Session
Organizer 1: Xingdong Fang, Center for Internet and Society, Zhejiang University of Media and Communications
Organizer 2: Bu Zhong, Pennsylvania State University
Organizer 3: Baoguo CUI, Journalism and Comunication Scool, Tsinghua University
Speaker 1:
Speaker 2: Xingdong Fang, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 3: Anita Gurumurthy, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 4: Anriette Esterhuysen, Civil Society, African Group
Louis Pouzin, Civil Society, consultant, EUROLINC
Wolfgang Kleinwächter, academic community, European Group
Wolfgang Kleinwächter is a Professor Emeritus for International Communication Policy and Regulation from the University of Aarhus in Denmark and since 2016 a Commissioner in the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace (GCSC).
He is involved in Internet Governance issues since the early 1990s. He was member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG/2003-2005), Special Adviser to the chair of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF/2005-2010) and member of the UNCSTD IGF Improvement Working Group (2010-2012). He is involved in ICANN since 1998 where he was a member of the ICANN Board of Directors (2013 – 2015), chaired the Nominating Committee (NomCom) and represented the Non-Commercial User Constituency (NCUC) in the GNSO Council (2011- 2013). He is also a co-founder of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EURODIG), the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GIGANET) and the ICANN Studienkreis.
In 2009, the Council of Europe appointed him to chair the Cross-Border Internet Expert Group. In the EU, he chaired the Coordination Committee of the European Interregional Information Society Initiative/IRIS (1994-1998), the Internet Governance Sub-Group of the EU Task Force on the Internet of Things/IOT (2010-2012)) and the evaluation team of EUs Safer Internet Action Program/SIAP 2005-2007). From 2007 to 2012 he was a member of the Steering Board of the EU-FP7 research project “Next Generation Internet/EURO-NF”. He was also the Special Ambassador of the NetMundial Initiative (NMI) from 2014 – 2016.
In the academic world, Wolfgang Kleinwächter served from 1988 to 2012 as a voting member of the International Council of the “International Association for Media and Communication Research” (IAMCR), where he chaired for more than ten years the IAMCR Law Section. He is the founder and chair of the “European Summer School on Internet Governance” (EURO-SSIG), is member of various Editorial Boards of academic journals, has testified in hearings in the Deutsche Bundestag and the European Parliament and has published and edited more than 200 articles and 12 books. In 2012, he got the “Internet Award” from the German Internet Economy Association (eco).
Bu Zhong
Bo Han
Bu Zhong
Debate - 90 Min
The participants from emerging countries like China, South Africa, India, and developed countries like France, British and the United States will share their countries` multi-stakeholders systems and best practices, and then they will discuss and debate on the differences between these countries for a better understanding of the systems, and more importantly, what they may learn from each other. After the discussion, the moderator will summarize ideas and results and help participants to understand the strengths and shortcomings in their multi-stakeholders’ system, and try to improve it according to what they gain from the workshop.
The participants reflect diversity in gender, geography, and stakeholder groups (civil society, technical community, companies and research centers at universities), half of them from developed countries and the other half from developing countries.
In the area of Internet governance, the multi-stakeholder approach has been widely accepted in the international community and is reflected in the declarations, resolutions and work practices of international organizations. Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized that Internet governance should adhere to multilateral participation and multiple parties participation, in which governments, international organizations, Internet companies, technical communities, private institutions, citizens, etc. should play their roles. In both the East and West, people have realized that it is necessary to avoid politicizing concepts and terms. Internet governance is a complicated and dynamic debate, should seek power balance of related parties in each specific case. The multi-stakeholder approach as a problem-solving principle is indeed conducive to promoting the discussion and understanding of Internet public policies among different actors. However, it is worth noting that its effectiveness on policy-making and implementation need continuous improvement. It is not just the adoption of the popular term of “multi-stakeholders,” but also the principles and standards of engagement, diversity, transparency, and accountability in the process of stakeholder governance. With these global consensuses, there is still a lot of controversy between the East and West on the framework design and implementation of the multi-stakeholder approach, such as how to guarantee equality and fairness in different parties` rights, what role the government should play, how policy advices could be effectively put into decision-making and implementation. In this regard, we intend to invite representatives from companies, governments, civil society and other stakeholders of Internet governance from the East and West to participate in the discussion of multi-stakeholder comparisons, and share ideas and best practices about multi-stakeholders approach in different countries and regions to promote mutual understanding between the East and the West, and try to reach a consensus that go beyond concept conflicts and effectively carry forward the global multi-stakeholder governance process.
The moderator will first ask speakers to introduce their own countries multi-stakeholder system, and then invite all participants on-site and online to involve in the debate by the lead of speakers. Then divide the participants into two, the two group will have a 10 min discussion within the group, and then debate between groups to clear out the similarities and differences among countries and try to let everyone understand these different systems.
The workshop is planning to discuss the best practices and trends in terms of East-West commitment as multi-stakeholders, plus the historical lessons and future development.
The whole debate can be broadcast online through the IGF website or Facebook Live, which will be managed by the organizer of the panel.
1. Moderator’s opening remarks (2mins)
2. Speeches
Subject: East-West Multi-stakeholder Model: Experience, Practice and Global Consensus for the Future.
Speaking Time Limits: 5 mins /per speaker. (25 min)
3. Discussion: among speakers 30 (mins)
4. Discussion: among speakers and participants (30 mins)
5. Conclusion: 3 mins.
Report
- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):
Workshop
- Title:
East-West Commitment as Multi-stakeholders
- Date & Time:
Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 10:10 to 11:40
- Organizer(s):
Xingdong Fang, Center for Internet and Society, Zhejiang University of Media and Communications
Bu Zhong, Pennsylvania State University
Chengyu XIONG, Tsinghua University
- Chair/Moderator:
Bu Zhong, Pennsylvania State University
- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Fan Yuanyuan, CyberLabs
- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
Xingdong Fang, male, Zhejiang University of Media and Communications, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Anita Gurumurthy, female, IT for Change, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Anriette Esterhuysen, female, Association for Progressive Communications, Civil Society, African Group
Wolfgang Kleinwächter, male, University of Aarhus, academic community, European Group
- Theme (as listed here):
Evolution of Internet Governance
- Subtheme (as listed here):
MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM
- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
- The multi-stakeholder system in developing and developed countries are coming from practices with different situations and characteristics, how to learn from each other and complement each other's advantages are the key to promote the development of the global multi-stakeholder system.
- There are more than 4 billion netizens around the world, two third are from developing countries, and in the next 3 billion netizens, 90% of them will be from developing countries. The multi-stakeholder model origins from Europe and US needs to add new connotation and to be more inclusive to face the future challenges.
- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop
- Title: East-West Commitment as Multi-stakeholders
- Date & Time: Tuesday 13, November, 2018, 10:10 to 11:40
- Organizer(s):
Xingdong Fang, Center for Internet and Society, Communication University of Zhejiang (Organizer)
Bu Zhong, South China University of Technology/Pennsylvania State University (Co-Organizer)
Chengyu Xiong, Tsinghua University (Co-Organizer)
- Chair/Moderator:
Bu Zhong, South China University of Technology/Pennsylvania State University
- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Fan Yuanyuan, CyberLabs
- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
- Speaker 1: Xingdong Fang, Civil Society from Asia-Pacific group.
- Speaker 2: Wolfgang Kleinwächter
- Speaker 3: Kilnam Chon, founder of APNG, APAN, and APTLD
- Speaker 4 : Chengyu Xiong, Professor of Tashinghua University
- Speaker 5: Demi Getshko, father of the internet in Brazil
- Speaker 6: Yuxiao Li, Deputy director of Cyberspace Research Institute in China
- Speaker 7: Liang Guo, former ICCANMAG member, or the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
- Speaker 8: Deepti Bharthur, IT for Change in India
- Speaker 9: Bu Zhong, South China University of Technology/Pennsylvania State University
- Theme (as listed here): Evolution of Internet Governance
- Subtheme (as listed here): Multistackholderism
- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
- The concept of multistakeholder developed in developing and developed countries come into being from their practices, but not from theories, how to learn from each other and complement each other's advantages are the key to promote the further development of global multistakeholderism.
- The multi-stakeholder model should be used to help us in seeking more common ground, rather than emphasizing the differences between the East and the West, which is more political and socioeconomical, but less geographical, concept.
- The multi-stakeholder approach as a problem-solving principle is a global consensus, but there is a lot of controversy between the East and West on the implementation of this approach, such as how to guarantee equality and fairness in different parties` rights, what role the government should play, how policy advices could be effectively put into decision-making and implementation.
- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…
There was broad support for the multistakeholder approach as a conductive problem-solving principle in internet governance, but its interpretation and implementation was dramatically different in different countries. In some countries, governance was taken as the teaching of the government – which plays the role of “father” in the culture, while others took it as the processes of governing, which must be agreed on also by civil society, private sector and companies, in addition to government. Most speakers and participants shared their own lessons in implementing multistakeholder principle in their own countries from China, India, South Korea, to Brazil, Germany and the United States.
- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]
This workshop calls for policy makers to pay close attention the unbalanced socioeconomic conditions that may facilitate or hinder the successful implementation of multistakerholder principle. In some countries, the power of government, civil society, private section and companies could be more balanced in European countries and the U.S. than most developing countries like China, India and Brazil. Policy making needs to emphasize a key term –“Development” – in the East and West, which is particularly important in countries where less balanced power structure of various social actors exists.
- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]
The global consensuses of the multistakholder principle does not guarantee its effectiveness on policy-making and implementation, which obviously need continuous improvement. Hence, we must embrace the opportunities of learning from each other and build trust and seeking solutions, rather than emphasizing the differences. Hence, it is not just the adoption of the popular term of multistakeholders, but also let’s embrace the principles and standards of engagement, diversity, transparency, and accountability in the process of stakeholder governance.
- Please estimate the total number of participants. 50
- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 25
- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]
Women in each country are playing a growing role in implementing the multistackholder approach. Without their input and participation, it is impossible for human beings to achieve the goals in the area of internet governance.
- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):
Workshop
- Title:
East-West Commitment as Multi-stakeholders
- Date & Time:
Tuesday 13, November, 2018, 10:10 to 11:40
- Organizer(s):
Xingdong Fang, Center for Internet and Society, Communication University of Zhejiang (Organizer)
Bu Zhong, South China University of Technology/Pennsylvania State University (Co-Organizer)
Chengyu Xiong, Tsinghua University (Co-Organizer)
- Chair/Moderator:
Bu Zhong, South China University of Technology/Pennsylvania State University
- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Fan Yuanyuan, CyberLabs
- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
- Speaker 1: Xingdong Fang, Civil Society from Asia-Pacific group.
- Speaker 2: Wolfgang Kleinwächter,professor emeritus of University of Aarhus
- Speaker 3: Kilnam Chon, founder of APNG, APAN, and APTLD
- Speaker 4: Chengyu Xiong, Professor of Tashinghua University
- Speaker 5: Demi Getshko, father of the internet in Brazil and former board member of ICCAN
- Speaker 6: Yuxiao Li, deputy director of Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies
- Speaker 7: Liang Guo, former MAG member of ICCAN
- Speaker 8: Deepti Bharthur, IT for Change in India
- Speaker 9: Bu Zhong, visiting professor of South China University of Technology and associate professor of Pennsylvania State University
- Theme (as listed here):
Evolution of Internet Governance
- Subtheme (as listed here):
Multistackholderism
- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]
- The concept of multistakeholder developed in developing and developed countries come into being from practices, but not from theories. How to learn from each other and complement each other's advantages are the key to promote the further development of global multistakeholder approaches. In the East, the government usually plays a bigger role in internet governance than other social actors, while in the West, the power of major actors in internet governance, including the government, is more balanced than the East.
- The multi-stakeholder model should be used to help us in seeking common ground, rather than emphasizing the differences between the East and the West. When it comes to the internet, we should try to define a common understanding based on a better understanding of different cultures, histories, internet governance approaches. Meanwhile, we should look forward and go beyond our traditional institutions and mechanisms and be open for new perspectives and practices.
- The multi-stakeholder approach as a problem-solving principle is a global consensus. From the East to West, each country or region has its own demands in internet governance. But we have to deal with the same risks and challenges, such as AI, cybersecurity, new technologies, and new products we never had before. There is a lot of controversy between the East and West on the implementation of this approach, such as how to guarantee equality and fairness in different parties` rights, what role the government should play, how policy advices could be effectively put into decision-making and implementation. Before we could deal with the risks and challenges, we need more cooperation and communication between the East and West, in which trust plays a key role. No trust, no cooperation.
- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…
The workshop showed a broad support for the multistakeholder approach as a conductive problem-solving principle in internet governance, but its interpretation and implementation could be dramatically different in different countries. In some countries, governance was taken as the teaching of the government – which plays the role of “father” in the culture. Eastern cultures like China, think the whole country is a family. Government is the father in the family. So the multistakeholder model is different in China, when the internet governance is mostly about what the government can do.
While others took it as the processes of governing, which must be agreed on by civil society, private sector and companies, in addition to government. In the internet governance, one must learn to share decision making among the government and nonstate actors as all stakeholders and internet governance elements should be included into the dialogue. Some supported the “bottom-up processes” in internet process, the government and nonstate actors can contribute to the outcome jointly. Government, civil society and the business and technical community have to play their roles. No stakeholder can substitute another. The government has a special role, so does civil society.
Some argued that four or five groups may not cover the most important stakeholders on the internet, or internet users, such as bloggers, game players, or young users. We should also consider their needs and include them into stakeholder groups, and we should pay more attention to cultural differences which may lead to different internet governance. Multistakeholder is the best process to collect different opinions, but it may not be efficient at the decision making or implementation stages.
- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]
There was broad support for the multistakeholder approach as a conductive problem-solving principle in internet governance, but its interpretation and implementation were dramatically different in different countries. In some countries, governance was taken as the teaching of the government – which plays the role of “father” in the culture, while others took it as the processes of governing, which must be agreed on also by civil society, private sector and companies, in addition to government.
It is important for the government to know that the first principle is “do not harm.” Do not interfere in the internet functions that would create problems for internet use. Cybersecurity should be a key part of internet governance.
It would be wise for the government to consult with nonstate actors before they make important decisions as nonstate actors often have a good understanding of the roles of private sector and civil society.
Most speakers and participants shared their own lessons in implementing multistakeholder principle in their own countries from China, India, South Korea, to Brazil, Germany and the United States.
- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]
The global consensusis of the multistakholder principle does not guarantee its effectiveness on policy-making and implementation, which obviously need continuous improvement. Hence, we must embrace the opportunities of learning from each other, build trust and seeking solutions, rather than emphasizing the differences. Hence, it is not just the adoption of the popular term of multistakeholders, but also let’s embrace the principles and standards of engagement, diversity, transparency, and accountability in the process of stakeholder governance.
- Please estimate the total number of participants.
50
- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
25
- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]
Women in each country are playing a growing role in implementing the multistackholder approach. Without their input and participation, it is impossible for human beings to achieve the goals in the area of internet governance. At the end of the workshop, five female IGF delegates raised their questions and provided suggestions, which indicted the workshop won the interests of female participants at the IGF. This year we only had one female speakers, hope we will included more next year.
- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):