated Non-Commercial Function to support the collaborative and cooperative needs of Civil Society organizations. Our Civil Societies perform critical function for us all. They are the silent partner of commerce, helping grow an educated, well-trained and healthy workforce; retooling workers for the Media Age; when the economy dips or industries falter; rebuilding lives after disaster strikes and transforming impoverished, forgotten communities into healthy, employed workers and consumers; and implementing the SDGs by the 2030 deadline;
  3. Creates and maintains consolidated, interest-based calendars. One major benefit of linking related local content to the local Interest-Based Portal Businesses is it opens the opportunity for the Non-Commercial Function Portals to create and maintain consolidated interest-based calendars. The calendars promote collaboration and coordination across Civil Society activities, within and across portals, to facilitate local problem solving and open-up opportunities for sharing of knowledge, resources, transportation and lodging as the organizations work together in building ecosystems to transform impoverished communities, meet the 2030 deadline for implementing the SDGs and coordinate local/global disaster response;
  4. Generates a new, independent multi-billion-dollar revenue stream by establishing a “franchise-like” relationship between the locally owned and operated interest-based portal businesses and the system (the Internet) wherein the portal businesses agree to adopt and work to entrench the openness and interoperability of the Internet and its published policies and standards; and to pay a small annual participation fee that supports Internet operation costs.  This creates another balance, since up until now businesses used a global public asset at no cost to generate trillions of dollars in trade, then charged the public owners of the Internet a fee to access it; and
  5. Integrates with the existing Internet Governance mechanisms at the global level, with clear local entry points for mechanisms at the national level. Search Skate’s committee at the global level that brings together the Non-Commercial and Commercial interests, is the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  It’s composed of one representative from each of the Top-Tier Stakeholder Groups, to include members from different nations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and diverse interest areas. All committee members at this level must have experience in Internet governance and be elected by their stakeholder peers for a 3-year term, with a 2-term limit. Meetings are held once a month, are publicly broadcast over the Internet and are staffed by the IGF or other independent global Internet policy group providing administrative support for the Internet. Then annually, the MAG uses information from the “Common Workflow/Service Management System” to set the agenda for the global meeting the IGF. The IGF is the final arbiter in decisions made in Search Skate’s Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance System, and in setting goals, issues to be addressed and timelines for the upcoming year. All issues and recommendations presented at the Global Level were directed by the IGF and/or entered into the “Common Workflow/Service Management System,” providing the public with transparent processes and trackable progress. In addition, the issues and recommendations have been reviewed, studied and prioritized by committees at the Top-Tier Stakeholder Group Level, National Level, Hemisphere Level, Commercial/Non-Commercial Function Level and now the Global Level. The Internet and the world need a bottom-up, inclusive Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance System empowered to make decisions on the Internet’s direction, strategies, uses, rules, policies and the use of the funds it generates.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user m-yokozawa_1482

WGEC experience

Some of the past discussions including the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation 2016-2018 under CSTD/UNCTAD had good experiences in answer to these questions. I would suggest revisiting these discussions and think about what we have to add and renew to them. A number of examples of what we had discussed in the past may include;

- Mapping of existing mechanisms regarding Digital Cooperation will help us find duplicated or missing areas of required work. (improve existing frameworks)

- Multistakeholder structure is essential, but it will work best if each stakeholder can clearly show "who represents what". (adequate participation) Common classification of stakeholders like "government, private sector, academia (technology) and civil society" is only looking at the ground floor of a multiple story building. 

- Governance can be re-designed as combinations of four elements which are the law, social norms, the market, and architecture. Market-based governance and "by design" governance are sometimes not seriously considered with innovative ideas. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user john_1529

Multistakeholderism

Multistakeholderism is referred to many times in the Report, but not sufficiently critically. There was a time when multistakeholderism, linked to a belief in and support for the superiority of self-regulation as a way of tackling any emerging difficulties with the new technology, was the only option available to policy makers across the world. Few politicians, civil servants and police officers and only a small number of civil society organizations had any kind of deep understanding of how these new exciting cyber businesses operated.  

At the beginning of the mass consumer internet, layered on top of the challenges public bodies faced in understanding it, the companies at the forefront of the internet revolution somehow managed to identify with a counter cultural, insurgent liberal spirit. They promoted themselves as wholly different types of ventures, principally driven by social goals rather than more traditional commercial ones. It was all about making life better, overturning old-fashioned clunky ways of doing things. Since many tremendous products some of the leading firms were providing at that time appeared to be “free” to the end user at the point of use, this helped cement this benign view of the internet into the public’s and the media’s consciousness.

 

The new orthodoxy consequently centred on a belief that the only important thing was to keep Governments out of the way.  Multistakeholderism meant everyone would talk but that was it. Regulation became a dirty word. Innovation  and market forces would take care of everything. This would be a wholly virtuous circle. Industry was not only  given pretty much a free hand, states even gave them special exemptions from certain types of liability e.g. via the EU’s e-Commerce Directive and s.230, CDA, 1998.

 

The Report remains strongly wedded to the idea of multistakeholderism. Its theoretical attractions are clear but the actual experience of it is a long way from being satisfactory. Multistakeholderism without concrete and deeply embedded measures to ensure a greater equality of arms  between the participants is simply another way of creating a platform which allows those with the deepest pockets to shout loudest and win or delay change while the cash keeps rolling in.

 

Turning more specifically to the position of children, while there are several excellent references in the Report,  save in respect of a passing comment  about “children’s agency” (page 17) the document as a whole makes no explicit mention of the importance of children’s rights to participate and their right to be heard in respect of matters affecting them. This subject deserves a much larger exposition, not least because children now constitute one in three of all human internet users.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Enhancing digital cooperation will require both reinvigorating existing multilateral partnerships and potentially creating new mechanisms that involve stakeholders from business, academia, civil society and technical organisations. We should approach questions of governance based on their specific circumstances and choosing among all available tools.



Where possible we can make existing inter-governmental forums and mechanisms fit for the digital age rather than rush to create new mechanisms, though this may involve difficult judgement calls: for example, while the WTO remains a major forum to address issues raised by the rapid growth in cross-border e-commerce, it is now over two decades since it was last able to broker an agreement on the subject. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Digital cooperation at various stakeholder level is manipulated

Digital cooperation at various stakeholder level is manipulated at leadership level. The concept of power and lobbying attitude has engulfed the dynamics. The value of internet must be very clear in terms of standardization so that internet can be treated equally for all. Today the difference in not in-between people who have internet and technology but it’s between people who have no connection and they aspire to be connected and it’s a radical different thing.
The inter-governmental forum needs to mechanize the various process and values so that it can be neutralize in mitigating the gaps of net neutrality and Digital Divide. Though called a multistakeholder but the values of the practice have created gaps in process where still today the bottom up approach highlights the civil society to put the rich and famous as Multistakeholder Advisory group and there is limitation of developing countries and representation.  
 Technology has not just empowered people, but it has also brought in light the level of how it can be used see before and after the process. The limitation of inter-Governmental process is catered in the limited practice of the representation which needs to be addressed with proper values.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

Creation of new mechanisms

New mechanisms make themselves necessary due to the fact that Internet Governance touches upon such a variety of subjects that discussions carried out within other fora may be useful to advance specific matters, but end up further fragmenting the overall debate landscape. While integration with other fora is certainly important, there is no doubt that a fresh approach is needed for issues to be discussed in a more encompassing manner that is able to produce elaborate results.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Given the speed of change, soft governance mechanisms – values and principles, standards and certification processes – should not wait for agreement on binding solutions. Soft governance mechanisms are also best suited to the multi-stakeholder approach demanded by the digital age: a fact-based, participative process of deliberation and design, including governments, private sector, civil society, diverse users and policy-makers.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The aim of the holistic “systems” approach we recommended is to bring together government bodies such as competition authorities and consumer protection agencies with the private sector, citizens and civil society to enable them to be more agile in responding to issues and evaluating trade-offs as they emerge. Any new governance approaches in digital cooperation should also, wherever possible, look for ways – such as pilot zones, regulatory sandboxes or trial periods – to test efficacy and develop necessary procedures and technology before being more widely applied.213 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

We envisage that the process of developing a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation” would be inspired by the “World We Want” process, which helped formulate the SDGs. Participants would include governments, the private sector from technology and other industries, SMEs and entrepreneurs, civil society, international organisations including standards and professional organisations, academic scholars and other experts, and government representatives from varied departments at regional, national, municipal and community levels. Multi-stakeholder consultation in each member state and region would allow ideas to bubble up from the bottom. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The consultations on an updated global digital cooperation architecture could define upfront the criteria to be met by the governance mechanisms to be proposed, such as funding models, modes of operation and means for serving the functions explored in this report. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

More broadly, if appointed, a UN Tech Envoy could identify over-the-horizon concerns that need improved cooperation or governance; provide light-touch coordination of multi-stakeholder actors to address shared concerns; reinforce principles and norms developed in forums with relevant mandates; and work with UN member states, civil society and businesses to support compliance with agreed norms. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

It is really important to

It is really important to look into the current practice and gaps of multistakeholder practice and the gaps. The multistakeholder evolution also needs better enriching values which needs to be polished and collaborated time and again.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The Envoy’s mandate could also include coordinating the digital technology-related efforts of UN entities; improving communication and collaboration among technology experts within the UN; and advising the UN Secretary-General on new technology issues. Finally, the Envoy could promote partnerships to build and maintain international digital common resources that could be used to help achieve the SDGs.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

CALL FOR FEEDBACK: Section 2

A possible architecture for Global Digital Cooperation

''INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM PLUS"205

The proposed Internet Governance Forum Plus, or IGF Plus, would build on the existing IGF which was established by the World Summit on the Information Society (Tunis, 2005). The IGF is currently the main global space convened by the UN for addressing internet governance and digital policy issues. The IGF Plus concept would provide additional multi-stakeholder and multilateral legitimacy by being open to all stakeholders and by being institutionally anchored in the UN system.

The IGF Plus would aim to build on the IGF’s strengths, including well-developed infrastructure and procedures, acceptance in stakeholder communities, gender balance in IGF bodies and activities, and a network of 114 national, regional and youth IGFs206. It would add important capacity strengthening and other support activities.

The IGF Plus model aims to address the IGF’s current shortcomings. For example, the lack of actionable outcomes can be addressed by working on policies and norms of direct interest to stakeholder communities. The limited participation of government and business representatives, especially from small and developing countries, can be addressed by introducing discussion tracks in which governments, the private sector and civil society address their specific concerns.

The IGF Plus would comprise an Advisory Group, Cooperation Accelerator, Policy Incubator and Observatory and Help Desk.

The Advisory Group, based on the IGF’s current Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, would be responsible for preparing annual meetings, and identifying focus policy issues each year. This would not exclude coverage of other issues but ensure a critical mass of discussion on the selected issues. The Advisory Group could identify moments when emerging discussions in other forums need to be connected, and issues that are not covered by existing organisations or mechanisms.

Building on the current practices of the IGF, the Advisory Group could consist of members appointed for three years by the UN Secretary-General on the advice of member states and stakeholder groups, ensuring gender, age, stakeholder and geographical balance.

Potential questions for your feedback ‎(suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. What are in your view criteria that the proposed Advisory Group should fulfil that are not ‎yet being taken into account by the IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group in present IGF ‎setting?‎
  2. How do you address the concerns that these proposals may be considered going ‎beyond the original IGF governance structure and mandates?‎
  3. How might the current Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group be strengthened?‎
  4. What changes (if any) should be considered to the role and responsibilities of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group/Advisory Group?‎
  5. How do we ensure the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group/Advisory Group has appropriate ‎funding and support?‎

     
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

On "emerging discussions in other forums need to be connected"

I believe this is a key aspect of the problem to be solved. The advisory group should have the extra responsibilities of:

1) Have a common format and platform for input and be very attentive to consolidate all the information of all processes.
2) Offer this collaborative tool and provide tutorials on how to include comments in an orderly manner (by topic, stakeholder).
3) Ensure that the tools are being used in the correct manner, that is, control mechanisms and easy process auditing.
4) Very important - the final part of a multistakeholder process is the most delicate and tedious, for this there should be shared responsibilities and auditors that rotate in the community to ensure the key aspect of consolidating comments in the most transparent way possible.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Juan

The Advisory Group

The Advisory Group ---> WHAT

Its task is to identify WHAT policy issues should be discussed.

0 People voted for this

The Present Advisory Group

The Present Advisory Group Model has been limited within the limitation of the standard process. The level of cooperation and collaboration needs to search better in context of adaptation where the new model suggested can certainly bring in a new angle. The internet that was created in room has today expanded beyond the geography and every day its shortcoming the limitation of what is possible.

With such growth and mechanism we certainly need a dynamic approach. The model suggest can be a new beginning to encapsulate the idea of adaptation for better collaboration and cooperation.  

Regarding the concern, internet must outgrow the expectation and it needs radical solution which is pervasive and more inclusive and adaptive.  

The current Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group needs to be more operational in the IGF as they have been limited. Their effectiveness can be only utilized when they are active and beating in the model. From the past few years I have seen very lame and less active people in the MAG position. This needs to change, we need young and energetic young leaders.  

The MAG members selected from consolidated groups highlights the politics and manipulation. People involved in real grounds needs to be selected.  The MAG basic criteria highlight least developed nation and other priority criteria which are never followed. Especially with civil society group the politics and manipulation an issue.   

MAG member needs to be funded and should be provided the best possible way of facilitation as they are volunteers and they expect the least.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The Advisory Group

The Advisory Group has proven to be a stable organism that is capable of organizing the yearly IGF event and coordinating the selection and allocation of panels. As far as its objective structure is concerned, it shouldn’t be a problem to maintain it in a similar way to how it operates at the moment.

What does need to be changed, however, is the question of representation. Once selected, MAG members do not owe any sort of accountability to their constituents, in spite of theoretically representing their interests. Currently there is no public or transparent way to ask these representatives to address concerns, so one has to rely on direct contact, which while not wrong, is not always ideal or even desirable.

A non-binding system should be established in which stakeholders are able to communicate their positions and ideas to MAG members in a transparent way, so that a broader sense of debate and representation can be achieved. There have in the past been decisions made within the MAG that did not resonate with numerous stakeholders but went unaddressed due to the lack of proper communications channels, and this should be avoided in the future.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user ca_2035

IGF Plkus, MAG and other proposed structures

This is a non-exhaustive list of Internet governance initiatives (not necessarily coordinated or interacting with the IGF), which keeps growing:

    • Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network (2012-ongoing)
    • Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI, 2013-ongoing)
    • Smart Africa (2013-ongoing)
    • Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG, 2014-2016)
    • NetMundial Conference (2014)
    • Global Cyberalliance (2015-ongoing)
    • IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (2016-ongoing)
    • Global Commission on Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC, 2017-ongoing)
    • Entrepreneurial Charter of Trust (2018-ongoing)
    • Entrepreneurial Cybersecurity Tech Accord (2018-ongoing)
    • Web Foundation's Contract for the Web (2018-ongoing)
    • High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (HLPDC, 2018-2019)
    • Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace (2018)
    • International Panel on Artificial Intelligence (2019)

These initiatives generate many recommendations (with several overlaps), basically under the general goal of proposing actions to ensure a single, open and secure Internet for everyone. The list is testimony to the intense interest in finding ways to tackle several global challenges of Internet governance, but they lack a much needed coordination or integration of efforts in order to be more effective – something the HLPDC report recognizes as one of the six main gaps in these processes as a whole.

I trust several other commentators have covered the relevant aspects of the HLPDC proposals. I wish to make just a few observations. The IGF Plus proposal contemplates a MAG with additional functions. On the basis of my experience in earlier and current MAGs, I need to remind proponents that nearly all MAG members are volunteers who have their other time-consuming jobs. To cope with the current challenges is already hard enough, and the HLPDC proposal for the MAG seems to overlook this aspect. One of the proposed additional functions would be identifying "moments when emerging discussions in other forums need to be connected". Here is another reason for including the above non-exhaustive list of "other forums" – this task would be an impossible challenge for a voluntary group. In addition, this would be a function better carried out by the proposed Observatory/Help Desk, if these were to be implemented.

While recognizing the need of efforts to monitor and consolidate so many processes, this would ought to be the job of a specialized staff on a full-time basis. Should this be done as part of a UN-led forum? Some critics of the report think the whole idea of the Observatory/Help Desk, or even the Cooperation Accelerator, does not belong to the IGF at all, and should be thought of in other formats and fora. I agree with this view.

As to the Policy Incubator, I have to say that the intersessional activities (the many Dynamic Coalitions, the Best Practice Forums and so on) try to do just that, with the difficulties inherent to a voluntary effort, practically since the beginning of the IGF. There is a need here for qualified help in gathering and consolidating their ongoing work and recommendations.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user john_1529

IGF and IGF Plus

A key reason why the IGF was created in the first place was to avoid a diplomatic rupture between States involved in the WSIS process in respect of how parts of the internet were to operate at a global level in the future.  

 

There was never any intention of allowing the IGF to be anything more than a talking shop. Talking shops have their value, no doubt, but  to say they are linked in any meaningful way to questions of “governance” is dubious.

 

The IGF today is a bit like a cross between a trade fair for people who work in and around internet policy questions and going back to University for a week where a vast array of interesting seminars are laid on by lots of equally interesting people who are there to deliver papers or participate in the discussions. Marvellous but not “governance” by any commonly understood meaning of the word, or rather if it has any impact on “governance” it is incredibly diffuse and tenuous and perhaps of lesser importance than discussions which take place elsewhere in other forums.

 

Whether it is necessary to have such elaborate or expensive mechanisms to organize a week of seminars linked to a trade fair must be moot but it would be a pity if the annual gathering disappeared because there is nothing else like it.

 

Thus the proposals to create an “IGF Plus” are welcome, but they fall a long way short of what is needed if the public interest across the whole internet governance eco system is to be adequately safeguarded.

0 People voted for this

The proposed Internet

The proposed Internet Governance Forum Plus, or IGF Plus, would build on the existing IGF which was established by the World Summit on the Information Society (Tunis, 2005). The IGF is currently the main global space convened by the UN for addressing internet governance and digital policy issues. The IGF Plus concept would provide additional multi-stakeholder and multilateral legitimacy by being open to all stakeholders and by being institutionally anchored in the UN system.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The Cooperation Accelerator would accelerate issue-centred cooperation across a wide range of institutions, organisations and processes; identify points of convergence among existing IGF coalitions, and issues around which new coalitions need to be established; convene stakeholder-specific coalitions to address the concerns of groups such as governments, businesses, civil society, parliamentarians, elderly people, young people, philanthropy, the media, and women; and facilitate convergences among debates in major digital and policy events at the UN and beyond.



The Cooperation Accelerator could consist of members selected for their multi-disciplinary experience and expertise. Membership would include civil society, businesses and governments and representation from major digital events such as the Web Summit, Mobile World Congress, Lift:Lab, Shift, LaWeb, and Telecom World.

Potential questions for your feedback ‎(suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. ‎How would you envision the work of the Cooperation Accelerator in practice?‎
  2. How do we ensure the Cooperation Accelerator has appropriate funding and support?‎
  3. How could existing intersessional activities from across the IGF community ‎support/participate in a Cooperation Accelerator?  For example, Best Practice Forums ‎‎(BPFs), National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), or Dynamic ‎Coalitions (DCs)?‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Juan

The Cooperation Accelerator

The Cooperation Accelerator ---> WHO

Its task is to identify WHO should sit at the table to discuss a particular policy issue identified by the Advisory Group, and to coordinate such discussion. It is paramount the participation of the relevant UN agencies (ITU, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNDP, regional economic commissions, etc.)

0 People voted for this

Dynamics of internet demands

Dynamics of internet demands a collaboration among the different accelerated actors. With the ever-changing roles and values, it needs a matrix of collaboration and cooperation from all sides. The work of the cooperation accelerator in practice needs to be open and transparent giving the space and indicator of basic values.

It is relevant that cooperation accelerator needs a proper funding for research survey and information access which needs better guidance and mapping where the internet organization can help.

The current model needs to be readjusted the accelerators as they are the need and the previous model are the basic structure. So, it has to be strategically aligned. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The Cooperation Accelerator

The core idea around this organism is solid, as there is indeed a lack of communication between initiatives in Internet Governance, which is ironic considering the reason why the Internet was created in the first place. It can be hard to visualize how your project interacts with other ventures in such a broad landscape, even more so because there are linguistic and visibility barriers to overcome in the identification of overlaps and potential synergies.

However, there are different ways in which this accelerator could work and a clear vision needs to be chosen for it to be effective. A first, cheaper, idea would be for it to act as a sort of repository in which stakeholders could sort through initiatives categorized by tags, being able to find and communicate with other project leaders to facilitate partnerships and knowledge sharing. Even if the idea appears simple, currently no such resource exists and it would be a big step forward for the community.

Another, costlier, idea would be for it to count with the assistance of a team that would actively attempt to match projects and enhance their cooperation. This is something that could potentially be run on a voluntary basis, but there is an important component of outreach and actually getting stakeholders to buy into the project that would require much more sophisticated and therefore paid work.

In either case, some sort of central organization is necessary, with proper management of the available resources and monitoring of how the platform is being utilized to improve it in significant ways that react to how the system is actually being employed.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Uffa Modey

The Cooperation Accelerator

I agree that the IGF cooalitions will achieve a lot more if there is more cooperation among them. Although they fulfil their individual roles and objectives, they will require the Cooperation Accelerator to identify common goals among them and map out a strategy for their collaboration. To carry out this task members of the cooperation will need to have up to date knowledge of all the activities being carried out by the coalitions. To attain this information, the cooperation accelerator memberhip could consist also of volunteer representatives of the IGF community. All BPFs, NRIs and DCs should be encouraged to assign a volunteer role to one of their members who will be responsible for ensuring that the cooperation accelerator is kept up to date of their activities. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The Policy Incubator would incubate policies and norms for public discussion and adoption. In response to requests to look at a perceived regulatory gap, it would examine if existing norms and regulations could fill the gap and, if not, form a policy group consisting of interested stakeholders to make proposals to governments and other decision making bodies. It would monitor policies and norms through feedback from the bodies that adopt and implement them.207

The Policy Incubator could provide the currently missing link between dialogue platforms identifying regulatory gaps and existing decision making bodies by maintaining momentum in discussions without making legally binding decisions. It should have a flexible and dynamic composition involving all stakeholders concerned by a specific policy issue.

Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. ‎How should the Policy Incubator be organized, locally and globally?‎
  2. How could existing intersessional activities from across the IGF community ‎support/participate in the Policy Incubator?  For example, Best Practice Forums (BPFs), ‎National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), or Dynamic Coalitions ‎‎(DCs)?‎
  3. ‎How do we ensure the Policy Incubator has appropriate funding and support?‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Juan

The Policy Incubator

The Policy Incubator ---> HOW

Its task is to identify HOW a particular policy issue should be "solved". The policy incubation should be done in coordination with the Cooperation Accelerator to create synergies and avoid duplications. Additionally, the identified gaps in the existing norms and regulations, should be submitted to the Advisory Group so the corresponding policy issue is considered for discussion.

0 People voted for this

First the policy incubator

First the policy incubator needs to understand the dynamic of how the world works. In Developed nation the policy is an open and transparent where people have their rights and responsibility and the government itself is willing to adapt and understand. In developing countries, the situation is a bit complex as people are aware and there can be rigidity from the government in adaptation process. But when we talk about the least developed country there is a huge gap of rights and acceptance.  IN such region the government is solely responsible for the public policy process where the consultation is a desired way of cooperation. People are the end just to face the consequences.

The current Intersessional Activities have to be further collaborated with better values to engage leaders as it can be great source of policy.

The only solution to the policy incubator can be a strategic planning with internet organization like ISOC, and ICANN to create better governance model.   

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user bwanner

Policy Incubator

The US Council for International Business sees the potential of the Cooperation Accelerator and Policy Incubator to retain the brainstorming, sharing of best practices, and other informal aspects that we have come to value from the current IGF. But we have questions about how the incubator would be staffed and how stakeholders would be permitted to join the “policy groups.” Further, we are concerned that government stakeholders might question the legitimacy of the Policy Incubator proposing regulations for their adoption. We do not foresee how such bodies would be sufficiently expert or reflective of key stakeholder interests.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The Policy Incubator

Out of the organisms that have been proposed, this is the one that might have the most complications. Conceptually it is a good idea, but how to structure and carry out its activities seems a difficult question. Taking our experiences from the ICANN community as an example and supposing that Working Groups and “policy groups” share the same core concepts, it is genuinely hard to be very inclusive and at the same time create the correct incentives for policy to follow an evidence-based approaches in which effective compromises are made and result in quality policy.

Over at ICANN, to achieve such results demands years, with the recent Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) having generated significant results within a year at the cost of much exertion from the community, which at the end of the day burned out important volunteers and generated great tension around the subject. How would this be replicated with even broader policy subjects involved?

A very structured approach would need to be taken for this organism to function properly, which includes the establishment of firm criteria for policy group membership, which should have a limited number of participants, have a cut-off date for joining, follow firm deadlines, and overall not pursue loose goals, but rather have the aim of finding the best evidence available or generating it via research to end up with strong advice on specific matters.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Uffa Modey

Influencing policies from other regions

It may be quite difficult for stakeholders to influence policies from other regions outside of their region. The main reason for this is because they may not be fully aware of the grassroots issues surrounding the policy within the region. For the policy incubator to function optimally, there will be a need for serious local participation from the stakeholder being affected by the regulatory gap. This may be easy for developed countries but not quite as easy for developing countris where the representation and participation of citizens in global Internet governance is already low. 

0 People voted for this

Thanks

Thank you for this amazing guide and it really help me a lot 

 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The Observatory and Help Desk would direct requests for help on digital policy (such as dealing with crisis situations, drafting legislation, or advising on policy) to appropriate entities, including the Help Desks described in Recommendation 2; coordinate capacity development activities provided by other organisations; collect and share best practices; and provide an overview of digital policy issues, including monitoring trends, identifying emerging issues and providing data on digital policy.

Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. ‎How do you see the implementation of the Observatory and Help Desk? ‎
  2. How do we connect the local and global levels through this proposed mechanism?‎
  3. How could existing intersessional activities from across the IGF community ‎support/participate in the Observatory and Help Desk?  For example, Best Practice ‎Forums (BPFs), National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), or ‎Dynamic Coalitions (DCs)?‎
  4. How do we ensure the Observatory and Help Desk has appropriate funding and support?‎
  5. How do you address the concern that these proposals will go beyond the original mandate ‎add an operational workstream to IGF, with significant resource implications?‎ 
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

2.

A good way to connect ideas and suggestions is through a multistakeholder collaborative software like the one I am using to make this comment. But given the mass of comments and participations, it should has like a filter (by stakeholder, by topic), and address these issues in an agile process. Have lessons learned section and use collective replication would be great.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Juan

The Observatory and Help Desk

The Observatory and Help Desk ---> 2 main functions:

The Observatory function: Continuously evaluate the whole IGF Plus process and emit timely reports. Also to do prospective studies in collaboration with the UN Tech Envoy.

The Help Desk function: To function as an efficient "clearing house" collecting needs from the different stakeholder groups and dispatching them to the appropriate IGF Plus body. (See point 12 in: https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2016/takingst…)

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user bwanner

Observatory and Help Desk

The U.S. Council for International Business understands the practicality underlying these two IGF innovations.  We urge active consultation with the OECD as they are being designed because some of the functions proposed -- providing an overview of digital policy issues, identifying emerging issues, and providing data on digital policy – already have been developed or are on track to be developed as part of the OECD’s Going Digital Toolkit. Rather than replicating the Going Digital Toolkit’s functions, the Observatory and Help Desk should, as described in the report, focus on directing requests for help on digital policy to appropriate entities and coordinating activities provided by other organizations. A properly funded Help Desk also could tap the wealth of written information provided by IGF workshop reports, Best Practices Forums, and Connecting the Next Billion recommendations.

o   More clarity is needed, however, about how the Help Desk would “coordinate the capacity development activities provided by other organizations,” particularly those unaffiliated with the UN.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The Observatory and Help Desk

This represents a key set of components that risk being sidelined in the face of other, more noticeable, organisms being proposed in this IGF overhaul. From our experience, most stakeholders find it difficult to keep around specialists that can tackle the varied issues that emerge from the digital environment. Even coming up with structures to deal with pressing issues such as data protection and cybersecurity present a challenge to many businesses and governments, never mind dealing with all relevant matters in a proactive manner. This is why this component would be quite useful.

It is important to note, however, that these Help Desks cannot be assembled as a “best effort”, they need to employ specialized teams that can effectively deal with situations instead of answering to the concerns from stakeholders using a limited FAQ or something similar. There is not much margin for error, if a few attempts are made by a stakeholder to be helped and they end up with non-answers or experience a massive delay, they will not come back for another attempt.

An important role for this organism could be to act as connector between stakeholders in need of help and service providers that are qualified to support them. This should not be a cumbersome process, but providers should be vetted in some way, needing to prove proven competence in the area. This should not be a situation in which the UN acts as some sort of gatekeeper to services, but rather it would establish a slightly more organized market that allows problems and solutions to be matched at a global level.

In this sense, it could not be run on a voluntary basis. People need to be remunerated to take part in such an effort and be able to adhere to deadlines – unlike the ever-slipping deadlines of voluntary multistakeholder efforts. It could be that companies and organizations donate the time of their employees, or money could be pooled from involved stakeholders to pay for the time of contractors. This is something that needs to be discussed in an open and realistic manner.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The IGF Trust Fund would be a dedicated fund for the IGF Plus. All stakeholders – including governments, international organisations, businesses and the tech sector – would be encouraged to contribute. The IGF Plus Secretariat should be linked to the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General to reflect its interdisciplinary and system-wide approach.

Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. Do you believe the IGF Plus model is implementable, given that the IGF Trust Fund is based on voluntary donations?
  2. ‎What can we do to ensure the IGF Plus has appropriate funding and support? The IGF ‎Trust Fund historically lacked sufficient funding to fulfil its current (and basic) budget.  ‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Juan

The IGF Trust Fund

The IGF Trust Fund  ---> Taxes

Who "owns" the common words (not names or brands) in the different languages that are used as domain names in the Internet?
Who "owns" the personal data of Internet users?
Who "owns" the content (text, audio/music, video) that individuals share in the Internet?
While there is a debate around these questions, a handful of companies are "monetizing" these words, data and content.
So a tax could be imposed to these companies.
The collected taxes should be more than enough to finance the IGF Plus.
Additionally, the surplus monies accrued could go to a Universal Internet Fund that can be used to finance developmental projects to achieve meaningful Internet use in undeserved communities.

0 People voted for this

It is a great initiation of

It is a great initiation of the IGF Plus model that is more focused towards the engagement and creating better scope. Yes, the IGF plus model is implementable based on the voluntary donation. As the model itself is very practice in context of toady’s internet and internet behavior of the users. Better collaboration with the stakeholder and business and private sector can result in better solution.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Juan

The IGF Trust Fund ---> A clarification

I have received some questions about whether my previous comment on the IGF Trust Fund reflects any animosity against the Internet companies mentioned.
I want to clarify that this is not the case!
On the contrary: I am an admirer of these companies that in a creative way have managed to extract value from ICTs, for their own gain, but also creating 'spills' that benefit others in the global economy.
As a former computer programmer in the 80s, I can fully assess the merit of the founders of these companies, who with their intelligence and effort, and that of their collaborators, managed to solve definitively the "Solow Paradox", and turn the ICTs into an engine for economic, social and cultural development in many parts of the world.
These companies and their business models grew in an environment dominated by a corporate culture that gives priority to the profit of its shareholders over other considerations.
But I am pleased to know that very recently a major US business organization released a new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation.
(see: https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-pu…)
The Statement says at the end: "Each of our stakeholders is essential. We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country."
I hope that for transnational corporations, as in the case of Internet companies, this refers to all countries and communities of the world.
Therefore, to be consistent with this new commitment that these companies have adopted, their participation in the global mechanisms for digital collaboration is essential.
It is in this sense that I consider appropriate to suggest that these companies dedicate a small part of their income to this purpose, which includes, among other actions, the financing of the IGF.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user bwanner

IGF Trust Fund

Innovations such as the Cooperation Accelerator, Policy Incubator, and Observatory/Help Desk will require resources to be effective and truly transform the IGF. USCIB appreciates that the report states that “all stakeholders” would be encouraged to contribute to the IGF Trust Fund. All business sectors have been affected by the digital transformation of the economy. For example, the agricultural sector, which is using cutting-edge technologies to improve crop yields and realize other efficiencies, has a significant stake in global digital cooperation. Thus, encouraging “business stakeholders” to contribute to the Trust Fund – and not calling out a specific sector – would better serve the objective.

At the same time, however, we highlight that the IGF Trust Fund has never garnered enough funds to support the existing IGF. Thus, we remain skeptical that – notwithstanding the report’s call to all stakeholders -- that the Trust Fund will generate enough funds to support the IGF Plus with its additional functions. Other options should be explored.  For instance, if accompanied by a commitment to full transparency with respect to budgeting and programming decisions, including regarding meeting site selection and any commitments to and support from host governments, it may be effective to have the United Nations assume responsibility for directly funding the Forum. This would be consistent with the report’s recommendation that recognizes a bigger role for the multistakeholder model in the UN system and proposes moving the IGF Plus to the UN Secretary-General’s office.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The IGF Trust Fund

While several UN agencies dealing with critical contemporary matters are treated as priorities and enjoy wide support and funding from the institution’s regular budget and additional donations from highly interested countries, the IGF has been treated as a non-entity that is nice to have but not essential. While the matter of the Internet and the digital space certainly intersect with other themes and appear as part of the work of different agencies, the fact remains that the IGF is the reference space for this sort of discussion within the UN.

The continuation of the vision that the IGF is something fairly ad-hoc does not make sense considering the scope of the issues being addressed. To establish a proper functioning environment that would be able to deal with the massive challenges that lie ahead requires not only commitment from the stakeholders, but the UN itself needs to evaluate what its role is in an IGF Plus environment. While it should not be made into an agency, it should not be something detached that is ran on a volunteer basis either.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

suggestion for The IGF Trust Fund

my suggestion is a precent of Tech companies and private sectors income or a precent of Taxes that is paid by global tech companies them to governments can be dedicated to the IGF Trust Fund. these can really help  IGF to implement its strategic plans and reseach and development projects in the field of Internet Governance capacity building. 

0 People voted for this

thanks

.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Foreword

Foreword Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:57

THE AGE OF DIGITAL INTERDEPENDENCE ‎ 

REPORT OF THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL'S HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON DIGITAL COOPERATION

We live in an era of increasing interdependence and accelerating change, much of it driven by technological advances such as low-‎cost computing, the internet and mobile connectivity. Moments of change present new opportunities to solve old problems. The ‎efficiency, innovation, and speed of a digitally connected world can expand what is possible for everyone – including those who ‎historically have been marginalised. ‎

At the same time, humanity faces significant new challenges. Modern technologies can be used to erode security and violate privacy. ‎We are also beginning to see complex impacts on education systems and labor markets. ‎

We believe the opportunities for human progress in the digital age ultimately outweigh the challenges – if we join together in a spirit of ‎cooperation and inclusiveness. ‎

We urgently need to lay the foundations of an inclusive digital economy and society for all. We need to focus our energies on policies ‎and investments that will enable people to use technology to build better lives and a more peaceful, trusting world. Making this vision a ‎reality will require all stakeholders to find new ways of working together. That is why the Secretary General appointed this Panel and ‎what we have sought to do with this Report. ‎

We are grateful to each member of the Panel, the Secretariat, and the many groups and individuals we consulted; though the views ‎expressed were not always in agreement, they were always conveyed with respect and in the spirit of collaboration. ‎

No one knows how technology will evolve, but we do know that our path forward must be built through cooperation and illuminated by ‎shared human values. We hope this Report will contribute to improved understanding of the opportunities and challenges ahead, so ‎that together we can shape a more inclusive and sustainable future for all.

Melinda Gates and Jack Ma

Co-Chairs (signed)


 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

sattamatkabond.net

Satta Matka Bond Is an Old Matka Website provides you <a title="Kalyan Matka" href="http://sattamatkabond.net" >Satta Matka Result</a>   Kalyan Matka  Jodi open-close panel today. Matka gameplays and wins Indian people through Bond matka site. Bond always gives you<a title="Kalyan Matka" href="http://sattamatkabond.net" >Kalyan Matka</a> Milan matka, Rajdhani matka, and time matka perfect guessing game. Online matka industry opening matka result, i quickly publish all satta matka results on Matka result board. Matka game update on our website, top matka guesser team suggest you best satta matka tips and trick with best evergreen games. Public need fastest matka result and daily matka game, Bond sir all-time full fill his work on Satta.

Visit https://sattamatkabond.net

0 People voted for this

I hope to see elaboration on…

I hope to see elaboration on the education and labor system part. It is indeed complex to tackle such.

tree trimming auckland

0 People voted for this

Executive Summary

Executive Summary Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:03

Digital technologies are rapidly transforming society, simultaneously allowing for unprecedented advances in the human condition and ‎giving rise to profound new challenges. Growing opportunities created by the application of digital technologies are paralleled by stark ‎abuses and unintended consequences. Digital dividends co-exist with digital divides. And, as technological change has accelerated, ‎the mechanisms for cooperation and governance of this landscape have failed to keep pace. Divergent approaches and ad hoc ‎responses threaten to fragment the interconnectedness that defines the digital age, leading to competing standards and approaches, ‎lessening trust and discouraging cooperation. ‎

Sensing the urgency of the moment, in July 2018 the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) appointed this Panel to consider the ‎question of “digital cooperation” – the ways we work together to address the social, ethical, legal and economic impact of digital ‎technologies in order to maximise their benefits and minimise their harm. In particular, the Secretary-General asked us to consider how ‎digital cooperation can contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – the ambitious agenda to protect ‎people and the planet endorsed by 193 UN member states in 2015. He also asked us to consider models of digital cooperation to ‎advance the debate surrounding governance in the digital sphere. ‎

In our consultations – both internally and with other stakeholders – it quickly became clear that our dynamic digital world urgently needs ‎improved digital cooperation and that we live in an age of digital interdependence. Such cooperation must be grounded in common ‎human values – such as inclusiveness, respect, human-centredness, human rights, international law, transparency and sustainability. ‎In periods of rapid change and uncertainty such as today, these shared values must be a common light which helps guide us. ‎

Effective digital cooperation requires that multilateralism, despite current strains, be strengthened. It also requires that multilateralism ‎be complemented by multi-stakeholderism – cooperation that involves not only governments but a far more diverse spectrum of other ‎stakeholders such as civil society, academics, technologists and the private sector. We need to bring far more diverse voices to the ‎table, particularly from developing countries and traditionally marginalised groups, such as women, youth, indigenous people, rural ‎populations and older people. ‎

After an introduction which highlights the urgency of improved digital cooperation and invites readers to commit to a Declaration of ‎Digital Interdependence, our report focuses on three broad sets of interlocking issues, each of which is discussed in one subsequent ‎chapter. As a panel, we strove for consensus, but we did not always agree. We have noted areas where our views differed and tried to ‎give a balanced summary of our debates and perspectives. While there was not unanimity of opinion among the Panel members ‎regarding all of the recommendations, the Panel does endorse the full report in the spirit of promoting digital cooperation. ‎

Chapter 2, Leaving No One Behind, argues that digital technologies will only help progress towards the full sweep of the SDGs if we ‎think more broadly than the important issue of access to the internet and digital technologies. Access is a necessary, but insufficient, ‎step forward. To capture the power of digital technologies we need to cooperate on the broader ecosystems that enable digital ‎technologies to be used in an inclusive manner. This will require policy frameworks that directly support economic and social inclusion, ‎special efforts to bring traditionally marginalised groups to the fore, important investments in both human capital and infrastructure, ‎smart regulatory environments, and significant efforts to assist workers facing disruption from technology’s impact on their livelihoods. ‎This chapter also addresses financial inclusion – including mobile money, digital identification and e-commerce –, affordable and ‎meaningful access to the internet, digital public goods, the future of education, and the need for regional and global economic policy ‎cooperation. ‎

Chapter 3, Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies, underscores the fact that universal human rights apply equally online as ‎offline, but that there is an urgent need to examine how time-honoured human rights frameworks and conventions should guide digital ‎cooperation and digital technology. We need society-wide conversations about the boundaries, norms and shared aspirations for the ‎uses of digital technologies, including complicated issues like privacy, human agency and security in order to achieve inclusive and ‎equitable outcomes. This chapter also discusses the right to privacy, the need for clear human accountability for autonomous systems, ‎and calls for strengthening efforts to develop and implement global norms on cybersecurity. ‎

To take significant steps toward the vision identified in Chapters 2 and 3, we feel the following priority actions deserve immediate ‎attention: ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

AN INCLUSIVE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND SOCIETY ‎

1A: We recommend that by 2030, every adult should have affordable access to digital networks, as well as digitally-enabled ‎financial and health services, as a means to make a substantial contribution to achieving the SDGs. Provision of these services ‎should guard against abuse by building on emerging principles and best practices, one example of which is providing the ability to ‎opt in and opt out, and by encouraging informed public discourse. ‎

1B: We recommend that a broad, multi-stakeholder alliance, involving the UN, create a platform for sharing digital public goods, ‎engaging talent and pooling data sets, in a manner that respects privacy, in areas related to attaining the SDGs. ‎

1C: We call on the private sector, civil society, national governments, multilateral banks and the UN to adopt specific policies to ‎support full digital inclusion and digital equality for women and traditionally marginalised groups. International organisations such as ‎the World Bank and the UN ‎ should strengthen research and promote action on barriers women and marginalised groups face to digital inclusion and digital ‎equality. ‎

1D: We believe that a set of metrics for digital inclusiveness should be urgently agreed, measured worldwide and detailed with sex ‎disaggregated data