You are here

IGF 2018 Reports


Updated: 23/11/2018 - 22:54
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Lightning Session

- Title: Always-on and listening: a talk about digital assistants

- Date & Time:  Day 1 / Monday, 12 november | Time: 15.00-15.20

- Organizer(s):  Luã Fergus, Diogenes Laertius and Kimmy Wu

- Chair/Moderator: Luã Fergus

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paula Côrte Real

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Luã Fergus Cruz (Male)

- Theme (as listed here):

Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet of Things

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

Need for measures of privacy control, in hardware and software, by users.

Conscientization of the population so that they do not adopt these technologies so easily.

Better writing of the Terms of Service and Privacy Policies of these platforms, and which must comply, at least, with international human rights treaties

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The debate focused on the potential threats that digital assistants can bring to users and consumers. This was boosted with the the presentation of patent applications, terms of service and privacy policies of the biggest digital assistants in the market. The discussion turn into a forecast for a scenario in which such assistants are increasingly present in our homes and, finally, were discussed ex ante measures to mitigate the possible harmful effects to privacy caused by these devices.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

 

Greater transparency about the transmission of voice data to the company's servers;

 

Privacy by design directly incorporated into the technological structures, business models and infrastructures.

 

Guarantee some autonomy to users, such as the insertion of clear indications that one product is being offered to the detriment of another for commercial issues and the possibility of choosing not to receive personalized ads or sponsored products.

Define minimum standards and develop voluntary best practices at the national and regional levels to ensure the protection of human rights by transnational corporations.

 

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

 

No idea specifically about the IGF surfaced. Perhaps because it was a 20 minute activity.

 

Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

- 10 (ten) participants

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

- 6 (six) womens

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

Gender discussions focused on why digital assistants are "female" by default.


Updated: 19/11/2018 - 12:19
Report:

Session Title: Trademarks and ICTs: Empowering Entrepreneurs in Emerging Economies

Date:  Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Time:  13:00 to 13:20

Session Organizer: International Trademark Association (INTA)

Rapporteur:  Lori Schulman, [email protected]  

List of Speakers and their Institutional Affiliations:

Charles Shaban, Executive Director, Abu-Ghazaleh IP, Jordan

Lori Schulman, Senior Director, Internet Policy, International Trademark Association, USA

Theme: Development, Innovation and Economic Issues

Subtheme: Internet for Development & Sustainable Development Goals

Relevance of the Issue:

Do trademark, domain and brand protection enable or hinder economic growth in the digital landscape? The issue of the role of intellectual property rights within the internet governance structure are a source of ongoing debate.  Some view trademarks and domain protection as growth inhibitors while others view them as the building blocks for sustainable business. This builds on the 2016 IGF Lightening Session, "Trademarks Enable Sustainable Growth." http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/4183/451

Content of the Session:

As never before in history, entrepreneurs and small business that need to break out of local economic circumstances have the opportunity to create a business or other endeavor, to empower it, promote it and make it sustainable with the help and support that ICT brings to them.  But, of course, to grow and be successful over time, a business needs more than internet access:  it needs internet presence.   A key element of a unique online presence is offered by combining a website based on a ''good'' domain name matching a trademark that offers information about source, ownership and quality of goods and services.  Combining domain names and trademarks provides the means for broad outreach to the global economy.   A recent impact study conducted by the International Trademark Association (INTA) demonstrates that trademark intensive economies grow faster, promote employment and offer a path to sustainability.  See http://www.inta.org/Communications/Documents/Latin_America_Impact_Study_... Trademarks, in particular, help protect a business from unfair competition and related violations and also have the potential to become an important asset of the business with a real and sometimes substantial value.  These assets become the basis for sustainability by enabling the business to license its products or services and to expand into complementing streams of commerce.  This benefits the proprietor, the consumer and the community-at-large.  A successful business and brand can reflect positively on the country of origin and its economy and employment prospects. Trademarks are what connects the business to its customers and to its country.  Famous Brands immediately identify a country.  If we look at marks like Sony, Ford, Lego, and Heineken, most of these businesses started with a small unknown trademark and an individual entrepreneur. Their trademarks have become famous and intertwined with the business, its products and brand presence and a source of national pride in the countries of origin.

3 Takeaways:

  • Trademarks are symbols of trust in the digital economy.They enable consumers to make quick, confident decisions
  • They enable entrepreneurs to protect their customers and their business assets. 
  • Trademark intensive economies grow at a faster rate, promote employment and offer a path to sustainability.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The format was an interview between Ms. Schulman and Mr. Shaban who is a very experienced trademark practitioner.  Using data from INTA impact studies and real-world examples from private practice, they discussed the importance of trademarks and domain names to small and women-owned businesses.  Trademarks are symbols of consumer trust. They help consumers make confident and quick choices and promote innovation by protecting entrepreneurs.  While having a technical function, domain names become source identifiers too.  Some participants questioned the policy of enforcing trademarks against poor people whose only means of living may be to sell unauthorized or counterfeit good in micro economies. The respondents suggested that those products may be of poor quality and unsafe.  It is incumbent upon the community and governments to build awareness of the dangers of counterfeits and to promote policies that enable the development and sale of legitimate goods and services.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

As mentioned above, there is a need to build awareness that trademarks enable sustainable and inclusive economic growth. They are not solely for the use of large companies. They can help entrepreneurs identify and protect their emerging businesses.  Trademark protection is more affordable than people realize. Many trademark professionals are willing to work with small business owners, especially women entrepreneurs, to devise reasonable and cost effective plans for trademark protection and domain name acquisition.  Examples of woman owned businesses in Morocco, Cameroon, Jordan and US used to demonstrate the point.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Suggestions were made that this session should be expanded to a full workshop as there is more interest in the community.  This is important in the IGF context because of the importance of building trust on the internet, fostering innovation and inclusion. Trademarks bridge the gap between basic access and using to access as an economic driver.  In this sense, trademarks have a place in discussions around technical engagement and supporting policy.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.  

20 seating participants and some walking in and out.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

It appeared that at least half to 2/3 of the participants were female.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?   The discussion focused on women entrepreneurs and used several examples of woman owned businesses from a diverse range of economies to illustrate the points of discussion.

Related SDGs:  5 - gender equality, 8 – decent work and economic growth, 9 – industry, innovation and infrastructure, 16 – peace, justice and strong institutions


Updated: 20/11/2018 - 04:34
Report:

Open Forum #3 - IGF 2018 REPORT

Combating Fake News and Dangerous Content in the Digital Age: “Developing the People’s Internet in the Era of Hoax and Disinformation”

Session tittle: Developing the People’s Internet in the Era of Hoax and Disinformation

Date: November 13th, 2018

Session Organizer/Co-Organizer:  

  1. Ministry of Communication and Information Technology of the Republic of Indonesia (MCIT)
  2. ID-IGF (Indonesia Internet Governance Forum)
  3. SiBerkreasi (Indonesian Digital Literacy National Movement)

Chair/Moderator:

  1. ID-IGF, Mr. Bhredipta Socarana
  2. SiBerkreasi, Mrs. Marcella Zalianty

List of actual Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

  1. Mr. Anang Latif (Indonesian Ministry of Communication and IT, CEO)
  2. Mr. David Kaye (United Nations, Special Rapporteur of Freedom of Expression), assigned to Mr. Amos Toh (Legal Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur of FoE)
  3. Mrs. Irene Poetranto (Citizen Lab of University of Toronto, Senior Researcher)
  4. Mrs. Jac sm Kee (Association of Progressive Communication / APC, Program Manager)
  5. Mr. Jake Lucchi (Googgle, Head of Online Safety and Social Impact)
  6. Mrs. Julie Ward (European Parliament, British Member)

Key Issues raised at the discussion:

  1. Keeping the rights of freedom of expression, drawing the line and definition while ensuring disinformation and fake news not spread further.
  2. Taking legal action as the most effective ways to prevent disinformation and the spread of fake news.
  3. Digital literacy to equip the community to cope with the high information age today.

Agreement achieved at the discussion:

One of the main topics discussed at this session was the importance of contextualizing the issue of finding the clear line and definition of fake news and the universal limitation of freedom of expression. This has become a problem when people use the term of fake news or disinformation, each part of the community refers to many different kind of definitions, which shows that this case is a complex multidimensional issue where people aren’t even talking about the same thing. Therefore, the solutions that need to be implemented should be vary depending on the different manifestation of the problem each community referring to. Despite that, the first step that should be taken is to research based on the context, done especially by the communities who are particularly affected. The other way that can be taken is to strengthen the media as an institution in the act of fact checking or creating alternatives narratives.

Policy Recommendation:

With fake news increasingly become an issue, there’s also increasing pressure on platform to regulate the spread of it. However, the regulation should come with a clear definition and limitation on fake news and hate speech, whether in terms of strengthening freedom of expression and information laws and data information laws which are critical as there is a huge trust deficit and skepticism in terms of institution that we have developed for truth.

Ideas that IGF ecosystem might make progress:

In order to maintain an open and democratic system, it is especially important for government, private sector, civil society as well as institutions to work together to solve such complex issues which is facilitated by a multi-stakeholder panel held by the IGF.

Estimated number of participants: 95 peoples

Estimated number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 40 women

Gender Issues discussed in this panel:

Example brought by one of the speaker, presenting a feminist woman who is in prison for painting a picture depicting tanks in the city where the Turkish government bombarded civilian targets.

Transcript: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-day-2-salle-xii-of3-combating-fake-news-and-dangerous-content-in-the-digital-age-%E2%80%93

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEpFZdQnins

Notetaker / Rapporteur: Ketut Wulan Ardhaputri (BAKTI - Siberkreasi Youth Ambassador), Adya Nisita (Siberkeasi, Research Manager) and Donny B.U (Expert Staff to the Indonesian Ministry of Communication and IT)


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 13:05
Report:

- Session Type: Open Forum

- Title: Development of the Digital Economy and Emerging Technologies in Africa

- Date, Time & Venue: 13 November 2018 from 15H00-16H00, UNESCO Room VIII

- Organizer: AFRICAN UNION

- Chair/Moderator: Mr. Jamal Amin, Sudan, AFIGF-MAG

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Ms. Lilian Nalwoga, AFIGF-MAG, Ms. Loyce Kyogabirwe, CIPESA, Uganda

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Mr. Moctar Yedaly, African Union; Mr. Adil Sulieman, African Union, Ms Mary Uduma, Nigeria, AFIGF-MAG, Mr. Makane Faye, African IGF Secretariat

Key issues raised:

- Need for the High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation to take into account the views and needs of the African stakeholders.

- The Digital Panel should cooperate closely with the African Union to organize African consultations.

- Need to step up engendering process of Panels during the African IGF annua meetings.

- The African Union should organize a digital week during the annual African IGF and publish a yearly report of African Internet Connectivity.

Presentations
Three presentations were made respectively by:

1. Mr Gamal Amin of Sudan provided a summary of the 7th African IGF, indicating the theme of the conference, the attendance, the list of sessions and the outcome of the confference. Information is available at: afigf.africa.

2. Mr. Moctar Yedaly of the African Union described the current and planned initiatives of the African Union in relation to the Information Society, especially the new European Union supported project, PRIDA.

3. Mr. Adil Sulieman of the African IGF secretariat introduced the process of selecting hosts to the African IGF annual meetings. He indicated that there is always a bid which is sent out in January but any country could request to host before the bid is out. In this context he indicated that Nigeria had requested to host the 2020 African IGF and that we were looking for a host for 2019, preferrably from Central Africa or from a francophone country as the conference has been hosted at the North and South parts of the continent in anglophone and arabophone countries.

4. Ms Mary Uduma, member of AfIGF-MAG introduced the African IGF Charter, with particular emphasis on the compostion of the AfIGF-MAG and their role.

5. Mr. Makane Faye of the African IGF secretariat gave out the criteria for selecting AfIGF-MAG and the list of the 15 members.

Discussions
Lively discussions followed the presentations.

Gender Reporting
- The room was full and potential participants could not enter and were kindly requested by the Security Officers to leave the room. The number of participants in the room were at least ---- according to the attendance list.
- Approximately ---- participants were women. 

- There were discussions on empowering women to better participate in the African IGF conference and also to be members of the African IGF MAG.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 17:25
Report:

Session Type: Open Forum

Title: Measuring a free, open, rights based and inclusive Internet

Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 16:10 to 17:10

Organizer(s): UNESCO, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Chair/Moderator: Moez Chakchouk, Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information, UNESCO

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

  • Presentation by Mr. David Souter, UNESCO commissioned author of Internet Universality Indicators (UK)
  • Mr. Enrico Calandro, Research Manager,  Research ICT Africa (South Africa)
  • Mr. Alexandre Barbosa, Head of the Center of Studies for Information and Communications Technologies (CETIC.br) and Mr. João Brant, Ex Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Ministry of Culture and External Consultant for the Pre-testing and Piloting of UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators framework in Brazil (Brazil)
  • Ms. Pirongrong Ramasoota, Vice-President of Chulalongkorn University, Member of the Content Board, Broadcast Section, National Broadcasting and Telecommunications (Thailand)
  • Ms. Silvia Grundmann, Head of Media and Internet Division and Secretary to CDMSI, Council of Europe
  • Closing remarks from Ms. Albana Shala, Chair of UNESCO's International Programme for Development of Communication (IPDC) Council, UNESCO
  • Book launch by Mr. Guy Berger, UNESCO Director for Freedom of Expression and Media Development
  • Ms. Julie Posetti, co-author of UNESCO’s Publication “Journalism, Fake News and Misinformation: Model Course for Journalism Educators and Trainers”, Senior Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford (UK)

Theme: Evolution of Internet Governance

Subtheme: Broadening Stakeholder Participation in Internet Governance

Key messages of the discussion

  • Moez Chakchouk, UNESCO: “UNESCO has been fully committed to develop the Internet Universality Indicators. Over the last 2 years, the Organization has consulted with more than 2000 experts from all the stakeholders’ communities. The final product that will be presented to UNESCO’s IPDC Council aims to raise awareness, map Internet contexts and improve national Internet policies.”
  • Silvia Grundmann, Council of Europe: “This project offers an opportunity for all stakeholders to voluntary measure their national Internet development and to defend an open Internet. At the Council of Europe, we fully support this initiative, which is complementary to our work. I will present this new tool to our Member States and will invite them to implement the Internet indicators.”
  • Alexandre Barbosa, CETIC.br and João Brant, independent consultant (Brazil): “The ROAM framework and the proposed Internet indicators are of high policy-relevance since they constitute an excellent tool for countries to produce data that are relevant for advancing human rights on the Internet, as well as for the UN 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development. What these indicators create is a common ground and an internationally validated framework the can – and must – be used as an advocacy tool.”

The discussion

UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information, Moez Chakchouk gave opening remarks, insisting on the fact that “this project [UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators] will provide our Member States, and other stakeholders, an internationally-recognized tool to assess Internet policies towards enhancing democracy and its building knowledge societies engaged in sustainable Development”. This vision was shared by all the panelists, including David Souter, the leading author of the Internet Indicators, who then presented the project and its key elements.

A panel of 4 experts then shared their experiences regarding the pre-testing and piloting of the indicators in Senegal, Nigeria, Brazil, and Thailand. If each national assessment has been quite different (data available, contexts…), the 4 experts agreed on the fact that “this exercise was important not only to understand the feasibility of data collection in all four dimensions of the ROAM framework, but also to better understand the role and the capacity of different stakeholders in providing access to reliable data sources, both quantitative and qualitative.”

Silvia Grundmann from the Council of Europe and Albana Shala, Chair of UNESCO's IPDC Council fully supported the initiative and said they would present it to the Council of Europe as well as to the Member States of UNESCO’s IPDC Council.

During the final part of the session, Guy Berger from UNESCO and Julie Posetti (co-author of UNESCO’s Handbook on Journalism, Fake News and Misinformation) launched a new publication which explores the very nature of journalism with modules on why trust matters; thinking critically about how digital technology and social platforms are conduits of the information disorder; fighting back against disinformation and misinformation through media and information literacy; fact-checking 101; social media verification and combatting online abuse.

Policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward

As mentioned by Moez Chakchouk, David Souter, and Albana Shala, the Internet Universality Indicators will be presented to UNESCO’s IPDC Council in November 2018 for possible endorsement. The Internet Indicators will then become an internationally-recognized tool to assess Internet policies.

Once presented to UNESCO’s IPDC Council, the Internet Indicators will be published along with an implementation guide. As suggested by the panel of experts who have conducted pre-tests and pilots of the indicators in various contexts, a shorter version of the framework (called the ‘core indicators’) will also be published. They will allow stakeholders to undertake national assessments where resources and data are very limited.

One participant asked whether the Indicators will allow for comparisons between countries and if the national assessments will be compulsory for the Member States. Moez Chakchouk answered that UNESCO has not developed the Indicators for comparisons and rankings between countries. They will be used on a voluntary basis, to help Member States and interested stakeholders to assess where there is room for improvements regarding national Internet policies.

Ideas with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress

It was mentioned several times that UNESCO’s project to develop Internet Universality Indicators was based on the multistakeholder model and sought to bring stakeholders together to participate in the dialogue, decision making, and implementation of the framework.

Estimate number of participants: 120

Estimate percentage of women present: 50%

Gender issues

The session did not directly address issues related to gender. However, some speakers brought a number of gender issues to the table, inasmuch as they were related to the context of the discussion. This was especially the case when participants talked about the cross-cutting indicators which cover gender issues.


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 19:42
Report:

IGF 2018 Report

Implementation of WSIS Action Lines for SDGs towards WSIS Forum 2019

1st Physical Meeting of the Open Consultation Process

- Session Type: 1st Physical Meeting of the WSIS Forum Open Consultation Process

- Title: Implementation of WSIS Action Lines for SDGs towards WSIS Forum 2019

- Date & Time: 12 November 2018, 12:20-13:20

- Organizers: ITU together with UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP (International organizations)

- Chair/Moderator: Mr Vladimir Stankovic, WSIS Secretariat, ITU

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Mr Vladimir Stankovic, WSIS Secretariat, ITU

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

  • Ms Sasha Rubel | Program Specialist | Knowledge Societies Division | UNESCO
  • Mr Torbjörn Fredriksson | Chief | ICT Policy Section | Division on Technology and Logistics | UNCTAD
  • Mr Vladimir Stankovic | ICT Policy Analyst | Corporate Strategy Division | ITU
  • Mr Deniz Susar | Governance & Public Administration Officer | UNDESA
  • Ms Joyce Dogniez | Senior Director | Global Community Engagement | ISOC (WSIS Prizes 2018 Winner)

- Theme: Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme: Other: WSIS Action Lines and SDGs

- Key messages of the discussion. The event focused on informing stakeholders, and soliciting their suggestions regarding preparations for the 2019 WSIS Forum, with the theme Information and Communication Technologies for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

  • The Agenda and Program of the WSIS Forum 2019 is designed in collaboration with the multistakeholders on the basis of official submissions received during the Open Consultation Process on the thematic aspects and innovations of the format of the WSIS Forum 2019. 
  • The First Physical Meeting of the Open Consultation Process for the WSIS Forum 2019 provided an opportunity for the participants to learn more about the WSIS Process, in particular, the implementation of WSIS Action Lines for the Achievement of SDGs, the WSIS Forum 2019 Open Consultation Process, WSIS Prizes 2019, WSIS Forum 2019: Photography Contest, Exhibition, Hackathon, Youth and other special tracks.
  • Involving all WSIS Stakeholders (governments, civil society, private sector entities, academia and international organizations), this process aims to ensure active participation of different sectors during the event. All participants were invited to contribute by addressing Calls for Action.

- Summary of the interventions and discussions with open calls for action: Participants provided input on the potential themes for thematic workshops for the upcoming WSIS Forum. They reflected on past events and proposed ideas on additional interactive formats for the event. They discussed how to best implement the WSIS process, in an effort to align the WSIS Action Lines with the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

  • Following the welcoming remarks by session organizers, the update on the Preparations for WSIS Forum 2019 was shared in the form of a presentation. Major focus of the presentation were the ongoing open Calls for Action where the participants were invited to make official submissions to the WSIS Secretariat for the Open Consultation Process before the deadline (10 February 2019), sharing their views on the thematic aspects and innovations on the format of the forum, recommending speakers, requesting thematic workshops, requesting exhibition stalls, etc.
  • Participants were invited to submit their ICT-related projects for the WSIS Prizes 2019 contest until 30 November 2018, and to participate in the WSIS Photo Contest 2019.
  • The session also benefited from presentation by UNDESA, the WSIS Action Lines C1, C7eGov, C11 lead facilitator, on their implementation activities; and, from the WSIS Prizes 2018 Winner in WSIS Action Line C11, Internet Society, on their experience and appreciation of the contest, inviting ICT community to contribute to the WSIS Prizes 2019.

This was followed by Q&A with muiltistakeholders present. All contributions were taken into account and will be incorporated into planning for the WSIS Forum 2019. Video of the full session can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJ-gZPeIqQ&list=UUk0zf4oI0IsJLh1owvUQSfQ&index=40

- Please describe any suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways:

  • Participants expressed enthusiasm for WSIS Forum 2019. Several noted their long-time support of the WSIS process. The group highlighted a desire to focus on innovative technologies, and their impact on information and knowledge societies.
  • Some specific issues raised included lifelong learning and livelihoods, youth engagement, digital skills needed for achieving SDGs, universal access to information and knowledge, empowering economies in digital era, and financing for digitalization.
  • Special tracks at the WSIS Forum and other innovative solutions were appreciated, with special mention to hackathons and its potential contribution to advancing SDGs.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

  Estimated number of participants present at the session: 24

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Estimated overall number of women present at the session: 10

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. However, it did mention the importance of gender-balanced participation, including the speakers at the WSIS Forum 2019. It was reported that WSIS Forum is increasingly benefiting from growing number of women participants. Special mention was the gender-balanced participation at the WSIS Forum hackathon.


Updated: 27/11/2018 - 21:17
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

- Title: Fostering multi-stakeholder debate on Internet & Elections

- Date & Time: 13 November 2018, 12:30 to 13:30

- Organizer(s): Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br)

- Chair/Moderator: Mr Hartmut Richard Glaser (CGI.br)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Mr Jean Carlos F. Santos (NIC.br / CGI.br)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

- Ms Flávia Lefèvre, CGI.br, representative of the civil society, female

- Mr Henrique Faulhaber, CGI.br, representative of the business sector, male

- Mr Luiz Fernando Martins Castro, CGI.br, representative of Brazilian Federal Government, male

 

- Theme (as listed here): Media & Content

- Subtheme (as listed here): Fake News

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

  1. The role of the Internet for democratic processes has been a permanent issue of the Internet governance agenda for almost twenty years. Initial utopia of unhindered and direct political participation for citizens throughout the world has progressively given room to skepticism. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed a systematic effort by state and non state actors to influence democratic practices elsewhere through campaigns to spread disinformation. In the aftermath of Cambridge Analytica, different countries have announced measures to combat the spread of disinformation and to secure political processes from rogue interference.
  2. The Brazilian electoral process has been marked by the usage of personal data for the  massive sending of messages. Research institutes and universities showed that those messages contributed strongly with the phenomenon of information disorder, especially through WhatsApp.
  3. Brazil have been facing a strong polarization of the population, with many negative externalities, including physical violence on the streets. It has become a common understanding that the fake news phenomenon is a strong element influencing this landscape of social conflicts in Brazil. Due to this context, many initiatives dealing with the information disorder topic have been developed since the beginning of the year. CGI.br argues that  a multi-stakeholder approach is necessary to address the issue and this can contribute to comprehend the problem and to consolidate initiatives. The CGI.br actions were conceived in a multi-stakeholder environment. The session made a brief presentation of this actions like the creation of dedicated council within the scope of the Superior Electoral Court mandate, and the set of activities recently developed by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), which included the release of Guide (Guia Internet e Democracia) to help general public and authorities to combat the phenomenon and mitigate its impacts.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words]

The panel focused on CGI.br's actions in the context of the Brazilian presidential elections. Although the panel focused on the Brazilian experience, there were participants from different nationalities in the audience, showing the relevance of the topic in the IGF context. While the focus of the panel was not fake news, most of the audience's input brought some thought into how to address different issues and troubles related to the information disorder phenomenon. Participants agreed that the 2018 Brazilian presidential election was strongly influenced by the massive dissemination of fake news, undermining the democratic process. But some believe that the electoral legislation and the Marco Civil da Internet, the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights, was fully disregarded and the authorities failed in not recognize the phenomenon. Some participants remembered that the Brazilian electoral law criminalizes messages and commentaries which have the specific purpose of offending the honor or denigrating the image of a candidate, party or association. So the Superior Electoral Court could have acted regarding the facts denounced by the media.

Also, there was no agreement about the role of the platforms in the electoral process and its responsibility as they are a stage for the public debates. Some speakers defended that platforms should not be liable for what happened and others think that their commercial practices may be causing damages for the democratic institutions of the country. An issue was raised on how the absence of net neutrality and business models as zero rating has influenced on disinformation.

The discussion in the room did not show agreement concerning how best to address the spread of fake news over the Internet. The general discussion indicated that the impact of disinformation in elections is a complex issue. CGI.br representatives on the table emphasized that the Internet Steering Committee advocates for a multi-stakeholder approach in understanding fake news phenomenon and the impact of the Internet on elections.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

This topic was not covered by discussions that took place during the session.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

This topic was not covered by discussions that took place during the session.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants: 47 on site participants + 05 online participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 25 woman on site + 02 woman online

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Gender issues were not covered by the discussions held.

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

CGI.br Internet, Democracy and Elections guide

<https://cgi.br/media/docs/publicacoes/13/Guia%20Internet,%20Democracia%20e%20Elei%C3%A7%C3%B5es>


Updated: 25/11/2018 - 23:30
Report:

-    Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): OPEN FORUM
-    Title: How to enable local production and local contents
-    Date & Time: Monday 12 November 2018 - from 10.10 to 11.10 AM - Room XII
-    Organizers:   EBU, WIPO, UNESCO
-    Chair/Moderator: Giacomo Mazzone (EBU)
-    Rapporteur/Notetaker: Giacomo Mazzone
-    List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
-    Danielle Cliche , Secretary to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions  (International Organization - FEMALE)

-    Paolo Lanteri, Copyright and Creative Industries Sector, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)(International Organization - MALE)
-    Alain Modot, Media Consulting Group , project Hub Africa (Private sector - MALE)
-    Gonzalo Laguado Serpa , Proimagenes colombia (partner of the “El abrazo del serpiente”, best foreign film Oscar 2015) (Governmental institution - MALE)
-    Theme (as listed here):  LOCAL CONTENT & MULTILINGUALISM
-    Subtheme (as listed here): FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON LINE - INTERNET FOR  DEVELOPMENT &  SUSTAINABLE DEVELOMENT

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1) Internet -as it is today- doesn't automatically produce the conditions for the production of local content and services in local languages for community of citizens. If these processes are not governed, there is a high risk that contents already produced in some countries and some vehicular languages will be made available to everybody, while  content of local interest and in non vehicular languages will not circulate;2) Regulation and cultural policies are possible enablers to change this current dominant trend. UNESCO Convention 2005, WIPO International Treaties on Intellectual property and State intervention in cultural field are one of the key to invert the trend; 3) Successful existing models applied to local production in other sector could be easily transferred into the Internet world, such as Public Broadcasting Services model or Film funds and Creative funds experiences worldwide.

DRAFT FINAL REPORT (published on 12-11-2018)

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

 

- Title: How to enable local production and local contents

 

- Date & Time: Monday, November 12, 2018 - 10.10 to 11.10 – Room XII

 

- Organizer(s): EBU, WIPO, UNESCO

 

- Chair/Moderator: Giacomo Mazzone (EBU)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paolo Lanteri (WIPO) & Giacomo Mazzone (EBU)

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Danielle Cliche , Secretary to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (International Organization - FEMALE)

Paolo Lanteri, Copyright and Creative Industries Sector, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)(International Organization - MALE)

Alain Modot, Media Consulting Group , project Hub Africa (Private sector - MALE)

Gonzalo Laguado Serpa , Proimagenes colombia (partner of the “El abrazo del serpiente”, best foreignfilm Oscar 2015) (Governmental institution - MALE)

 

- Theme (as listed here):

 

Media and Content

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):

 

Local Content and Multilingualism

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

  • While the demand/need for local content is set to remain high, creation and distribution remain more challenging, for a number of economic and technological reasons. The internet content tends to be more conducive of content in vehicular languages.
  • Governments around the World understand the strategic importance of the issue. A variety of policies, including direct economic incentives, might be justified to solve this unbalance.Successful stories can be guide new endeavours.

 

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

 

There is evidence that national and regional measures to support local contents and production have worked and produced effective results. 146 governments have undersigned the UNESCO convention that states that each state has the right to support creative industry and economy.

Under this framework the Public Service Broadcasting model in Europe is functioning since 80 years as a way to secure funding for national creativity and local expression, while in other part of the world, such transfer system doesn’t exists.

On the contrary African cinema and audio-visual production today is characterized by a dispersion of funds and a weakness of financing that unbalance the market leaving the lion share of quality content to international groups.  There are many possible solutions to try to fill this gap. One of these solutions, was presented at the Forum, called HUB Africa would function as a catalyser of investments and guarantee of diversity and the quality of programs offered. Could also works as a basket fund to collect public  (ACP, AFD) and private funds  (foundations)which want to invest in local content but need transparency and the guaranty to reach the wider audience (educational, edutainment).

Colombian Government has launched a flagship policy "economía naranja" by law. This is arguably the first national law to fully acknowledge the creative industries and to provide a framework for their promotion. On the side, Proimagenes, an NGOs also performing a film commission role, is devoted to the promotion of film and audiovisual content, through initiatives such as Film Development Fund and the Colombia Film Fund. The FDF disburses financing for the production of film, as well as for educating screenwriters and others.

 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

  • Local content creation and distribution should be supported by variety of public policies, enabling regulatory framework, including copyright protection, and direct economic incentives
  • More evidence and reliable data are needed to better shape concrete policy proposals – these could be achieved through cooperation
  • Increased cooperation among various actors of the ecosystem (broadcasters, independent producers, public funds) could be a solution especially in regions where consolidated mechanisms of funding of the creative sectors doesn’t exists already today.

 

 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

  • Local distribution capacity should be taken into account in addressing this issue
  • Information gathering efforts could be undertaken
  • Support and incentive the extension of “analogue” functioning mechanisms into the “digital world”

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

75

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

40%

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session did not address any specific gender issue


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 19:25
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Open Forum  14  

 

- Title: La Francophonie et la transformation numérique

 

 

- Date & Time: 12.30-13.30

 

- Organizer(s): International Organisation of the Francophonie/Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF)

 

- Chair/Moderator:

Mr. Pierre DANDJINOU, RVP, Global Stakeholder Engagement, AFRICA, ICANN

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Ms Nelly KWENDE

Mr. Kossi Amessinou

 

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

- Ms Hary ANDRIAMBOVOANJY, iDirector of digital and economical Francophonie, interim Administrator of OIF (Intergovernemental)

- Mr Abdelkader ZIGHIED, Director of Digital Department – Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie (Technical community)

- Ms Mireille EZA, Director of Program "NORIA", Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (Parliament)

- Mr. Emmanuel ADJOVI, M. Director of OIF Regional Office for Caribbean and Latin American Countries (BRECAL) (intergovernmental)

- Ms Nelly PORTA, Assistant Director of French Langage and Cultural and Linguistic Diversity of OIF (Intergovernmental)

 

 

- Theme (as listed here):

Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):

INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

The great accelerations of recent years with the global race to capture personal data, the rapid and continuous development of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, Big Data, blockchains and internet of things open new battlefields that offer interesting perspectives for the Francophonie countries. They will be able to count in the coming world if they lay the bricks needed to build the industries of tomorrow.

Francophonie supports the integration of digital into public policies. She accompanied research centers and public reading. It also promoted the least available languages on the internet.

Digital technology will help to build an education industry for the benefit of member states of the Francophonie.

International Organisation of Francophonie, has a lot of supporting program to achieve this goals. All the principal department of the organisation do capacity building for the countries member.

The big fight is to increase the use of French in digital areas and then promote digital industry in French speaking countries.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

The time allowed to this open forum was to short to have efficient discussion but moreover a lot of  questions has been asked  on the session. Some of them are the following :

How to deal with GAFA without having an alternative industry? What is the regulation adapted to new challenges such as big data, the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence? What is the progress of the FinTech initiative?

One of the most important was the follow up of Erevan recommendations to turn them in concrete program and realisations.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

It is important to get funds to digitize the inaccessible heritage data of the developing countries. It is important get francophonie position on social networks shutdown in Africa by the government.

OIF has to support program and project who can increase digitalisation in francophone countries and fight for more cultural and  language diversity on the internet.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

We need to create an ecosystem to have the data industry. The network of Francophonie digital ministers is being formalized and IGF ecosystem must help to build a strong plateform to help the French speaking countries  particularly the subsaharian African one to spread digital spirit and work for digital inclusion through OIF.

 

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

50 participants

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

20 women and 30 men

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The Francophonie has promoted women in the digital ecosystem.


Updated: 30/11/2018 - 12:49
Report:

Key Messages:

  • AI can contribute to personalised learning, support inclusion of children with disabilities, enable quicker processing of data in health and education, but can also cause unintended biases that can have negative outcomes for children. Machine learning decision making is affected by the data systems and algorithmic design both of which depend on humans to create and in order to eliminate these biases we need stronger awareness and monitoring by all those who are involved in the design and the deployment process.
  • Children and youth also need to be engaged in the process of the development and deployment of AI technologies.
  • Guidelines on AI technologies that take children rights into account are needed not only for the government and the private sector but also for parents and educators.

Discussion:

There was a general consensus that this is an emerging area where more information, case studies, research is needed. Forum participants identified key gaps in research relating to representation/ case studies from the Global South, and agreed that greater emphasis on inclusionary and representative approaches to research. Participants suggested that private companies who are interested in advancing child rights (and consulting with young people in the process) could be key partners in this work (e.g. Telecompanies like Telia that have engaged youth panels). The discussion around how to better integrate young people in the AI design and development processes led to questions around how to adequately and inclusively represent young people given constraints such as: a lack of publically available data on children (especially in the global south), and the difficultly in engaging a representative sample of young people in consultative processes. UNICEF invited all the participants to contribute to building the agenda on Children and AI, to share their lessons and experiences and to work jointly on finding solutions.

Next Steps:

UNICEF explained the work currently under development i.e. the scoping of literature, documenting case studies, analysing trends which can inform the consultation with various stakeholders in order to develop a road map for the next few years. Our aim is also to develop policy recommendations for different stakeholder groups- including government, private sector, and parents/caregivers.


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 10:01
Report:

 - Session Type: Open Forum

- Title: Information disorder: exploring stakeholders' remedial potential

- Date & Time: 12 November 2018, 09:00-10:00

- Organizer(s): Council of Europe, European Broadcasters Union

- Chair/Moderator: Rasmus Nielsen, Director, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism / Professor of Political Communication, University of Oxford

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Elena Dodonova, Council of Europe

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

  • Ms Tanja Kerševan Smokvina,  Associate Partner, Wagner-Hatfield /  expert, Committee of experts on human rights  dimensions of automated data processing  and different forms of artificial intelligence (MSI-AUT), Council of Europe
  • Mr Giacomo Mazzone, Head of Institutional Relations, European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
  • Mr Olaf Steenfadt, Project Director, Journalism Trust Initiative representative / Reporters Without Borders

- Theme: Media&Content

- Subtheme: Fake news

- Please state no more than three key messages of the discussion:

  1. Information disorder is a characteristic feature of the environment we currently live in, and everyone is responsible. Every stakeholder group has a role to play in addressing information disorder. For efforts taken to this end to be effective, it is crucially important to develop and enhance synergies and cooperation initiatives.
  2. Independent, empirical research is absolutely necessary to inform state policies and other stakeholders’ responses to information pollution. Those engaged in research must have access to all relevant data for analytical purposes, be it data in the possession of states or internet intermediaries, and including deleted data.
  3. Quality journalism and traditional media have a role of key importance to play in addressing information disorder, which requires a healthy media landscape.  Reinstating trust in the media by securing its independence and sustainability, as well as strengthening relations between citizens and their national / own language media are indispensible for any endeavours to combat mis- and dis-information.

- If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

  • Mr Rasmus Nielsen, moderator, opened the session with an overview of the current state of research on information disorder, mentioning also the Council of Europe report on “Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making”. This report offers a new conceptual framework for examining information disorder and provides recommendations for different stakeholders, as well as a round-up of related practical initiatives. The moderator further drew attention of the audience to the importance of taking into account the context (social, other), since it makes a difference in terms of possible risks, as well as in terms of possible solutions. Lastly, he stressed the role of independent journalism in addressing information disorder.
  • Ms Tanja Kerševan Smokvina observed that information pollution not only undermines traditional media, but also creates an environment conducive to terrorism and radicalization. She highlighted that measures addressing this issue must be proportionate, as otherwise the risk of creating censorship machines is too high. She further referred to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries which distinguishes respective obligations and responsibilities of states and of private sector companies based on the human rights and rule of law-based approach. The speaker stressed that all stakeholders have a role to play in addressing information disorder. In particular, academic research is of great importance for informing policy-making, as well as the public debate in general. Currently a lack of targeted research, e.g. regarding the effects of different narratives, as well as regarding the impact of information disorder in general, can be observed. Lastly, she observed that the majority of initiatives in place are one-stakeholder initiatives and stressed the need for developing synergies to effectively address the complex phenomenon of information disorder.
  • Mr Giacomo Mazzone presented the work of the EBU in developing tools for quality journalism in the digital world applicable to the public service broadcasting world. (1) Eurovision Social Newswire [email protected] - 453 journalists from 28 countries, not only in Europe but also in the US, Japan and Algeria. The biggest collective network of UGC verification; (2) Eurovision Social Newswire - The Journalist's Toolbox. A toolkit for making verification with digital tools available on the web; (3) The Quality Journalism Initiative: a) report “Perfect Storm: The multiple challenges facing public service news and why tackling them is vital for democracy” and b) seminars at all members’ newsrooms; (4) Participation in the work of the Council of Europe expert groups on algorithms (MSI-AUT) and on quality journalism (MSI-JOQ), and in the EU High Level Group on Fake news and in the Sounding board that will watch on outcomes from the work of this group; (5) EBU’s work on safety of journalists with UN, UNESCO, HRC, IFJ, INSI, RWB. He observed that the problem of information disorder cannot be solved solely by ‘making good journalists’, that journalism today requires skills that are traditionally not part of the profession, and also that self-regulation by social media platforms has no measurable criteria of efficiency.
  • Mr Olaf Steenfadt in his intervention provided an even closer look at quality journalism, and ways of reinstating trust in the media, while also highlighting the economic dimension of sustainability. He presented the ‘Journalism Trust Initiative’ (JTI) which is designed to combat disinformation online and promotes journalism by adherence to an agreed set of trust and transparency standards to be developed and implemented. He further highlighted that production and distribution of information today is twofold – through traditional channels where codes of conduct and ethical codes are in place, and through algorithmic distribution. The JTI aims at connecting the two by feeding ethical norms of journalism into algorithmic distribution of journalist content. Lastly, Mr Steenfadt highlighted the benefits of this initiative not only for media outlets, but also for advertisers in terms of protection of reputation of the brand.

- Please describe the discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

The discussions first focused on the role of civil society in addressing information disorder. Within their respective role, civil society organisations could bring important concerns to the attention of governments, raise awareness and educate people about the risks of information disorder, and also act as honest brokers bringing together different players in the fight against information disorder. The Council of Europe in different formats (expert committees, conferences, other) engages with civil society organisations and works on fostering  dialogue among different stqkeholders.

The debate further touched upon the role of the judiciary, mentioning a case of harassment of a journalist by trolls, on which a conditional sentence was rendered in Finland. Also the session discussed the need for international consensus, and criteria upon which the media can be trusted, - mentioning, alongside with the JTI, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation on protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, and Recommendation on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership.

Lastly, the session looked at wider implications of information disorder, including those for free speech, arriving at a conclusion that multi-stakeholder responses will be required.

- Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps / key takeaways (3 paragraphs):

  • The session has discussed the respective roles of different stakeholders in addressing information disorder and effectively demonstrated that one-stakeholder responses have a very limited potential as compared to co-operation initiatives and synergies;
  • The role of academic research in informing the debate on information disorder, and also the role of the judiciary in providing targeted responses in cases of online harassment of journalists, was highlighted;
  • There was broad consensus in that independent and quality journalism plays a key role in addressing information disorder. At the same time, the session clearly demonstrated that this role can only be fulfilled in a healthy landscape, including its economic dimesion.

Gender Reporting

 - Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

The session gathered approximately 60 participants.

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

Approximately 20 participants were women.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment? If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment.


Updated: 04/12/2018 - 16:31
Report:

IGF 2018 Long Report

 

- Session Type:

Open Forum

 

- Title:

Technological Innovation and Internet Governance Rules

 

- Date & Time:

14/11/2018,11:20-12:20

 

- Organizer(s):

Cyberspace Administration of China

 

- Chair/Moderator:

Mr. Yuxiao Li

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Ms. Luman Sun

Ms. Lan Cao

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Madam Qi Xiaoxia, Director General of International Cooperation Bureau of Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC)                 

Professor. Li Yuxiao, Vice-President of  Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies. the Coordinator of the  High-level Advisory Council of the World Internet Conference Organizing Committee

Mr. Paul Wilson, Direct General of APNIC

Mr. Leonid Todorov, General Manage of APTLD

Mr. Demi Getschko, CEO of the Brazilian Network Information Center, one member of the Internet Hall of Fame

Professor. Wolfgang·kleinwachter, board member of the Medienstadt Leipzig e.V

Mr. Jiang Wei, Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies

Mr. Ma Teng, Cyberspace Administration of China

Professor. Xie Yongjiang, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications

 

- Theme:

The 5th World Internet Conference

Technological Innovation

Internet Governance

 

- Subtheme:

The achievements of the 5th World Internet Conference

The revolution of information technologies

Internet Governance Rules

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1. The internet is becoming an important drive for innovative development and social progress, benefiting the whole humankind. The new technologies, such as AI, blockchain, Industrial internet and IoTs, have been widely used in economic, cultural and other fields. Technological innovation will surely lead to the Internet governance transformation,which in turn needs strong support of new technology. To some extent, the cyberspace has become the new area of the global governance system revolution.

 

2. China is going through a historic process of rapid application of information technologies. The technologies represented by the Internet have brought about new ways of social production, created new space for people’s life. The Chinese people have got more sense of gain in sharing the results of Internet development. China attaches importance to both development and governance of Internet. Now China has found a path of Internet governance with Chinese characteristics, thus contributing China’s experience to the global Internet development and governance. China’s practice of Internet development and governance will surely give a new choice for developing countries.

 

3. The governance and order of cyberspace are becoming ever more important. We should formulate complete cyberspace governance rules and promote the reform of the global governance system. All parties of the international community are making active efforts to seek solutions, including governments, international organizations, internet companies, technology communities, non-government institutions and individual citizens. All parties should enhance cooperation to uphold cyber security, participate in internet governance and share the achievements of governance.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was broad support for the view that the energization level of the Internet is playing an increasingly important role in driving and leading economic and social development. Cyberspace has become the space of activity for all human beings. So the governance and order of cyberspace are becoming ever more important.

Many indicated that we need a digital world of mutual trust and collective governance. The governments, international organizations, Internet businesses, technical communities, private sectors and individuals should all play their role through effective and constructive cooperation to build a safer and healthier global cyberspace. They indicated that the governments of all countries should be more and more dominant in the cyberspace governance.

Many indicated that there are many active issues in the Internet governance, many of which are not technical. In the future, we need more interdisciplinary discussions and research to promote the sustaining development of the Internet. We should establish deepen cooperation in technical R&D, rule and regulation making and information sharing.

Many supported  that the 5th World Internet Conference (WIC) formed some important achievements. It published the “China Internet Development Report 2018” and “World Internet Development Report 2018”. The HAC members discussed major cyberspace issues of global concern and approved the “Wuzhen Outlook 2018”. The WIC reflects both opportunities and challenges brought by the Internet to social development and national governments. Besides, There is still a lot of room for improvement. In particular, more countries and International organizations should participate in the WIC.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

With the advent of new technologies and applications that keep engendering new demands and challenges, it’s increasingly clear that the international cyberspace governance is not merely a technical issue but a holistic one. All parties, including governments, international organizations, Internet companies, technology communities, non-governmental institutions and individual citizens should all play their role through effective and constructive cooperation to build a  safer and healthier cyberspace. During such collaborative process, we must keep in mind that countries under various development stages have their respective challenges both domestically and externally. Each and every country has the right to choose its way of development in cyberspace. Policymakers are not seeking an identical way forward but the mutual trust on which the global rules and norms for cyberspace could be built.

That being said, it is highly advised that governments should play a greater role in promoting all actors to participate in international events relating to cyberspace, such as the Internet Governance Forum, the World Summit on Information Society Forum and the World Internet Conference.

All in all, the international community should work far more closely to deepen strategic mutual trust, improve the governance mechanisms and promote the implementation of rules in order to improve the global Internet governance process to reach a new stage.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

IGf serves as a way to make people understand what are the opportunities and challenges brought by ICTs to countries under their variant development stages, so as to understand their mentality and practices in the Internet governance measures. Based on such understanding, our respective roles are clear as much as the resources we need. All these shall serve as a catalyst for further dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation featuring openness, transparency and efficiency, which in turn can help us to define what a smart political resolution should be.

It is recommended to summarize and publish the consensus and divergence that existed at IGF. In this way, the IGF will substantially expand the consensus on Internet-related issues.

We should make the IGF more planable. For example, it is recommended to approve the MAG earlier so that they can start work at the beginning of the year. 

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 100 participants.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 40 women present.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

No discussion related to gender issues.

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-day-3-salle-ix...

 

 

IGF 2018 Short Report

 

 

- Session Type:

Open Forum

 

- Title:

Technological Innovation and Internet Governance Rules

 

- Date & Time:

14/11/2018,11:20-12:20

 

- Organizer(s):

Cyberspace Administration of China

 

- Chair/Moderator:

Mr. Yuxiao Li

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Ms. Luman Sun

Ms. Lan Cao

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Madam Qi Xiaoxia, Director General of International Cooperation Bureau of Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC)                 

Professor. Li Yuxiao, Vice-President of  Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies. the Coordinator of the  High-level Advisory Council of the World Internet Conference Organizing Committee

Mr. Paul Wilson, Direct General of APNIC

Mr. Leonid Todorov, General Manage of APTLD

Mr. Demi Getschko, CEO of the Brazilian Network Information Center, one member of the Internet Hall of Fame

Professor. Wolfgang·kleinwachter, board member of the Medienstadt Leipzig e.V

Mr. Jiang Wei, Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies

Mr. Ma Teng, Cyberspace Administration of China

Professor. Xie Yongjiang, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications

 

- Theme (as listed here):

The 5th World Internet Conference

Technological Innovation

Internet Governance

- Subtheme (as listed here):

The achievements of the 5th World Internet Conference

The revolution of information technologies

Internet Governance Rules

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1. The internet is becoming an important drive for innovative development and social progress, benefiting the whole humankind. The new technologies, such as AI, blockchain, Industrial internet and IoTs, have been widely used in economic, cultural and other fields. Technological innovation will surely lead to the Internet governance transformation,which in turn needs strong support of new technology.

 

2. China attaches importance to both development and governance of Internet. Now China has found a path of Internet governance with Chinese characteristics, thus contributing China’s experience to the global Internet development and governance. China’s practice of Internet development and governance will surely give a new choice for developing countries.

 

3. All parties of the international community are making active efforts to seek solutions, including governments, international organizations, internet companies, technology communities, non-government institutions and individual citizens. All parties should enhance cooperation to uphold cyber security, participate in internet governance and share the achievements of governance.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was broad support for the view that the energization level of the Internet is playing an increasingly important role in driving and leading economic and social development. And we need a digital world of mutual trust and collective governance.

Many indicated that there are many active issues in the Internet governance, many of which are not technical. In the future, we need more interdisciplinary discussions and research to promote the sustaining development of the Internet.

Many supported  that the 5th World Internet Conference (WIC) formed some important achievements. It published the “China Internet Development Report 2018” and “World Internet Development Report 2018”. The HAC members discussed major cyberspace issues of global concern and approved the “Wuzhen Outlook 2018”. The WIC reflects both opportunities and challenges brought by the Internet to social development and national governments. Besides, There is still a lot of room for improvement. In particular, more countries and International organizations should participate in the WIC.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

The international community should work far more closely to deepen strategic mutual trust, improve the governance mechanisms and promote the implementation of rules in order to improve the global Internet governance process to reach a new stage.

The governments, international organizations, Internet business, technical communities,private sectors, and individuals should all play their role through effective and constructive cooperation to build a  safer and healthier cyberspace.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

IGf serves as a way to make people understand what are the opportunities and challenges brought by ICTs to countries under their variant development stages, so as to understand their mentality and practices in the Internet governance measures. Based on such understanding, our respective roles are clear as much as the resources we need. All these shall serve as a catalyst for further dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation featuring openness, transparency and efficiency, which in turn can help us to define what a smart political resolution should be.

It is recommended to summarize and publish the consensus and divergence that existed at IGF. In this way, the IGF will substantially expand the consensus on Internet-related issues.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 100 participants.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 40 women present.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

No discussion related to gender issues.


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 09:10
Report:

Updated: 16/11/2018 - 12:52
Report:

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

  Open Forum

- Title:

  The multistakeholder approach in G20 and G7 discussions related to digital economy

- Date & Time:

  Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 12:30-13:30

- Organizer(s):

  Ministry of Internal affairs and Communications (MIC) Japan and Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs France

- Chair/Moderator:

  Yoichi Iida(Deputy Director-General for G7 and G20 Relations MIC, Japan)

Henri Verdie (Ambassador for Digital Affairs, France)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Dr. Daniela Brönstrup (Deputy Director-General, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy Germany)

Mr. Samuel Marleau Ouellet(Director, ISED G7 Secretariat, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Dr. Valeria Escliar(Senior Policy Advisor,  Ministry of Modernization, Argentina)

Ms. Rita Forsi,(Ministry of Economic Development. Italy)

W20 Ms. Natacha Quester-Séméon (Etienne Parizot)

C20  Mr./Ms. Nnena Nwakanma  (web foundation)

- Theme (as listed here):

  Development, Innovation& Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here):

  INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  Vitalizing the preparatory arguments toward G20 Digital Economy Track in 2019

Strengthening synergy with G7 work stream under French Presidency.

Focusing on the way to make the multistakeholder approach work in digital international negotiations encouraging different stakeholders to make suggestions and proposals to the groups of G7 and G20 to take their roles in the upcoming discussions in 2019 in their agenda.

- 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…

After welcoming speech made by the moderators, representatives from governments and other stakeholders delivered presentation. In the last part, the floor was open to all participants and free discussion was held. There was broad support and consensus on the view that multistakeholder approach is crucial to discuss public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. Main specific comments from the speakers are as follows.

It is crutial to demonstrate that the multistakeholder  approach can help overcoming various real challenges

It is essential to not only provide the multistakeholder the opportunities to participate in G7/G20 discussion but also incorporate their views into ministerial declarations.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

There was broad support the view that multistakeholder approach is crucial to discuss public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and strengthening multistakeholder approach in various global forum like G7/G20 is needed to further progress the discussion.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Participants agreed to strengthen the multistakeholder approach in the discussion regarding Internet Governance issues.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 30 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 10 women participants

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Some participants stated that it is essential to take gender balance into account when adopting the multistakeholder approach to ensure diversity.


Updated: 20/11/2018 - 19:19
Report:

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

 

- Title: Working together at the regional level – projects & forums

 

- Date & Time: 14 November 09:00-10:30

 

- Organizer(s): IGF Baku Secretariat/Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies
Manager/UNDP CO Azerbaijan IGF Baku Secretariat/Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies

 

- Chair/Moderator: Vasif Mammadov – Project Manager /UNDP

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: N/A

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Vasif Mammadov – Project Manager/UNDP (male)

Rashad Azizov – Head of Department/ Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies (male)

Guest Speaker

Guest Speaker

Guest Speaker

 

- Theme (as listed here): Evolution of Internet Governance/Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): BROADENING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE/INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. 1. We should work via innovative projects for further implementation of SDG goals; 2. Forums on Innovations should be new platforms for further expansion of IGF ecosystem; and 3. Capacity building of institutions is pivotal for the success of the IGF goals

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. Within the framework of the MTCHT’s recent activities solid successful outcomes were achieved in the sphere of ICT and transport, such as operational progresses of the North-South Corridor, TRACECA and Baku Trade Port. The goal of the relevant programmes is to provide assistance in the restoration of the transport infrastructure of the newly independent states of the region, establish shortest transport corridor connecting Europe and Asia and thereby integrate the region into the West, simultaneously serve as the platform of concentration for the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway line that was commissioned last year. Likewise more than forty government services were developed in the framework of the E-government portal, which is leading to successful foundation of Mobile Government, High frequency broadband radio communication systems were created to increase the number of frequencies for radio-electron broadcasting and public wireless internet was initiated as a pilot project.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. Consequently, based on MTCHT’s and UNDP CO Azerbaijan’s previous successful cooperation, including the abovementioned achievements of Azerbaijan in ICT and transport spheres, there are number of perspective opportunities to further improve mutual collaboration of stakeholders within scope of the “Modernization of Sustainability and Efficiency of ICT infrastructure and ICT services in the Republic of Azerbaijan” project.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? Innovative methods of IGF expansion, particularly via projects, forums and capacity building programs

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 60

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 40

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? Gender based innovative projects

 


Updated: 20/11/2018 - 09:49
Report:

IGF 2018 Report 

ICANN Open Forum

 

 

- Session Type:  Open Forum

 

- Title:    ICANN Open Forum

 

- Date & Time:  Monday; 12th November; 2018

 

- Organizer                            ICANN

 

- Chair/Moderator:                            Cherine Chalaby

 

- Rapporteur:                       Nigel Hickson

 

- Speakers:                              Goran Marby; ICANN CEO;                             Technical Community

                                                      Cherine Chalaby; ICANN Board Chair      Technical Community

                                                      Theresa Swinehart, ICANN                             Technical Community

                                                      Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board                          Technical Community

                                                      Sarah Deutch, ICANN Board                           Technical Community

                                                      Elena Plexida, ICANN                                           Technical Community

                                                      Avri Doria, ICANN Board                                 Technical Community

                                                      Nigel Hickson, ICANN                                         Technical Community

                                   

                                                     

 

- Theme:                                  Domain Name System

 

 

 

Key Messages

 

1. The importance on reaching an agreement within the ICANN Community on legitimate third-party access to the non-public information of registrants of domain names held in WHOIS Database;

 

2. The importance of the Internet Community being involved in the policy development process; especially commenting on the Reports, concerning a subsequent process for issuing new generic top-level domain names (gTLDs);

 

3. The importance of ICANN, and other entities from the Technical Community, providing factual information, where appropriate, to policy makers and legislators, on the effect of specific measures on the stability, security and openness of the DNS System and the Internet

 

 

Overall Dialogue

 

This was an open session about the work of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and our role in the broader Internet ecosystem, with the goal of engaging with the audience about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in relation to the WHOIS (the system of registration data associated to register domain names); and new generic top-level domains (gTLDs).

Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Chair) gave an overall introduction to the Open Forum, welcoming participants, introducing fellow Board members, and noting, briefly, what ICANN is about and our role within the Internet Ecosystem.  

He noted that these two topics are on the ICANN agenda, and have an impact on the wider Internet community.

Theresa Swinehart, ICANN, stated that ICANN has been bringing WHOIS into compliance with GDPR. In that vein, ICANN has engaged in several rounds of extensive community dialogue and in discussions with European data protection authorities, and has also created a temporary specification. This temporary specification is an adjustment to the contract between ICANN and their contracted parties to have publicly and non-publicly available information, to comply with the GDPR, she explained. This temporary specification has triggered an expedited policy development process in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Theresa pointed out that the ICANN63 meeting gave the board the liberty to limit or lessen the liability of contracted parties, and explore a possible avenue for unified access that is scalable and which works globally. The ICANN Board issued a conceptual model based on community input on 20 August.  

Sarah Deutch, ICANN Board, spoke about one of the issues that resulted from the implementation of the technical specification – the third-party access to non-public registration data. The technical specification requires ICANN's parties to provide reasonable access to personal data to third parties, based on legitimate interest, as defined in the GDPR. Ultimately, she emphasised, it is up to the community to recommend a model for implementation.  

Goran Marby, ICANN CEO and President, reiterated ICANN’s neutrality in political matters, but pointed out that ICANN could provide technical help in matters of national or regional legislation. Ill thought out (but possibly well-intentioned) legislation could make it impossible for people to access the Internet, or connect to other people on the Internet. He also pointed out that a balance between transparency of the WHOIS system and the protection of privacy of data should be struck.

Avri Doria, ICANN Board, briefed the audience about the progress GNSO has made concerning discussions on the new gTLD programme. Gathering and discussing issues, some of which arose from the previous round of the programme, of which there were over 90, had lasted over year. The policy development process (PDP) Working Group has been working through them methodically, in sub-groups and in plenary, and is putting out comment periods – two have already been released and the Comment period on Geographic Names is expected very soon. One of her main impressions of the Community input was that the “gap” between Rounds of new gTLDs should be removed. There are several proposals to what kind of round the next one should be and how long it should last, and also several proposals about the succession timing of such Rounds.

Mr Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board, reiterated, in answer to a question, that the timing for the new round of gTLDs depends on the input of the community. ICANN has received comments, reviews, and advice from almost every constituency within the Community, and needs to reconcile different viewpoints before the second round of the new gTLD programme. He acknowledged that not all community members agree whether the next round should happen or not. He stressed that input from the community is key for the outcomes of the different processes that feed into possible subsequent rounds of gTLDs.

 

 

 

Key Points from Discussion

 

1. The absolute necessity of having a broad multistakeholder dialogue in the solution of complex Internet policy issues, such as GDPR/WHOIS;

 

2. The importance of policy makers and legislators (national, regional or global) taking into consideration the input from Technical Community, such as ICANN, when formulating regulation or policy.     

 

 

Participants

 

There were around 80 participants

 

Estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

About 30 of the participants were women

 

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

 

There were no specific gender issues discussed; though it was noted how important it was to have a diversity of voices when discussing Internet issues.

 


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 14:45
Report:

IGF 2018 Report
“Commonwealth Open Forum - Data Protection”

- Session Title:
Commonwealth Open Forum - Data Protection

- Date: November 13th, 2018
- Time: 16:10pm – 17:10pm

- Session Organizer:
Robert Hayman
, Manager, Events and Acting Manager, Capacity Development and Training, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Intergovernmental organisation)

- Chair/Moderator:
Robert Hayman
, Manager, Events and Acting Manager, Capacity Development and Training, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Intergovernmental organisation) (In-person moderator)
Remote participation was not working for this open forum, there was no technical support in the room and as the session started late due to an earlier session over running, there was no choice but to continue without remote participation. (Remote moderator)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Saiful Siddeky
, Senior Events Officer, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Intergovernmental organisation)  and Robert Hayman, Manager, Events and Acting Manager, Capacity Development and Training, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Intergovernmental organisation)  

- List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

  • Alain Kapper, Senior Policy Officer – International Engagement, Information Commissioner’s Office, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Civil Society)
  • Professor Mona Al Achkar Jabbour, Professor of Law, PM of Information Security Panel –WFS, Head of Lebanese Information Technology Association LITA, Member Founder of Pan Arab Observatory for Cyber Security (Civil Society)
  • Mary Uduma, Managing Director, Jaeno Digital Solutions, Republic of Nigeria (Civil Society)
  • Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Founder and Executive Director, Pasifika Nexus and President, South Pacific Computer Society, Republic of Fiji (Civil Society)
  • Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN (Technical Community)
  • Elena Plexida, Government and IGOs Engagement Sr Director, ICANN (Technical Community)

- Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):

  • Protecting the rights of citizens is important. The rights of individuals are more efficient in the digital economy. Harmonisation of different sectors is important, harmonisation of personal data protection must be harmonised throughout all areas. There may be challenges and fears but everyone has a right to be a part of the digital economy. Awareness and cooperation at a national level is important, cooperation between private and a public sector, and at an international level cooperation between countries is important.
  • The European Union data protection legislation, GDPR, is very well intended and that is to protect personal data and this is an important aspect in today's world.
  • The honeymoon period is over, GDPR was adopted in 2016 and companies had a two year period to implement the processes. Companies had two years to review their process and decide whether there was a requirement to employ data protection officers, or initiate data protection impact assessments
  • The commercialisation of data and value of data is the real driving force behind data protection regulations.
  • Legislation that touches our daily lives needs cooperation, regulators do not necessarily understand what needs must be compromised so it is necessary to engage the wider community as a whole.
  • Creating a Commissioner in each Commonwealth country may not be the way forward, no model fits all, but there must be an authority with sufficient powers to enforce the legislation.

- If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:
There were no presentations during the session. There were opening comments which have been integrated in other parts of this report, as they covered the same topics.

- Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

  • GDPR came in to effect on the 25 May 2018. The principles enshrined in the EU Directive of 1995 have not massively changed but the scope of the new legislation goes well beyond its precedessor, notably in relation to the global territorial scope and the increased individual rights. The internet and digitalisation has changed the ways businesses and government interact, this has led to a new phase of globalisation, underpinned by the movement of data across borders. As recent reports have shown, movement of data have already superseded more traditional versions of trade, as major contributors to the economy. Data flows are important to economic growth of citizens. The role of regulators has become increasingly important to ensure the movement of data is used but not abused.

Moving on to the consumer argument, the rights of the individual rely on the unprecedented growth of personal data. Trust online also addresses issues relating to democratic governance, ethics and the fundamental rights of individuals with regards to privacy. Data can be quickly and easily transferred on to a third party to another jurisdiction, whether other principles apply. This can undermine the data privacy clause. This is of course what happened in October 2015 where the Irish authority asked the European Courts of Justice, whether data can be transferred across the Atlantic under the Safe Harbour principle without any further checks (the Schrems case). The Courts of Justice said these arguments were not valid. A new privacy framework has now come into force (the Privacy Shield), but that does not mean that the issues are resolved, we are in constant discussions with the US and we are still unclear over the transfer of data across borders to the US is a safe place to go.

In the age of borderless data flow there has never been a more important time for a global coherence on data protection and data privacy. The divergence of data across jurisdictions leads to the uneven levels of protection between jurisdictions, which leads to the need for legal controls over data across border flows and this is to prevent the growth of a more autocratic regime.

The Information Commissioners Office of the United Kingdom makes a recommendation too that there should be a more coherent regulatory approach with regards to cross border transfers But while there is no silver bullet or model to replicate at the moment, we can take a positive in that there is a lot of common groundin terms of the underlying principles (openness, fairness, purpose specification and collection limitation, use limitation, data security, accountability and individual access)

The divergences in approaches mean that we cannot consider that there is a perfect way to legislate or regulate and, as best next thing, we should ensure interoperability between the different regulatory systems.

 

The Common Thread Network is a forum for data protection and privacy authorities of Commonwealth countries. It has been established to promote cross-border cooperation and build capacity by sharing knowledge on emerging trends, regulatory changes and best practices for effective data protection. Currently within the Commonwealth, there are approximately 30 Commonwealth member states, with data protection legislation or policies, and this means that there are a large number of jurisdictions that do not have policies. Furthermore, there are a number of Commonwealth countries that do have a legislation but have not implemented it or have no oversight body to monitor the implementation.

The Common Thread Network exists to find commonalities and discuss together with other professionals what the issues are in terms of data protection. They hold regular meetings, and also observe the outcomes of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGM). In last April in London, there was recommendation on cyber security and connectivity agenda for trade and investment which pushed governments to overcome barriers in regulation that had previously existed to facilitate implementation of coherent policies and improve cooperation.

  • The Fijian constitution has two articles that canvass data protection and access to information. The constitution is access to legitimacy in terms of creation of end rules for the protection of data protection. Different industries are subject to different levels of intimacy that protect, whether it is the banking sector or health sectors. Fiji has a lot of sensitive information such as geospatial information and a lot of this information is sensitive and gets cached within a country. There is a telecommunications decree that limits access to private records unless you have court orders. In Fiji there was a recent scandal of birth and data records, certain birth records that have been distributed and forged for Pakistani nationals in the figure of 10,000 records.
  • In Nigeria there is no such thing as data protection in the legislation, however, the Nigerian Senate has started a working group on GDPR. One working group has so far been held, a partnership of the EU has visited the Republic of Nigeria but the outcomes have not yet been shared widely. Nigeria has also forged a partnership with Oxford University and an ongoing data survey is being carried out, with the Office of the National Security Advisor they are talking to several sectors of the ICT industry with a view to expanding the economy. The regulator Nigerian Communications Commission has a dedicated approach to new media and information security but nothing has been formulated on data protection. Nigeria does not have the capacity or the capabilities to progress in the area of data protection and we need the help of outside resources to continue in this area. Awareness raising, capacity building and writing of the legislation are all areas we need help. The Nigeria CTLD has gone ahead and looked at how the GDPR will affect the registrars and registers of the CTLD and information has been published on the website, we need good advice going forward. 
  • When you witness the emergence of legislations and regulations that are very well intended, such as cyber security and data protection, issues that really need to be dealt with, once you apply those to the technological environment of ICTs, you often see the unintended consequences or unintended results out of it, creating potentially a patchwork of legislation in different countries, whether it is in the Commonwealth or between the Commonwealth countries and the European Union, there may be an impact on the ability for transport of commerce or economic growth or societal matters that are being dealt with either at the national or regional level. This is something that is an opportunity for experts to help inform the establishment of regulations and legislations that are well intended but find ways to do them so that they are scalable and don't have a harmful aspect to the social and economic growth that ICT and technology and internet offer.
  • With respect to ICANN, they have the Who is information, when a domain name you is registered this information is provided, that information historically had been to help find another party that might  party that might have the other name, that information was made known and allowed parties that may have that issue, to solve that issue together. Going through time, that Who is information became important in the Domain Name System and if you look at the applicability of GDPR in relation to ICANN specifically and the use of Who is in relation to the contracted parties, ICANN went through a process of looking at the contracts to make them compliant. Traditionally available information available to the public, and the identifiable part was made private and the rest public. ICANN went through a process with the community and through consultation documents established the Calzone model that was to solve many different issues, that was adopted in May in what was a temporary specification, which is a modification to the contracts, there is a publication for all the stakeholders of the community that want access to information whether that's the law enforcement agencies, intellectual property users, etc. ICANN have tried to determine whether it's possible to have a unified mechanism to determine that, one that is scalable on a global level and meeting the requirements of the GDPR.
  • The European Union have issued guidance with regards to the GDPR legislation but it is not always easy to interpret how this should be observed in all aspects, cooperation is key to reaching a better understanding of the legislation.
  • With respect to the management of personal data, when an institution needs data to verify operations, to prove or defend, then here the rules are different. GDPR cannot harm other sectors, otherwise it will not work. Financial institutions have a way of protecting the personal data but also using and keeping this personal data for a longer period of time. Why do they not delete, why, because they may need to prove something legally in the future.
  • A question was asked whether the implementation of privacy and data protection could be standardised for all international companies, should companies such as Google, Facebook or ICANN sign separate agreements with various jurisdictions can one not be implemented across the globe.

- Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways (3 paragraphs):

  • There was a suggestion made that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (CTO) should create a working group of members to help them look at the challenges and opportunities of implementing data protection and help build capacity going forward.
  • A delegate from Nigeria noted, Nigeria has collaborated successfully with the CTO on cyber security essentials capacity development training and he believes CTO can also help Nigeria with data protection.
  • There needs to be political commitment, as certain countries are not fully committed to taking data protection legislation forward. It is essential all Commonwealth countries must legislate on data protection.
  • A comment was made by Ian Brown, Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport who said harmonisation is important and it is also important for Commonwealth countries to look at the Council of Europe Data Protection Convention 108 and its ratification by the Council of Europe and looking at the current non-member signatories such as Mauritius, Morocco, Senegal and Uruguay.

Gender Reporting
- Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:
There were approximately 30 total participants

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:
Approximately 15 participants were women. The panel itself was gender balanced, with five out of seven speakers being women.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?
If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. However, it did consider challenges in how technical community, government and public sector security teams can successfully cooperate with civil society organizations.

-  Add your Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation as explained

  • There needs to be political commitment to take data protection legislation forward. It is essential all countries must legislate on data protection.
  • Capacity development is essential to increase the capabilities to enable countries to tackle data protection challenges nationally as well as internationally.

 

 


Updated: 22/11/2018 - 18:37
Report:

 

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

At this IGF Open Forum session, Coalition members gave updates on the work of the FOC since the 2017 IGF in Geneva and outlined progress towards implementing the FOC Action Plan for 2018 under the German Chairmanship.

The session provided IGF participants with the opportunity to learn about FOC's new mechanism for stakeholder engagement, the FOC Advisory Network, and plans for this year's Freedom Online Conference, which will be taking place in Berlin, November 28-30.

The panel additionally discussed the issue of closing civic spaces online and discussed the FOC’s present and potential role in combatting closing civic spaces, and in ensuring multistakeholder engagement.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

AN members on the panel, Wafa Ben-Hassine and Matthew Shears, provided insights into the activities of the FOC Advisory Network in its first months of being established, including through contributions to the drafting of FOC statements, learnings and strategy calls.  Following the first submission of proactive advice of the FOC Advisory Network, the FOC issued a Joint Statement on the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2018.

Panellists discussed the various threats and challenges to civil society in the digital age, and noted the common responsibilities of governments in supporting civic voices online.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Mr von Heynitz, speaking for the German Chair, noted that governments can cooperate if they share the basic concern that human rights as upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are essential. 

Lisa Vermeer, speaking for the Netherlands, raised the importance of the Digital Defenders Partnership (DDP) which has a dedicated program focused on the swift protection of human rights defenders. The Netherlands encouraged those concerned by internet freedom issues across the world to raise FOC membership to missions and embassies, to raise awareness to the FOC. 

Germany suggested that the FOC engages further with the private sector.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Panellists observed that conventions and institutions, such as the IGF and UNESCO, could monitor the work of civil society and ensure that, in the face of authoritarian state-funded NGO’s, these institutions can support independent civil society organisations. Governments can additionally ensure that civil society can participate in multilateral forums.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

40-50 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

18-20 individuals

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The panel discussed vulnerable groups within civil society, including women and girls.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 22:16
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

- Title: #31 Assessing hate speech and self-regulation, who and how?

- Date & Time: Wednesday 14 November 2018, 9.00-10.00

- Organizer(s): Council of Europe – No Hate Speech Movement

- Chair/Moderator: Menno Ettema – Council of Europe - Anti-Discrimination Department

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Elisabeth Schauermann (Notetaker)  / Veronica Stefan (online moderator)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Jeremy McBride – Consultant for European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on ‘General Policy Recommendation No 15 Combatting Hate Speech’
  • Miriam Estrin – Policy Manager for Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Google
  • Anton Battesti - Head of Polilcy at Facebook France
  • Tamas Dombos – Board member Háttér Society, LGBT rights organisation Hungary, member of EC group for monitoring of Code of Conduct implementation

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Freedom of Expression online

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

  • Self-regulation as a tool to assess complaints of Hate speech as an expression of discrimination is new for the Internet Industry pushed for in recent policy regulations, such as German NetzDG, EU Code of Conduct.
  • Self-regulation should address concerns and needs of Users, Internet Business and democratic society. Therefore is should provide for effective protection of those targeted, quick procedures, clear understanding of the reasons for take down or non-takedown for users; clarify Liability of the company visa vie self-regulatory decisions, relation between self-regulating body and law-enforcement/ regulators, balance between liability of those producing and those hosting; a democratic society calls for Independent (judiciary) oversight, transparency and appeal procedure.
  • More reflection and a study can help identify promising practices that uphold a fair balance between rights and needs of users and a democratic society as a whole.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Asked what Self-regulation on hate speech should deliver, participants mentioned: balancing freedom of expression with protection of dignity and privacy; clarity of definitions and sensitivity for national/regional contexts; concerted approach, not a self-regulatory body per platform. There was fear companies concede to governmental pressures; questions about company, government or user based regulation models and realization users need to (learn to) report hate speech for it to be effective.

The needs regarding self-regulation of users affected by hate speech can be summarized as: Quick, Transparent (both of procedure and argumentation for decisions), Accessible (meaning clear reporting system and no financial barriers)

Internet Businesses strive to have open platforms, clear user guidelines and notice systems. Facebook France’s invitation for French regulators to review their assessment system underlines this and aids more transparency. Self-regulation can complement internal assessment processes to address complex cases, this would require access to topic experts, time to make the assessment, clarity on national legislation and liabilities of the company when implementing decisions of a self-regulatory body.

It was underlined that self-regulation is only one of the tools to address hate speech as outlines in ECRI GPR 15 on Combatting Hate Speech. It can be quicker and less costly but should not substitute or block possibilities to start court proceedings.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Taking the EU Code of Conduct and the German Network Enforcement Law as examples, it was pointed out that self-regulatory bodies and platforms alike need to be transparent about their procedures, decision making processes and their outcome.

From the platforms’ side, the suggestion was brought up that state authorities as representatives of their population should work with platforms and self-regulatory bodies on achieving legitimacy and protect users’ rights.

The panel and participants voiced commitment to reconvene at the next IGF in order to follow up on progress and challenges with self-regulation in combating hate speech online.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

If self-regulation and self-regulatory bodies are suggested as a new way for dealing with online hate speech, the IGF community offers crucial resources to gather expertise from all stakeholder groups, so that platforms, intermediaries, regulators and new bodies are able to take informed decisions that protect individual user rights and the democratic society.

The IGF can work as a forum for monitoring progress and challenges that arise with applying models of self-regulation and co-regulation.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Circa 30 participants + 4 panelists, 1 moderator, 1 remote participation moderator, 1 rapporteur

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Circa 15

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

There was no direct discussion on gender issues regarding to women*, but one of the panelists offered a civil society perspective on the specific problems of people of the LGBTQ+ community with regards to hate speech and harassment online and participants were able and encouraged to speak from their personal experiences.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 21:54
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

 

- Title: The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age – The Use of Biometric Data

 

- Date & Time: 14 November 2018, 9-10am

 

- Organizer(s): Office of the United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

 

- Chair/Moderator: Tim Engelhardt, Human Rights Officer, (OHCHR)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Tim Engelhardt

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): 

Emilie Seruga-Cau, Head of Public Affairs Department, Directorat for Compliance, Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)

Ololade Shyllon, Advisor of the Democracy, Transparency and Digital Rights Unit at the Centre for Human Rights

Graham Webster, Fellow and Coordinating Editor, DigiChina, New America

Smitha Krishna Prasad, Associate Director, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi

Wafa Ben-Hassine, Access Now, Middle East and North Africa Policy Lead

 

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Data privacy and protection

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

  1. Biometric data are sensitive data, requiring a high level of protection. There are enormous risks connected with biometric systems, as biometric information is by definition inseparably linked to a particular person and that person’s life, and has the potential to be gravely abused.
  2. Rolling out biometric technology should be done deliberately and slowly, in a rights-respecting and protecting way. States in particular need to demonstrate the necessity and proportionality of the deployment of biometric technology. They need to have legal and other safeguards in place.
  3. Finding ways for the safe, rights-respecting use of biometrics requires collaboration of experts and stakeholders from all backgrounds (e.g., technical community, businesses, States agencies, philosophers, gender experts). This requires breaking up silos.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

The session started with a brief overview of the recent report to the Human Rights Council of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age (A/HRC/39/29), highlighting in particular that States need to establish appropriate legal framework for protecting data privacy against undue interferences by States and businesses. The following presentations and the discussion then zoomed in on the use of biometrics. The presentations focused on a range of case studies from several countries from Africa, MENA and Asia. The participants agreed that while there may be clear benefits of biometrics technology for security, trust but also convenience, it is linked to serious risks, often affecting the vulnerable and marginalised. Biometrics should therefore be deployed with caution. States should only use biometrics for clearly defined purposes and on the basis of informed consultations with all stakeholders.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

The discussion demonstrated broad support for the recommendation not to rush the deployment of biometrics but to move deliberately and slowly. Any deployment of biometrics needed to comply with international human rights standards. This included that it needed to be done in a transparent fashion, on the basis of clearly defined laws, for specific purposes and in accordance with the necessary and proportionate principle. The discussion also highlighted the necessity to maintain effective grievance and redress mechanisms.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The need to leave silos and work interdisciplinary and with all stakeholders was emphasised by several participants. As was pointed out in another session, digital identity is a building block of the digital society and economy. The risks and necessary legal, technical, procedural and other measures for protecting people’s privacy in the context of the use biometrics should be further investigated.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 70

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 35

 


Updated: 12/11/2018 - 13:22
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): OPEN FORUM

- Title: PRIVATE SECTOR "HACK BACK": WHERE IS THE LIMIT?

- Date & Time: Monday 12 November 2018 – 9:00-10:00

- Organizer(s): OECD

- Chair/Moderator: Laurent Bernat

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Lorrayne Porciuncula

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Karine Bannelier - University Grenoble Alpes, France - Female
  • Kaja Ciglic – Microsoft Corp. – Female
  • Alp Toker - Netblocks.org - Male
  • Leandro Ucciferri -Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina – Male
  • Yves Verhoeven - French National Cybersecurity Agency (Agence Nationale de la Sécurité des Systèmes d’Information – ANSSI) – Male

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Cybersecurity Best Practices

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • What are the differences between “active” and “passive” defense and where are the boundaries between “hacking back” and “active cyber defense”?
  • What is the prerogative of governments in responding to an attack and where does the scope of action of a business start and ends? Could anyone use proactive defence measures or should only “qualified” players be allowed to enter this space? Should there be any oversight?
  • What are the risks of hacking back, including to the Internet and other users? Is there any way to mitigate those risks? Who would be responsible in case of damages to a third party? Is there a need for internationally agreed rules and principles in this area?

- 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…

The OECD Open Forum brought together a panel that discussed an issue that was understood by experts to be one of the less discussed side of digital security: the "hacking back" from the private sector. It was agreed that in general, hacking back should not be encouraged or permissible, due to its potential economic, social and political collateral impacts. While the size of these practices are still unclear, since in many countries it is considered illegal, some indicated that there is a growing body of arguments favouring these kind of responses from the private sector. All agreed that in order to advance in this conversation, better frameworks and concepts are needed, as there is confusion about definitions and typology of hack back practices.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

It was suggested that the first step towards finding solutions for this issue is clarifying concepts and types of hack back practices. This could be done based on the intent (e.g. exploratory, preventative, retaliatory) of, and/or the risk possibly steming from these practices.

Moreover, it was agreed that more international and multistakeholder cooperation is needed to provide guidance for technical and regulatory approaches to address private sector hack back. 

 - What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Panellists agreed that the IGF can be a very useful forum for discussions due to its multi-stakeholder approach, allowing for an informed and diverse debate of emerging issues such as the one of concepts, limits and approaches for hacking back from the private sector.

 - Please estimate the total number of participants.

50 people

 - Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

25 women

 - To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

NA.


Updated: 30/11/2018 - 12:57
Report:

IGF 2017 Report

“The role of the regulator in promoting the deployment of IPv6”

 

-Sessión Title:

The role of the regulator in promoting the deployment of IPv6

-Date: November 13th, 2018

 

-Time: 9:00-10:00 am

 

-Chair/Moderator:

Edmundo Cazarez, Network Information Center (Private Sector)

 

Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Jimena Sierra Navarrete, IFT

 

-List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Javier Juarez, Comissioner, Federal Telecommunications Institute (Government)

Willy Ted Manga, Regional Techinal Officer, Agence Universitaire of the Francophonie (Remote Participation, Civil Society)

Chafic Chaya, RIPE NCC (Private Sector)

Guillermo Fernandez, General Director of ICT, Federal Telecommunications Institute (Technical Community)

 

 

-Key Issues raised (one sentence per issue):

  • Exhaustion of addressing
  • Incentives and facilities for the deployment of Ipv6
  • Role played by users and the industry
  • Work of the regulatory body to promote the deployment of IPv6
  • Participation of regulators in the digital ecosystem

 

-If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

 

There was a presentation during the session of "Lessons learned of transition from IFT to IPV6", in where it was presented the transition from IFT to IPv6 and the background that addressed the general direction of ICT in the IT infrastructure of IFT; The IFT transition does not haves IPV4 addresses assigned.

 

It was said that during the transition, it was necessary the training of the staff was needed through workshops, presentations, etc., where he evaluated in different phases, 1; Internal network and 2; the use of the same network, giving a period of preparation of a year; In order for this project to be carried out, the renovation of the main telecommunications and cybersecurity equipment within the Institute was required, the ISP had to be ready to be transmitted by IPv6 (in 2016 there were only two operators that formally granted that service in Mexico) and, finally, the assignment of the Ipv6 segment was obtained.

 

- Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

 

The discussion took place in a progress to follow about how it should be the precise deployment based on different steps, the first is the training for the implementation of IPv6 is the training of the responsible personnel for implementation This have the purpose to familiarize the staff with the concepts and logic of the protocol's operation; second, to perform an audit of all the hardware and software used in the organization. This list must include the corresponding models and versions, as well as the details on their compatibility with IPv6; third, determine the type of IPv6 addressing according to your needs. IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not to nodes; therefore, each interface can use different IPv6 addresses simultaneously.; And the last, It is recommended to build a test network and implement the same services that run over IPv4.The promotion of the deployment of IPv6 is one of the actions that the Institute is carrying out with the approach of participating in the digital ecosystem. The future regulation of the digital ecosystem is a key issue, at a time when the pace of regulatory changes is not reaching the speed of transformation in the digital world. Therefore, to meet the expectations of the rapidly evolving digital ecosystem, regulators have to adapt and create more flexible, innovative and less invasive regulatory frameworks that transcend the traditional telecommunications sector to take into account the multi-faceted and multipartite nature of the world digital.

 

It was mentioned that this lack of transition has become a problem for years, since the rate of use of the IPV4 is running out, and almost all regions have reached the point where you are using the latest resources available policies already public implemented, with the exception of Africa which are not in the same situation; The panelist of the AUF is a clear example of the action of IPv6, the AUF is an association working in the academic field is made of regional bureau such as the one located in Yaounde Cameroon; it covered central Africa and great lakes areas; Therefore, it was necessary to understand IPv6 and implement it within their own networks; All ISPs in Cameroon have IPv6 prefixes. In Yaoundé and Ngaoundere, CAMTEL (AS 15964) is the ISP of AUF; it has been assigned the prefix 2001: 4268: / 32 since June 13, 2006 for 12 years. The training of technical personnel in 2011 had a great influence on the implementation and designation. Previously, there was the v6 routing problem with CAMTEL's upstream provider, but justification defense management was driven by the Cameroon regional manager to use IPv6 in their networks; that is why it was necessary to intervene in the deployment of IPv6 within the government, the ministries, the presidency, the regional offices and even the regulator itself.

 

The group discussed that it is necessary that the websites of Internet have an IPv6 configuration; otherwise, the users will not be able to access its content and is more difficult to add new devices and grow the network. The adoption of IPv6 It is not a new issue, it has been trying to be implemented for more than 10 years, many technologies help to adapt the protocol and that it is granted free of charge by network operators having an effective result in their country, for example: 1) Mexico is at 14.51%; 2) USA 34.17%; 3) Brazil 26.47%; 4) Australia 14.28%; 5) France 24.73%; Etc.

 

The importance of properly disseminating information on the implementation of IPv6 and the role that has technological evolution, in this sense, should be addressed to the different sectors and involved in the development of the Internet, including users, creators and generators of content, service providers, technology providers, companies, entities of public administration and international organizations, must have knowledge of the operation and deployment of the IPv6 protocol to encourage use and achieve a rapid, efficient and safe transition. Therefore, the Federal Institute of telecommunications of Mexico has been a promoter of the transition to IPv6, since in the country this transition is considered a platform for innovation, economic development and global connectivity. The activities that the Institute has carried out to promote the deployment of IPv6 the include issuance of guidelines and technical requirements.

 

 

- Two questions from the audience deserve special note due to the lengthy discussion

 

There was only one question. There were opening comment, which have been integrated in other parts of this report.

 

  •  An interrogator asked if there was a problem with the IPv6 adoption rate and if this rate really reflects the growth that IPv6 has. Moreover, because this is not effective enough, because it generates a problem and not a solution for the assignment of addresses.

 

-Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways

(3 paragraphs)

 

  • An audience member from a Telco in Asia noted that they had turned on IPv6 back in February, and already they saw 75% of the traffic on their cable running over IPv6. In their case, they had a clear rationale – IPv4 addresses in their region are trading from upwards of $15 USD each. On the other hand, IPv6 is practically free, so for their country there was no choice. He also noted that originally their technical team had told him a separate team would be needed to do IPv6, but they quickly discovered this was not the case.
  • ARCEP, the French regulator, began promoting IPv6 two years ago, identifying six key actions it could take: training, developing a roadmap, improved coordination, providing information, and finally – preparing for the end of IPv4. A key part of ARCEP’s approach was establishing an observatory that collects information from many different links in the technical chain – transit providers, ISPs, mobile operators, hosting providers, etc. It was also noted that statistics should be at the appropriate level – national or regional statistics can quickly settle on a percentage that masks the real differences that exist between networks. In its “Annual Barometer” report that ARCEP has been handing out at this IGF, they have published statistics that look at individual ISPs. This is helpful for giving a more accurate picture of IPv6 adoption, though it really shines a light on those players who are lagging behind.
  • Orange Telecom started in 2015 to repair all the problems related to the introduction of IPv6 in its infrastructure with the collaboration of all Lebanese. Counting with 40 or 50 ISPs and each ISP has its own infrastructure, with the support of RIPE and Mr. Chafic and his team at Orange Telecom, which is the public telecommunications operator in Lebanon, all the preparation problems, technically the software and hardware was resolved with the collaboration of ISPs and DSPs, data service providers have solved this problem, where only the start of the transition was expected in June 2016.

 

Gender Reporting

 

-Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

 

There were approximately 80 participants

 

-Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

 

There were approximately 30 women and 50 men inside the Forum, panelists were men

 

-To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?

-If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

 

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women´s empowerment


Updated: 01/11/2018 - 18:01
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Launching of the 2018 annual edition of the Global Information Society Watch, with a focus on Community Networks.

- Title: GISWatch 2018 launch

- Date & Time: Tuesday 13 Nov 13:30 -15 – Salle X

- Organizer(s): Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

- Chair/Moderator: Valeria Betancourt

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: To be confirmed

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Kathleen Diga, APC, female

Valeria Betancourt, APC, female

Carlos Rey-Moreno, APC, male

Mike Jensen, APC, male

Chat Garcia Ramillo, APC, female

Phet Sayo, IDRC, male

 

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here): Community Networks

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • The importance of community networks to contribute to digital inclusion and accessibility
  • Sharing of experiences and stories of community networks in different parts of the world by authors
  • Progress and challenges in the development of community networks

 

 


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 10:18
Report:

Pre session Report

Session Type: Book Launch

Title: Launch of the Book "Internet Governance and Regulations in Latin America"

Date time: Monday 13:30 15 hs Salle IX

Organizers: South School on Internet Governance - ISOC Argentina Chapter

Chair /Moderator: Olga Cavalli

Note taker: Adrián Carballo

List of Speakers:

  • Claudio Lucena, University of Paraiba
  • Christoph Steck, Fundación Telefónica
  • Agustín Garzón, Director ENACOM Argentina
  • Andrés Sastre, ASIET
  • Claudia Bretón, ISOC República Dominicana and SSIG fellow
  • Mónica Trochez, SSIG Fellow
  • Luca Belli, Getulio Vargas Foundation
  • Olga Cavalli, Academic Director South School on Internet Governance, ISOC Argentina
  • Adrián Carballo, Institutional Relations Director South School on Internet Governance, ISOC Argentina

As we are launching a book to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the South School on Internet Governance our three questions are:

- What were the challenges the Internet was facing 10 years ago?

- Where these problems solved?

- Which are the new challenges 10 years after?

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. 

There was an extensive discussion about the evolution of the most important Internet Governance issues evolution during the last 10 years and also how they can evolve in the future, specifically the issues discussed were

infrastructure

access 

community networks

privacy

cybersecurity

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. 

Good regulation but not so much regulations

Ethics depends on the context

Privacy rules from Europe are somehow shaping the privacy discussion in Latin America

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? 

The relevance of capacity building and the publication of books like the one which was presented.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

70

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

35

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? 

The discussion was mainly focused on the evolution of the concept of Internet access and what it means today, access for women and girs, and accesss in those areas whre there is no connectivity using community networks.

Several participants spoke about the importance of the South School on Internet Governance in creating and enhancing the Internet Governance ecosystem


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 11:42
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Best Practices Forum

- Title: Discussion about the IGF 2018 Best Practices Forum on the Internet of Things, Big Data, and AI

- Date & Time:  Wednesday, 14 November 2018, 1150-1320

- Organizer(s): Concettina Casa (BPF Co-facilitator) and Sumon A. Sabir (BPF Co-facilitator),

- Chair/Moderator: Alex Comninos and Maarten Botterman

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Michael R. Nelson

 

- Remote moderator: June Parris

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Nobuhisa Nishigata, OECD, (male), last-minute substitute for Karine Perrine (female)
  • Imane Bello, Sciences Po, Lecturer on Human Rights & AI (female)
  • Peter Micek, Access Now (male)
  • Taylor Bentley, ISED, Canadian Government (male)
  • Michael Nelson, Cloudflare (male

- Theme (as listed here): Emerging Technologies and Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]:  The session provided a lot of useful insights about the issues covered by the IoT+Big Data+AI report.  Recurring themes:

  1. There is a need to focus.  Rather than discuss all of artificial intelligence, focus on machine learning and how it can be used to create insights from the data generated by the Internet of Things.  The report should cover both the benefits and the risks associated with these three technologies.
  2. More than ten speakers commented on the need for applications of IoT+Big Data+AI to be trusted and “trustworthy” (and how many different steps are needed to foster trust).  These include protecting privacy and personal data, enhancing cybersecurity, being transparent about problems, respecting human rights, giving users alternatives if they find one service or application unsatisfactory, “design for safety,” and “design for diversity.”
  3. A number of speakers and members of the audience highlighted the role that education, training, and capacity-building can play in promoting new and better use of emerging technologies like IoT and AI.  

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Most of the session was devoted to conversation between the “discussion catalysts” onstage and members of the audience.  There was time for more than 15 questions and comments including at least five from remote participants. There was support for added emphasis on:  (1) Diversity and multi-stakeholder processes that could shape the development of IoT+Big Data+AI, (2) Education can help address some of the fear about emerging technologies like IoT and AI, (3) NGOs and other groups have a key role to play in working to ensure that applications of IoT+Big Data+AI are not used in ways that violate human rights, and (4) Capacity-building can help develop technical skills and improve policy-making, especially in emerging economies.  One questioner stressed the need for governments and the United Nations to do more to shape the use of the IoT and AI. Other speakers disagreed.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

During the discussion about the next version of the BPF report, several speakers suggested including more specific examples of the use of IoT+Big Data+AI, especially in areas such as healthcare, environmental protection, and infrastructure.  

A number of speakers stressed the need to provide specific ways to enhance trust in technology

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words] A recurring theme was the need to attract more participants (with more varied views and experiences) to the effort to draft and revise the Best Practices Forum report on Iot+Big Data+AI.  Better communications with the national and regional IGFs could help recruit talent and comments. One questioner stressed that it seemed that participants in some of the IGF 2018 sessions on AI and IoT did not know about the BPF.

- Please estimate the total number of participants:  At least 60 people

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present:  25 people

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?[100 words]  During the question and answers session, several members of the audience and speakers stressed the need for diversity and inclusion in developing and deploying new technologies and in crafting policies to shape and promote them.


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 11:38
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): BPF

 

- Title: 2018 Best Practices Forum on Cybersecurity

 

- Date & Time: Wednesday 14th Nov, 10:10-11:40

 

- Organizer(s): Markus Kummer, Internet governance & policy consultant (Technical Community) and Ben Wallis, Microsoft (Private Sector)

 

- Moderators: Markus Kummer, Internet governance & policy consultant (Technical Community) and Kaja Ciglic, Microsoft (Private Sector)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Ben Wallis, Microsoft

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Mr. Wim Degezelle, BPF Cybersecurity consultant

Mr. Louk Faesen, Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) (Technical Community)

Mr. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito, ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa (Civil Society)

Ms. Saleela Salahuddin, Facebook / Cybersecurity Tech Accord (Private Sector)

 

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Cybersecurity best practices

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

  • The importance of norms as a mechanism in cybersecurity for state and non-state actors to agree on a responsible way to behave in cyberspace, given that the speed of legislation often struggles to keep up with the pace of changes in the sphere of cybersecurity.

 

  • The importance of multi-stakeholderism – threats to cybersecurity impact governments, private companies and people. There are a number of helpful norms, on different aspects and from various parts of the world, but more needs to be done to involve non-state stakeholders in the development and implementation of norms.

 

  • Cybersecurity norms and laws should be respectful of human rights, and not stray into areas such as freedom of expression and control of content online. It is important to separate the security of the infrastructure, which this BPF is focused on, from questions of content shared online.

 

 

 

- 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…

 

The work of 2018 BPF identified the norms that exist and any best practices that can be learnt; and then looking into the question of a digital security divide in which some sets of users have better cybersecurity protections than others. It recognises that norms have become more important as a mechanism for state and non-state actors to agree on a responsible way to behave in cyberspace, partly because traditional law-making is generally not able to keep pace with the evolution of online security threats. It found that there are a great variety of norms, varying from the culture of cybersecurity within a company to behaviours of end users, including an example of a teacher in the classroom. However, norms are often developed in relatively small and close communities which focus on their areas of expertise and do not involve or communicate with others. And they are often developed by a specific group of stakeholders or countries which can make it difficult to transfer them to a multistakeholder environment. The 2018 BPF output can be seen as valuable in raising visibility of norms developed outside the intergovernmental realm, which governments are sometimes less aware of.

 

There are some positive recent examples of new norms being developed, including Geneva Dialogues in Switzerland, an ASEAN commitment on norms, the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (UN GGE) and the framework developed by the US standards body, NIST. But many norms are developed between states or within the private sector. When norms are developed, it is important to find ways to bring in technical expertise and allow for the involvement of stakeholders. The November 2018 Paris Call is an encouraging exception, with almost 400 signatories coming from across governments, the private sector, the technical community and civil society, and a focus on working together with different stakeholders to tackle these challenges.

 

An illustrative example is the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC). It has a mandate very much focused on developing and implementing norms, and has recently adopted the Singapore Norm Package, providing six further norms to the two previously agreed, and with the express purpose of having them adopted by public and private sector actors towards an architecture to improve international security and stability in cyberspace. However, the GCSC is a discussion just between governments, and only 25 of them. It could benefit from the expertise and knowledge of stakeholders, conscious that the technical community and civil society manages much of the Internet and the private sector owns most of the critical infrastructure.

 

A major example of private sector efforts to develop norms is the Cyber Tech Accord which has brought together over 60 large and small companies representing network operators, software developers, social media companies and cybersecurity researchers. Its work is based around some central norms – to protect all customers, to oppose cyber-attacks on innocent citizens and enterprises, and to help empower users, customers, and developers to strengthen cybersecurity protection. Beyond developing high-level norms, it also develops capacity among its members through sharing technical information and providing training. In taking responsibility for its role, a particularly important element for the private sector is the principle of security by design, which should be enshrined in many of these norms.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

It is important to separate the security of the infrastructure, which this BPF is focused on, from questions of content shared online. Issues such as freedom of expression, data protection, intellectual property have their own separate legal frameworks and should not be taken within cybersecurity laws or norms. One panellist spoke of cybersecurity laws being adopted which also bring in non-cybersecurity measures, such as prohibiting the sharing of information over the Internet by public officials or making it illegal to question official statistics.

 

Capacity building is needed in terms of both financial resources. More partnerships would be an important way to help achieve this, helping to get experts in various regional levels and at the ground level to spread expertise and norms into all parts of the world.

 

In the discussion, it was suggested to think about the various steps required to have norms in place. Between designing norms and implementing them, there is an intermediate step which one panellist described as “norm authorisation”. This relates to identifying which kinds of bodies, beyond governments, could take on the authority for driving the implementation of norms, and could also extend to providing some kind of accountability for attributing non-compliance with norms and creating pressure which can help the norm become accepted over time. The media can also play a role in shedding light on exploitations and subversion of cybersecurity norms or drawing attention to best practices.

 

 

 - What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

The IGF does not have a mandate to develop norms or to be any kind of authorisation body related to norms. However, there could be a role for the IGF to continue its intersessional work on cybersecurity by contributing to developing a narrative, e.g. what do we mean of this norm, and what should be done or not be done to essentially illustrate what could be done going forward. It could also be interesting to look at how the IGF could take forward ideas with the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 65

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

About 30

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session did not discuss cybersecurity in the context of gender; only cybersecurity as it relates to society as a whole.

 

 


Updated: 02/11/2018 - 20:27
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): BPF

- Title: BPF Gender & Internet Governance

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 15:00 to 16:30

- Organizer(s): Radhika Radhakrishnan, Agustina Callegari , Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Paula Real,

Raquel Gatto

- Chair/Moderator: Agustina Callegari and Radhika Radhakrishnan

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paula Real

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Speakers for segment 1

  • Anri van der Spuy -ICT Africa - Civil society - Africa. (TBC)
  • Nic Bidwell - APC - Civil society - Africa (TBC)
  • Jane Coffin - Internet Society - Technical Community (TBC)
  • Claire Sibthorpe -  GMSA - Private Sector - Europe (TBC)
  • Yolanda Martinez Mancilla - Government of Mexico - LAC (TBC)
  • Ritu Srivastava- DEF - Civil Society - APAC (TBC)

Speakers for segment 2

  • Bruna Santos - Coding Rights - LAC
  • Alejandra Erramuspe - Government of Uruguay - LAC (TBC)
  • Renata Aquino Ribeiro -  MAG Member - Civil Society - LAC

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality - Access and Connectivity

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • Gender analysis must be an integral part of planning efforts of initiatives, rather than an “add-on” task.
    In 2018, the BPF focuses on the impact of supplementary models of connectivity on Internet access and use for women and gender non-binary persons. However, a key finding is that there is a lack of a gender focus on initiatives supporting and developing such initiatives.
  • Recommendations to develop Internet access initiatives that focus on women and gender non-binary persons
    The BPF session aims to produce a set of recommendations for incorporating gender perspectives in the implementation of supplementary models of connectivity.
  • Multi-stakeholder cooperation for addressing gender issues
    The BPF functions in a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder, community-driven manner. Enabling diverse stakeholders to collaborate to better address barriers faced by women and gender non-binary persons in accessing the Internet has produced valuable evidence. Nevertheless, continuing to discuss ways to improve collaborations is key for the session.

Updated: 14/11/2018 - 12:14
Report:

-                 Date & Time: Tuesday 13 November 2018 15:00 - 16:30 CET  (UTC+1)

-                 Organizer(s): •   Giacomo Mazzone, EBU,; Ignacio Estrada BPF Co-facilitators,  Wim Degezelle, BPF Consultant

-                 Chair/Moderator:   Bertrand Moullier (FIAPF)

-                 Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Giacomo Mazzone (EBU) & Wim Degezelle (IGF)

-                 List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

-                 1. Roberto Gaetano,  , ALAC Italy (MALE)

-                 2. Ucha Seturi, Telecom Operators Association of Georgia, coordinator of the Tusheti project, Georgia (MALE)

-                 3. Ema Edesio, Award winning filmmaker and film director, Nigeria (FEMALE)

-                 4. Enyi Omeruah, Music and audiovisual entrepreneur, Nigeria (MALE)

-                 5. Jean Hubert Nankam, Producer of reality TV shows, documentaries, and drama, Ivory Coast (MALE)

-                 •6. Alain Modot on behalf of Grégoire Ndjaka, Association of the African Broadcasters AUB/UAR (MALE)

-                 7. Gonzalo Laguado Serpa, Proimagenes Colombia, Colombia (MALE)

-                 8. (remote) Ani Dallakin, the Internet Society, Armenia REPLACED BY  Lianna Galstyn   MAG member (FEMALES)

-                 Theme (as listed here): LOCAL CONTENTS

-                 Subtheme (as listed here):

-                 Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

AGREED PREMISE:

The success of Internet in a community (apart of the availability of infrastructure) is determined by the availability of local contents and local services in local languages. More of these contents and services are available in a community, more successful the internet is.

KEY MESSAGES:

1. In some parties of the world there are already existing and consolidated models that today guarantee a flow of resources (from TV and radio, film industry, publishers, etc.) to professional creators. In the developed countries these mechanisms are slowly moving to extend their action also to internet contents. In other parts of the world such kind of mechanisms doesn’t exist or are very weak;

2. Face to the insufficient transfer of resources from the Internet platforms to local creators in local languages (especially in small countries), the most efficient way to improve the quantity and quality of local contents and languages over the Internet is to accelerate and facilitate the conversion of existing models into the Internet market. Cinema becoming digital and on line. TV and radio becoming digital and producing ad hoc contents for the on-line distribution. Printed media becoming digital publishers of web-based contents and services;

3. Effective national and regional laws could incentive this process of transformation, while International Treaties (such as UNESCO on cultural diversity and WIPO on the protection of authors, performers, producers and broadcasters rights) could represent a level playing field and provide appropriate framework for domestic policies. The BPF session presents a series of case studies and successful practices that provide useful food for thoughts.

 

 -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, whileothers

Full support was expressed to all experience presented, each one of the covering one specific need and perspective.

Roberto Gaetano explained the importance to develop more and more Internet identifiers (for instance domain names and email addresses) in non-ASCII scripts. Without that all non-latin languages and regions of the world are practically excluded from the effective access to Internet.

Lianna Galstyan presented the experience of Armenia educational platform, where -thanks to the state financing- educational resources have been made available on line to all educational institutes of the country.

Ucha Seturi presented the Tusheti project in Georgia where the valorization of a specific territory and of its language has been made possible through an Internet platform that allows direct trade of local products and promotion of tourism in that region.

Ema Edesio and Enyi Omeruoah from Nigeria presented the successful experience of a selfproduced movie : “Kasala” that is now touring around the festivals of the whole world having great success, that has been simultaneously distributed in cinemas and through digital and on-line tools, opening the way to new forms of financing.

Jean Hubert Nankam from Ivory Coast presented his experience of a series of  episodes for TV and the web called “Teenagers” distributed on TV and on Facebook, with one main sponsor and a consortium of 8 tv buying the rights for broadcasting distribution. A community of 120.000 adolescents across the region that is now developing into a market for ancillary products, such as music records.

Alain Modot from France but also representing the AUB (African Union of Broadcasters), explained the project of Hub Africa, where -with the seed money from institutional partners (such as EU or development funds publics or provates)- a serie of programmes will be coproduced with a consortium of broadcasters, with centralized sales of advertising spaces for the TV and the on line distribution simoultaneously.

Gonzalo Laguado from Colombia presented the successful experience of the Colombian film fund Pro-Imagenes, that supports with state funding and with money from taxations of certain activities, the development of movies (including one nominated best foreign movie at the Oscars 2015), TV series and ,more recently, of web series.

 

 -What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Putting in place the proper mechanism created by IGF for the BPF, that consists in identifying experiences models and enablers that could help to solve the lack of local contents in local languages, especially in underdeveloped countries.

 

-Please estimate the total number of participants.

There were around 100 participants in the room.

 

-Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Half of the audience in the room was made of women

 

-To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100words

Gender issue was not the main subject of discussion. But the choice to present the experience of a  woman film maker from Nigeria as one of the pivotal example of Best Practice, was a clear message to the participants.

 


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 11:58
Report:

Updated: 02/11/2018 - 17:36
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): CENB

- Title: Connecting and Enabling the Next Billions: Phase IV

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November 2018 at 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. (90 minutes)

- Organizer(s):

  • Radhika Radhakrishnan (Consultant, Secretariat - Internet Governance Forum, UN-DESA)
  • Christopher Yoo (1 World Connected)
  • Sharada Srinivasan (1 World Connected)
  • Raquel Gatto (Regional Policy Manager, Internet Society)

- Chair/Moderator: Christopher Yoo, Raquel Gatto

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Radhika Radhakrishnan

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Mr. Wisdom Donkor, Co-Founder, Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation, Male (Intergovernmental Organization)
  • Mr. Eric White, Male  (Intergovernmental Organization)  TBC
  • Mr. Philip Zululeta, Male (Business / Private Sector)
  • Mr. Paul Rowney, board member, Africa ICT Alliance, Male (Business / Private Sector) TBC
  • Ms. June Parris, Associate Researcher, Halaqah Media, Female  (Business / Private Sector)
  • Mr. Christopher Yoo, Director, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Male (Academia)
  • Ms. Radhika Radhakrishnan, Consultant, Secretariat - Internet Governance Forum, Female (Academia)
  • Ms. Raquel Gatto, Regional Policy Manager, Internet Society, Female (Technical Community)
  • Ms. Mary Uduma, Managing Director, Jaeno Digital Solutions Ltd, Female (Technical Community)
  • Ms. Karen McCabe, Senior Director, Technology Policy and International Affairs, IEEE, Female  (Technical Community)

- Theme (as listed here): Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here): INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • Local access projects working on enabling meaningful Internet connectivity for attaining SDGs 7, 8, 9, 17 will be highlighted.
  • Interlinkages between projects that support ICTs for realizing different SDGs (in this discussion, specifically SDGs 7,8,9, and 17) are necessary for attaining the goals. Thus, a unified approach is required across SDGs and stakeholders going forward.

Updated: 11/11/2018 - 21:41
Report:

Updated: 28/11/2018 - 03:41
Report:

IGF 2018 Long Session Report
DC on Blockchain Technologies Session

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): DC Session on Blockchain Technologies

- Title:  Decentralized Governance in Blockchain-Based Systems and its Relation to Blockchain for Social Good

- Date & Time: November 14, 2018 at 13:00-14:00.

- Organizer(s):
Carla L. Reyes, Michigan State University College of Law (Civil Society)
Primavera De Filippi, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (Civil Society)
Constance Choi, Seven Advisory (Civil Society)

- Chair/Moderator:
Carla L. Reyes, Michigan State University College of Law (Civil Society)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: 
Constance Choi, Seven Advisory (Civil Society)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
• Maria Gomez, Aragon (Technical Community) (female)
• Pindar Wong, VeriFi (Government) (male)
• Rick Dudley, Vulcanize (Technical Community) (male)

  • Primavera de Fillipi, CNRS Paris (Civil Society) (female)
  • Constance Choi, COALA (Civil Society) (female)

- Theme (as listed here): Emerging Technologies

- Subtheme (as listed here): Distributed Ledgers - Blockchains

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. Session participants examined the implicit and explicit governance and design elements present in existing blockchain technologies and decentralized systems and will explore the trade-off decisions communities engage in when selecting certain governance and design elements, and the benefits and costs of those trade-offs.
2. Session participants discussed best practices in rooting out the values inherent in each governance and design choice and exploring the resulting implications for the community and the impact they have on each stakeholder group that comprises that community.
3. Session participants explored whether blockchain governance mechanisms can enable uses for social good, including new practices that better comply with the original ethos of the Internet, and help society more broadly deal with issues related to fake news, digital oppression or digital targeting, or issues of socio-economic disparity in access.

- 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...

 

There was broad support for the idea that blockchain governance is an increasingly important topic increasingly gaining attention. There was broad support for the idea that the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technology should consider blockchain governance and weigh in on the issues. Further, there was support for the position that although blokchain technology enables decentralized governance, decentralized governance is not the same thing as the decentralization of power. Thus, governance mechanisms are important aspects of acccess and control in blockchain technology. There was also broad support for the idea that blockchain technology allows new and emerging forms of governance but that if ecosystem participants are not careful they may end up re-creating existing exploitative systems of power.

 

There was discussion around the idea of replacing institutions with software, and a call to action by the panelists for participation from attendees in helping the blockchain ecosystem self-govern well.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

 

In response to audience questions about creating a protected space for experimentation with blockchain governance and questions of liability for governance decisions, the panel introduced a new dynamic coalition project on the interface between blockchain-based systems and the legal systems of the world. The Dynamic Coaliton asked participants in the session to join in this new work, and to help resolve questions about protected experimental space and the need to avoid capture of blockchain goernance by outside actors.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

 

The Dynamic Coalition will hold workshops thorugh the intersession year 2018=2019 that seek  to ellucidate the issues raised in the panel, including the building ofa final report on this idea of legal-code interfaces.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 48 participants in addition to the panelists and moderator.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 27

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]:  The panel did not discuss gender issues.

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 09:51
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety

- Title: Online products and their impact on children’s vulnerability

- Date & Time: Tuesday 13 November 2018, 12:30-13:30 pm. Salle IV.

- Organizer(s): ECPAT International and Stiftung Digitale Chancen

- Chair/Moderator: Marie-Laure Lemineur, ECPAT International

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Marie-laure Lemineur, ECPAT International

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/

transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Jutta Croll -  Stiftung Digitale Chancen, Germany-  Female
  • John Carr – eNASCO - Male
  • Maarten Botternam – ICANN Board and Chair of the DC Internet of Things - Male
  • Patrick Mead, Dubit Limited, UK - Male

-Theme (as listed here): Human Rights Gender and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Child Online Protection

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  1. It is important to discuss screen time exposure and its positive and negative impact on children; 
  2. There is need to discuss Is there such a thing as a “a right amount of screen time for children” using phones, tablets or any other objects connected however equally important is what children do when the engage with devices and internet as it can be meaningful time;
  3. Parents and care givers are in part responsible for guiding children however other sectors are should equally engage, namely the private companies developing platforms used by children;

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

  1. There was agreement that it is extremely important to elaborate strategies taking into account age categories given that age differentiation is a key element of a successful strategy;
  2. Some argued that it is more important to look at the what the child does when connected rather than focusing solely on the time he spends connected.  In other words, what should matter is what the children do when they are connected and not so much how many hours they are connected;
  3. However, speakers and participants from the floor did acknowledge that there is need for researching more on the negative impact of over use of screen time and this type of engagement. Some initial existing research is pointing towards changes in the brain functions, loss of memory, more attention deficit problems, sleep deprivation, virtual autism. One participant mentioned that a special area of attention in that regard should be the effect of 3D screens and virtual reality where very few is known;
  4. Another participant emphasized that we needed to be careful when discussing “addiction”. The notion of what constitutes or not addiction is not that clear cut and that there is need for agreement;
  5. One youth participant noted that in some countries parents are addicted and they are no social interaction between parents and children or between children themselves because they spend so much time online;
  6. There is consensus that the speedy evolution of technology is challenging. This fast evolving environment allows constant emerging potential negative impact on users;
  7. Those devices have many functions and as a result, children use them for multiple purposes such as studying, looking for source material, connecting to friends, play, watch movies, etc.   

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

  1. There is need for the concerned parties in this topic to engage in producing more research on the impact of over exposure of screen time and over use of internet on children;
  2. There is need to think of age verification even if this is difficult;
  3. Private sector companies are forced to develop products for children that do not harm them as they are their user base of this;
  4. Not all children as the same, age differentiation solutions are vitals;
  5. A call was made by one participant for the private sector to share its data for research purpose by research institutes.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

All members of the DC COS are active within the IGF ecosystem, individually many are already active on aspects of this topic, raising awareness among policy makers, promoting research, etc.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 60 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 50%

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

There was no mention of the gender dimension of the problem rather a mention of how relevant it is to consider age differentiation regardless of gender when discussing solutions.

- Add your Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation as explained here:

or each issue area covered during your session (e.g. e-commerce, cybersecurity, privacy, AI), please provide input on the following questions:

1. What are values that digital cooperation should aspire to?

2. What are principles that digital cooperation should follow?

3. Which digital cooperation mechanisms were mentioned during the session?

4. Based on the discussions during the session, how can digital cooperation mechanisms be improved (such as: addressing gaps in existing mechanisms, developing a cross-silo approach, increasing inclusiveness)?

5. Please indicate any other aspect related to digital cooperation that could be of relevance for the Panel’s deliberation.


Updated: 05/12/2018 - 21:37
Report:

- Session Type DC

 

- Title:  Community Networks: When The Unconnected Build Connectivity

 

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 2018 - 11:20 to 12:20

 

- Organizer(s): Organizer 1: Luca Belli, Fundação Getuio Vargas (FGV)

Organizer 2: Nicolas Echániz, Altermundi

 

- Chair/Moderator:  Luca Belli, FGV

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Luã Fergus Oliveira da Cruz, Youth Observatory

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

    Mr Luca Belli, FGV

    Ms Jane Coffin, ISOC

    Ms Stavroula Magleva, University of Thessaly

    Mr Spencer Sevilla, University of Washington

    Mr Nicolas Echániz, AlterMundi

    Mr Roger Baig Viñas, Guifi.net

    Ms Muy-Cheng Peich, Bibliothèques Sans Frontières

    Mr Félix Tréguer, CNRS

    Ms Virginie Aubrée, University of Trento

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):  COMMUNITY NETWORKS

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. Community networks (CNs) improve connectivity while empowering Internet users. Community networks rely on the active participation of local communities in the design, development, and management of network infrastructure as a common resource, and help achieve the UN's Sustainable Development Agenda by facilitating access to information

 2. CNs give rise to new infrastructures, new governance models, new business opportunities, and facilitate the free flow of information and knowledge, filling the lacunae left by the traditional Internet access-provision paradigm.

3. The Community Network Manual is the 2018 outcome of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (DC3). Its goal is to provide guidance on how to build, organise, and deploy CNs. It offers toolkits, guidelines, and instructions to be used by all interested stakeholders for the concrete constructions of such networks. All interested stakeholder are invited to join DC3 members for presentation of the CN Manual and to freely share it.

 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…

 

Community Networks are networks structured to be open, unrestricted, and to respect net neutrality.  They rely on the active participation of local communities in the design, development, deployment, and management of shared infrastructure as a common resource. They are managed democratically by group of individuals and entities such as NGOs, local businesses, and/or public administrations.

There was broad agreement amongst panellists on the benefits of Community Networks as a promising strategy allowing individuals to build connectivity. Policy and regulation should facilitate their development. 

 

Panellists’ talks were based on their contributions to tha 2018 Outcome of DC3 : « The Community Network Manual: How to Build the Internet Yourself » published by FGV, ITU and InternetSociety, available here http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/25696

 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

Reduced regulatory obligations for community networks as regards license and authorisations, as they are generally small size non for profit organisation essentially acting in the public interest. Allow more flexible use of spectrum. 

Ms Jane Coffin, ISOC

Work with different partners and communities, instead of doing the work for them.

Panellists identified the following recommendations:

  • Analise regulatory experiences and identify best practices.
  • Development of open-source devices for community networks
  • It is key to have a support system, helping people communicate and support the community inside and the network.
  • Need to scaling up, given that upscaling produces bigger networks that are stronger and more resilient.
  • Improve existing laws through proposals submissions to policymakers
  • It is important to share Guidelines for community networks to cope with legal requirements, as stressed in the Community Network Manual.
  • Create a common platform for interoperability which could be put at  the disposal of communities, while being adapted to their need

Importantly, legal sustainability of Community Networks is also dependent on the ability of Community Networks to engage in advocacy and try to change telecom policy, which does not consider their specific needs and is tailored for large incumbents. Policy-makers and CNs should address the various regulatory hurdles that hinder the growth and development of the CN movement and cooperate to move the debate forward.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The work of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity was praised for as being an excellent venue for cooperation, synergy and elaboration of concrete outcomes. IGF should focus more on outcome oriented initiatives.   

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

80

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

40

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

None


Updated: 02/11/2018 - 23:20
Report:

Key message:

Emerging last mile connectivity initiatives demonstrate significant diversity, and policy approaches to support the same require as much innovation and context-specific application. 


Updated: 23/11/2018 - 15:58
Report:

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

- Round Table

 

Title:

DC Core Internet Values: Link tax and upload filtering, Friction & Core Values

 

Date & Time:

Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 09:00 to 10:00

 

Organizer(s):

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond - EURALO / ICANN / ISOC UK

 

Chair/Moderator:

- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond - EURALO / ICANN / ISOC UK

 

Rapporteur/Notetaker:

- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond - EURALO / ICANN / ISOC UK

 

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/transgender male/

transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

- Alejandro Pisanty, UNAM Mexico, Male
- Diego Naranjo, EDRi, Male
- Desiree Miloshevic, ISOC UK, Female

- Andrew Sullivan, Internet Society, Male

 

Theme:

- Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

Subtheme:

Link Tax, Legislation, Filtering, Copyrighted information.

 

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1. The legislation prepared by working groups of the European Commission and European Parliament have had a significant impact on Core Internet Values. We focus on two specific processes: General Data Protection Regulation - implemented for several years but recently coming into enforcement and the recent EU Copyright Legislation and the Directive of  the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market. (Specifically Article 11 and Article 13)

 

2. GDPR reinforces Core Internet Value regarding User Centricity whilst introducing borders to a borderless Internet. It therefore does not have a one-sided good or bad influence on the Internet's development. However, how it is implemented will be the defining factor on whether its support of the Core Internet Value of User Centricity outweights its conflict with a borderless Internet.

 

3. Article 11 and 13 break a number of Core Internet Values, The fundamental problem with many of the mechanisms that are being developed is that they are not intended to allow the network to work, but to fix a social problem by messing with the underlying technology. The fundamental problem with many of the mechanisms that are being developed is that they are not intended to allow the network to work, but to fix a social problem by messing with the underlying technology. The fundamental mistake made, a deep technical mistake, is that this is a centralised system that can be directed from above. Whilst the actual problems that need to be resolved are important, the legislation that is being brought forward is actually harmful to the end goal that governments are trying to achieve.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was broad agreement in the room with the panellist positions. It was also added that such legislation, whether GDPR, Article 11 and Article 13 that might have been originally intended to target large Internet companies, will actually affect smaller players in a much more significant way, as they do not have the resources to address the new requirements.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Continue the discussion about GDPR, Article 11 and Article 13.
Support GDPR but do not support Article 11 and Article 13.
Work better to inform people that this new legislation is detrimental to the Internet.
Join the "Save Your Internet" campaign.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

A lot more has to be done to communicate the challenges posed by regulation issues that affect end users. Use language that end users actually understand and explain to people the the Internet is not only Facebook or Google. Only if end users feel affected will they join the discussion.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

There were 40 people in the room and a dozen online.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 40% of participants were women. This might be due to the fact that the topic might have been perceived as technological in scope.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

No gender issues were discussed in this session.


Updated: 06/12/2018 - 12:18
Report:
Open meeting of the Dynamic Coaltion on the Internet of Things
(workshop)

Global Good Practice in IoT: a Call for Commitment

13 November 2018, 10:40

Session Type: DC Session

Title: Global Good Practice in IoT: A Call for Commitment

Date & Time: 13 November 2018, 10:40-11:40

Organizers:

Maarten Botterman, GNKS Consult BV

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, University of Arhus, GCSC

Avri Doria, Technicalities

Dan Caprio, The Providence Group

Nigel Hickson, ICANN

Peter Koch, DENIC​

Chair and Moderator:

Chair: Maarten Botterman

Moderator: Avri Doria​

Rapporteur and Notetaker:

Ryan Triplette, Canary Global Strategic

Speakers:

Frederic Donck, Regional Bureau Director for Europe, Internet Society / ISOC [male]

Eddan Katz, Project Lead on Digital Protocol Networks, World Economic Forum [male]

Taylor Bentley, Policy Advisor, Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada / ISED [male]

Claudia Selli, European Union Affairs Director, AT&T [female]

Gregory Meunier, Representative, Europol [male]

Melinda Clem [substitution for Ram Mohan], Vice President of Strategy, Afilias [female]

Theme:

Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

  • Developing a global, multistakeholder understanding of “good practice” in relation to the Internet of Things

Subtheme:

Internet of Things

  • Global good practice can only thrive if it includes a mature approach towards security of IoT devices and the data generated by those devices. In addition, global good practice only matters when it is actively pursued.  The question that we need to consider is how do we get organisations and individuals to be aware and take action from a good practice perspective.

Key Messages: [349 Words of Required 300-500 Words]

  1. The DC IoT's global good practice principle ("... taking ethical considerations into account from the outset...") is a valuable and worthwhile pursuit since there is no way to account for the risks presented by IoT technology at this point. We call for all actors to consider, strategize and implement this principle and its main building blocks (e.g. meaningful transparency; user choice and control; adequate security; privacy by default) throughout the process of further developing and deploying IoT.  We further call for all actors to ensure a level of flexibility and adaptability in their approach as this process will need to be evolving in nature, accounting for developments both in the technology and its application.
  2. There has been significant work on developing a better understanding of what "taking ethical considerations into account" means in a global context as these considerations may vary depending on the economic, philosophical and cultural norms and assumptions underpinning the position of any given party.  We call for the organization of and participation in a working group to consider and make recommendations on what this means in the context of IoT technology innovation. This working group will foster an “open forum” for discussion to examine the nature of these differing norms and assumptions and, ideally, identify baseline considerations that run consistently through them.  The World Economic Forum will facilitate this working group.
  3. There has been significant attention given to IoT security around the world due to both the growth of the technology, its increasingly consumer-facing applications, and corresponding use of highly confidential and personal data.  We call for the organization of and participation in a DC working group to understand the security implications to ensure the use of IoT in the long term.  This working group will examine current and future security implications of IoT by analysing instances of security breaches (i.e. their causes, the response, and impacts of the breach on consumers, the business and long range market), successfully identified and circumvented attempted hacks, and long term consumer confidence and faith in IoT technology. The Internet Society will facilitate this working group.

Discussion: [477 Words of Required 300 Words]

From the outset of the discussion, all of the presenting speakers agreed that the development of IoT global “good practices” is a shared responsibility between all potential stakeholders, public and private sector alike; including all service providers in the value chain (i.e. device developers and manufacturers, network access providers, service/app providers, and end-users).  It was noted that the interest in developing these practices is, as the discussion Chair Maarten Botterman noted, “ours, not yours or theirs” given potential positive and negative applications of the technology and that that “dumping all responsibility on the end user is a no go.” Security of IoT is a prerequisite to any agreements that are to be made - and much is done on that. The suggestion to set up DC working group to understand what activities are currently undertaken to address security implications relating to the use of IoT in the long term was well received.

Given IoT global “good practices” are established both in the area of policy general and technology specifically, it is important to understand the old structures and concepts that form the basis of these practices, incorporating what has historically worked and what needs to be addressed for the future.  As Eddan Katz of the World Economic Forum noted, we have to observe how “agile government” has worked to date in order to understand how to shape policy going forward, ensuring that all stakeholders have a voice and are involved.  Although there are examples of countries moving forward with national policies that address IoT technologies (e.g. Canada, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, all with representatives in the room), these have taken a relatively light regulatory approach to date.  This has been, as Taylor Bentley of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada noted, to allow for a relatively fluid process at this time to gain greater understanding of not only the potentially favorable and unfavorable uses of the technology but how policy will impact it.

An area which presented some disagreement amongst presenting speakers and discussion participants is an area fundamental to the establishment of global “good practices” principles and policy.  Namely, the handling of data or, to be more specific, how long data can be used (e.g. whether there should be an ‘expiration date’ on personal data).  The split in views were generally divided between business (focused on the need for data to improve the consumer experience) and civil group (focused on how such “warehouses” of data could be abused, especially in cases of security breach) interests.  While there was little discussion let alone agreement was had on the question of ‘who’s ethics,’ an open discussion is imperative to reaching an agreement that balances these differing interests.  It was agreed that it made sense to set up a working group to consider and make recommendations on what this means in the context of IoT technology innovation.

Policy Recommendations and Potential Next Steps: [210 words of Required 200 Words]

  • Global IoT “good practice” principles need to be voluntary in nature, and thus need to make sense to those that are considering developing more specific  principles or functional requirements based on those.   Given the inherently long process that is creating policy, businesses need to ensure that there are systems in place to adapt and address evolving security questions.  Such adoption can be an indicator of whether any established mechanism to ensure the adoption of “good practices” is functioning properly
  • Global IoT “good practice” principles can not be created in the vacuum of the single type of technology.  They will both impact and be impacted by the evolution of other disruptive technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence, big data).  That said, these principles, the process to establish them, and how well they function can help guide “good practice” recommendations and principles for these other technologies. 
  • Establishing global IoT “good practice” principles will need to account for the cultural norms / biases of different stakeholders.  Discussions on these norms / biases should be without judgment or predisposition.  Rather, they need to be open in nature and with the purpose of finding consistencies instead of disparities in views that can foster the adoption of any such agreed to “good practice” principles internationally.

Key Ideas and Takeaways for IGF Ecosystem: [244 Words of Required 150 Words]

  • IoT “good practice” principles must factor in (at least) four primary goals: security (of data and in their own person), consumer trust (including privacy / ability to control their own data), meaningful transparency (no hidden consequences),  and affordability (both to produce the technology and to access it).  Much like the process of reaching “good practice” principles, the achievement of their goals is fluid in nature.  These goals will be impacted by a range of factors, both currently known and unknown.  As such, it will be important to revisit established and emerging principles in the future to ensure they both effectively reflect the current environment and continue to achieve their intended goals.
  • It is the responsibility of the larger IGF stakeholder ecosystem to educate and engage with public / government sector stakeholders on the progress of these discussions.  The purpose of these discussions is to represent the interests of a larger set of interests (i.e. national governments, business and consumers).  As such, it is important to educate these interests not only of the nature of these discussions but also to receive feedback from key points made / agreed to in them, reduce that feedback to understandable messages, and relay those messages back into the IGF stakeholder ecosystem. 
  • More needs to be done, based on the outcome of the working groups results regarding better formulation of ethics and better understanding of activities underway towards longer term sustainability of IoT application in society.

Total Number of Participants:

There were approximately 70 attendees throughout the discussion.

Total Number of Women and Gender-Variant Individuals:

There were approximately 25-30 women throughout the discussion.

Discussion of Gender Issues:

There was no discussion of gender-related matters during this workshop.


Updated: 05/12/2018 - 22:04
Report:

- Session Type DC

 

- Title:  Net Neutrality: Measuring Discriminatory Practices (DCNN)

 

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 2018 - 12:20 to 13:20

 

- Organizer(s): Organizer 1: Luca Belli, Fundação Getuio Vargas (FGV)

Organizer 2: Chris Marsden Sussex University

 

- Chair/Moderator:  Luca Belli, FGV & Chris Marsden, Sussex University

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Luã Fergus Oliveira da Cruz, Youth Observatory

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Mr Serge Abiteboul, Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes (ARCEP)
  • Mr Frode Sorensen, Norwegian Communications Authority (Nkom)
  • Mr Marc LeBourges, Orange
  • Mr Luca Belli, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)
  • Mr Chris Marsden, Sussex University
  • Ms Amba Kak, Mozilla
  • Ms Jordana Viotto, Université Paris-Dauphine
  • Mr Simone Basso, Tor Project

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):  COMMUNITY NETWORKS

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  1. Further research and DCNN activities should be dedicated to the analyses of discriminatory traffic management practices, in order to inform net neutrality policy debates.
  2. Empirical research on Zero Rating can usefully inform Regulators' as well as policymakers' works. The fact that the DCNN Zero Rating Map has been featured into the French Telecoms Regulator (ARCEP) report on the State of the Internet is a positive example in this regard
  3. Methodologies and results of such studies should be open for review, comment and improvement from researchers, policymakers, regulators and other stakeholders alike
     

     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…

     

    Several stakeholders stressed the positive impact that DCNN activities may have in advancing the elaboration of empirical research on discriminatory practices, in light of the success of the Zero Rating Map (available on www.zerorating.info), which was crowdsourced by the DCNN and whose beta version was released at the IGF 2017 DCNN session.

    Panellists presented the research they have conducted and initiatives they have led with the aim to offer concrete elements on which participants can have a constructive multistakeholder debate, analysing the latest evolution of net neutrality

    Participants agreed on the benefits of crowdsourcing measurements.

    It was stressed that the Zero Rating Map is the the first IGF outcome to have been included in an official report of a national regulator. The French Telecoms Regulator, ARCEP, which was represented by a board member has dedicated a section to the Zero Rating Map in its 2018 State of the Internet report.

    The French version of the report is here https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/rapport-etat-internet-2018...
    The English version is here https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018...

  4.  

    Durig their presentations, the first panelists focused on measures and tools to understand the quality of services offered by internet service providers and applications providers, especially speed and attempts to discriminate traffic. Many presented practical examples, such as the WeHe and OONI applications.

    The European “Net neutrality measurement tool” currently being developed by BEREC provides an example of how a consistent approach to measurement of internet access services to assess net neutrality can be facilitated across countries

    Other panelists presented more theoretical positions pointing to the need for reflection on topics such as innovation and regulation, as well as highlighting the need for more research and more data to discuss the theme of the session.

     

    One of the main concerns regarding a potential departure from net neutrality, explored by one of the panellists, is that it might steer consumers’ choice of online content towards the Content Providers (CPs) included in the zero rating plan. As CPs typically rely on traffic to generate revenues, (either from advertisement or from user payment (e.g., subscription)), zero rating raises barriers to entry to CPs excluded from the plan and might reduce the variety of CPs available to users. It can also interfere with incentives of CPs to invest in quality. In this context the incentives vary with the elasticity of demand for the zero-rated content provider and that effects might be different for distinct types of content. 

     

    Importantly, the private sector representatives highlighted that Internet Service Providers have a strong incentive to provide quality neutral Internet access, because the value of most contents available on internet access, and thus le value of internet access itself, depends of the ability of those contents to exchange together on-line through a neutral network.
     

    - Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

    Measurement of internet access services to assess net neutrality should emphasise openness and standardisation in order to foster a cross-national platform for development and research of a reliable methodology and reusable toolbox.

    Participants agreed on the benefits of crowdsourcing measurements.

    Participants stressed the benefits of the Zero Rating Map as a tool to foster further research and suggested to use more largely crowdsourced tools to verify compliance with network neutrality.

           Development of shared measurement methodologies and tools are needed in order to be able to collect ancompare more empirical data, measuring Internet access quality.

ISP representatives stressed that whether the provision of specialized services improves or degrades internet general quality should be tested by assessing if, for a given set of usages, the quality of internet services would be degraded or improved if the usage served by a specialized service was instead provided on internet: as specialized services uses optimal solutions that minimize resources for a given outcome, their provision can then be expected to improve the overall network efficiency, notably for the benefit of the general open internet quality.

Lastly, it is key to understand how the rules that we choose today will shape the direction of innovation tomorrow.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The work of the Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality was praised for its outcome-oriented nature. IGF should focus more on outcome oriented initiatives, as suggested repetedly over the past decade and as also stressed by President Macron's intervention.    Net neutrality continues to pose policy challenges, as there are inconsistent national practices and a lack of an internationally recognized framework to guide the approach this matte.  These fragmented regulatory policies across nations can be disruptive for the Internet as a global network. There is a need for the global community including the IGF to come up with a set of universal values and standards and with that a globally recognized framework that will support the harmonization of these individualistic national approaches

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

130

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

60

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

None

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

https://public.tableau.com/profile/zeroratingcts#!/vizhome/zeroratinginfo/Painel1

Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Use Cases

http://www.rfc-editor.org/pdfrfc/rfc7536.txt.pdf

 

Net Neutrality Regulatory Assessment Methodology

https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/regulatory_best_practices/methodologies/7295-berec-net-neutrality-regulatory-assessment-methodology

 

Net Neutrality Measurement Tool Specification

https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/7296-net-neutrality-measurement-tool-specification

Orange analysis on the impact of interactions between contents and applications and the neutrality of networks:

https://www.orange.com/fr/content/download/48545/1388078/version/5/file/2018%2010%2024%20Net%20Neutrality%20Externalities.pdf

 

Position paper analying the impact of ZR on end-users' freedom of choice

https://docreader.readspeaker.com/docreader/?jsmode=1&cid=bresa&lang=fr_fr&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.orange.com%2Ffr%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F48222%2F1383799%2Fversion%2F1%2Ffile%2FZero%2520rating%2520and%2520end-users%25E2%2580%2599%2520freedom%2520of%2520choice%2520-%2520An%2520economic%2520analysis%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520ao%25C3%25BBt%25202018.pdf&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.orange.com%2Ffr%2FGroupe%2FPolitique-europeenne%2Fregard-economique%2FFolder%2FOTT-operateurs-Telecom-et-internet-ouvert&v=


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 22:01
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

[sample report here]

 

 
 

 

 

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Dynamic Coalition

 

- Title: Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

 

- Date & Time: Day3, Wednesday 14 Nov, 12:30 – 13:30

 

- Organizer(s): Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

 

- Chair/Moderator: Gerry Ellis

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

- Theme (as listed here):         Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here): Persons with disablities

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • IGF has to live up to its commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in accessing IGF meetings, including remote participation accessibility.
  • IGF should consider DCAD participants’ repeating request for an improvement of its remote participation tool so that persons with disabilities especially persons with vision impairment can easily participate in IGF meetings.  
  • Accessibility is related to all aspects of society, therefore more collaboration with other DCs is expected.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

There was a strong support for the view that IGF should be committed to the UNCRPD. A number of accessibility problems were pointed out by DCAD members, including but not limited to: remote participation, website (schedule format, online registration), and physical accessibility.  

It was suggested that more collaboration with other Dynamic Coalitions can be explored. Volunteers of DCAD will start on discussion with targeted DCs and will see the possibility. Further idea will be discussed at future DCAD conference calls.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Accessibility should be considered from the beginning of organizing meetings as described in DCAD Accessibility Guidelines. It has already been suggested at DCAD meeting in 2014 that persons with disabilities or accessibility experts be part of the IGF preparation process, so as to make sure accessibility is considered in all aspects of IGF meetings.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Accessibility is not just for persons with disabilities only, but everyone can benefit from it. The universal design principle 'necessary for some - good for everyone’ should be followed.  Implementing international standards will help ensure ICT accessibility. It is expected that DCAD Accessibility Guidelines submitted to IGF (available at: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/4281/517 ) be considered when preparing IGF meetings to improve accessibility.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 30

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Around 15

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

DCAD believes that persons with disabilities, including women with disabilities, should be on an equal footing, regardless disability or gender as an essential human right. All DCAD discussions are based on this principle.


Updated: 05/12/2018 - 21:45
Report:

 

- Title:  Automated Decision Making and Artificial Intelligence

 

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 10:40 to 11:40

 

- Organizer(s): Organizer 1: Nicolo Zingales, Sussex University

Organizer 2: Luca Belli, Fundação Getuio Vargas (FGV)

 

- Chair/Moderator:  Nicolo Zingales, Sussex University & Luca Belli, FGV

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Luã Fergus Oliveira da Cruz, Youth Observatory

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Moez Chakchouk, UNESCO
  • Marco Pancini, YouTube
  • Vidushi Marda, Article 19
  • Nic Suzor, Queensland University of Technology
  • Marta Cantero, University of Helsinki
  • Luca Belli, FGV
  • Nicolo Zingales, Sussex University

 

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Geneder and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here):  Democracy

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  1. Further research and DCPR activities should be dedicated to the discussion of how automated decision making can be designed and implemented by digital platforms.
  2. Both the more “classic” Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms and the more unorthodox Artificial Intelligence-based solutions, such as the recent proposal of AI-based proactive detection and removal of abusive content should be carefully considered for their potential benefits and risks. 
  3. A promising opportunity to engage in the automated decision making debate is to provide comments on the 2018 outcome of the DCPR: the Best Practices on Due Process Safeguards regarding Online Platforms’ Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy, until 30 November https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dcpr-best-practices-on-..

- 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 session, organised by the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility (DCPR), and led by the work of the DCPR, focused on artificial intelligence (AI), automated decision-making and online dispute resolution (ODR). Stressing the role and responsibility of online platforms and in the context of private decision-making, the session assessed what are the safeguards for the protection of fundamental rights in automated decision activities. Following those lines, the concept of effectiveness, fairness and due diligence featured in the discussion on the application of AI to automated decision-making.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

Panellists suggested the follwing points for futher reflection.

  1. AI is a topic of great interest of many organisation, including the Communication and Information programme (CI) of UNESCO. A shared goal should be to reinforce online human rights through digital skills, media information, literacy and the use of AI, focusing especially in developing countries.
  2. Tech companies should follow clear standards for their Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms.
  3. Day-to-day governance of AI is already assisting large scale decision making and should be as transparent as possible.
  4. Effectiveness and fairness are essential principles to implement and develop practices in the context of the right to an effective remedy.
  5. Internal human review must always be available when decisions about individuals are automatically taken.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

 

More time for Dynamic Coalition session.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

 

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dcpr-best-practices-on-due-process-safeguards-regarding-online-platforms%E2%80%99-implementation-of

 

https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2018

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/harare/communication-information/


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 21:11
Report:

IGF 2018 Synthesis

- Session Type: Round Table

- Title: A policy Toolkit for Public Access

- Date & Time: Wednesday November 14th 10:10 – 11:10

- Organizer(s): DC-PAL

- Chair/Moderator: Valeria Betancourt APC Civil Society (F)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Stephen Wyber

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Esmeralda Moscatelli, Research and Policy Officer IFLA (F)
  • Don Means, GLN, Technical Community (M)
  • Janet Sawaya, EIFL, Civil Society (F)
  • Peter Micek, Access Now, Civil Society (M)
  • Leandro Navarro Pangea, Technical community (M)
  • Roger Baig Vinas, Technical Community (M)

- Theme:

Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme:

Libraries, Access and Connectivity

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

  1. Public access, notably through libraries, allows people to get online, for free, through a shared connection in a welcoming environment, with support and training on offer. This allows for meaningful and equitable access to information, empowering people to take better decisions for themselves and their communities. It is an important part of overall connectivity offers.
  2. Connecting public libraries is a relatively low‐cost, high‐impact means of bringing the benefits of connectivity to communities. Nonetheless, not all libraries are yet online, and even when they are, they are dependent on public funding, and often also face particular regulatory and legal frameworks. Libraries and their communities therefore need to be aware of the issues and be active in identifying and overcoming barriers.
  3. The Public Access toolkit, the 2018 outcome of the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access (DC-PAL), was the focus of discussion at the session. It aims to address the issues in an easy and community-oriented way, giving libraries, their communities and other stakeholders the background information on the financial, regulatory and technological aspects of public access they need to be able to advocate for it. By bringing together library and non-library perspectives, the session helped broaden the guide and make it more valuable for its audience.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence

There was strong agreement on the need to ensure that solutions were owned by the communities. The work of libraries as centres with a connection with the people they serve could be critical.

A number of participants underlined that we also needed to reconsider the assumption that public access could compete with private offers. This could not only pose a harmful barrier on new connectivity, but also stand in the way of take-up of digital services.

Regulation should not be interpreted in ways that benefit incumbents, but rather facilitate onward connections from libraries, including WiFi and community networks.

Public access offered important social benefits that may not be provided by markets alone, and indeed, there was a case for public (popular) ownership of the infrastructure.

Efforts needed to be made to support libraries’ ability to teach digital skills, as well as explain how to exercise rights.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps

Further work is needed to change mindsets, and ensure that the laws are interpreted in ways that favour access to the internet, or are changed so that they do so.

More work could be done to understand the role of libraries in engaging communities to develop internet access solutions.

Work on how to ensure the sustainability of non-commercial systems could represent a useful contribution.

Connectivity programmes need to be designed in a bottom-up way, leaving choice over tools and process to the community itself. Support on key issues can be offered, but locals have to lead.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

There is a need to develop a better understanding of where and how there is a need for public intervention in order to make connectivity happen.

In addition to focusing on top down regulation, we need to think about the resources and infrastructure that can be mobilised to facilitate community-based solutions.

We need to reflect on the risk that regulation developed for the private sector may harm public interest activities, such as public internet access.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

30-35

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

10-15

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The discussion included consideration of the role of public access in reaching out to marginalised communities, including women, who otherwise may struggle to benefit from commercial internet offers. Given that women are particularly heavy users of libraries in many cultures, they stand to benefit from progress on public access.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 10:21
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): 
Meeting of a Dynamic Coalition

Round Table

- Title: 
Schools on Internet Governance (DC-SIG)

- Date & Time: 
Tuesday, 13 November 2018, 9:00 – 10:00

- Organizer(s): 
Sandra Hoferichter, Anriette Esterhuysen, Avri Doria, Rainer Rodewald

- Chair/Moderator: 
Sandra Hoferichter

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Avri Doria

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): 
All organisers of Schools on Internet Governance (SIG), alumni’s, faculty, supporter of SIGs

- Theme (as listed here): 
Evolution of Internet Governance

- Subtheme (as listed here): 
Broadening Stakeholder participation in Internet Governance

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

This meeting is a follow up from the founding meeting during the last IGF. We will discuss the following issues:

1. Schools on Internet Governance Taxonomy: There is a great variety among the existing SIGs and the features of the various types of schools. That often makes it difficult to talk about these Schools and to describe them in a less ambiguous manner. Aim is to agree on several categories and criteria for a taxonomy. 

2. Website: We will introduce a draft website for the DC-Networkincluding tools for interaction (i.e. wiki) and ask for feedback.

3. Workplan: We will look into the tasks ahead and call for participation in the network, possibly form sub working groups.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] 

The round table and group gather discussed the web site in detail all giving recommendations for how it could be improved.

The taxonomy and data collection on existing schools was discussed and there was a general feeling that the work being done could provide the start to the development of a rich resource for people who are either starting a new school, or developing their existing school. There was also general agreement that this should be available to anyone interested, though there was a recognition that details on curricula and class presentations might be considered the intellectual property of schools and faculty.

There was general agreement, with no objections, that the group would work as a group of the whole, with Avri Doria functioning as a neutral secretariat, with service such as wiki maintenance provide by Medienstadt Leipzig e. V. The various leaders of SIGs would serve as the main drivers of the SIG.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

There was general agreement that the approach being taken to first define a taxonomy and then start collecting information on existing SIGs was the correct approach.

One the Taxonomy was further developed, work could begin on creating model curricula modules that could be used by new and continuing schools.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]'

The global proliferation of SIGs can be understood as a major element in capacity building for the IG system and for the various stakeholders and stakeholder groups.  The IGF provides a means whereby the global schools can come together yearly to discuss progress being made, which is necessary despite online cooperative work and occasional meetings at NRI of subsets of those involved in IG education.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

Over 100.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Probably at least half.

No actual count was done.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Gender issues were not a focus of the discussion.  The idea was capacity building for all. n Gender issues are included among the taxonomies list of subject areas for curricula building.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 09:10
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

 

- Title: DC on Youth

 

- Date & Time: 12 November, 12:30-13:30

 

- Organizer(s): Nadia Tjahja

 

- Chair/Moderator: Nadia Tjahja

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Su Sonia Herring

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Nadia Tjahja, YCIG/Sunium

Su Sonia Herring, SEEDIG

Charalampos Kyritsis, YOUthDIG

Auke Pals, EuroDIG

Marius Jitea, Council of Europe

 

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Youth Inclusion

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

  • We must increase recruitment for IGF attendance activities in schools and universities and finding practices to facilitate these through setting up an education network that can manage this.
  • We must invest in increasing female participation.
  • We must ensure that other regions beyond Europe, in particular disadvantaged and underrepresented regions, continue and become increasingly more active and represented in Internet Governance discussions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 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 view that youth recruitment within schools and universities should be coordinated for future IGFs. Some indicated that the word “internet governance” may cause confusion for young people and a better entry point could be “freedom of speech”, “cyberbullying”, “data protection”, etc.

 

There was broad support for bringing together organiser of YouthIGF’s to share common practices and outcomes.

 

There is a concern that the YCIG has been very Eurocentric. Others noted that female participation needs to be increased.

 

There was general disappointment on the manner in which session organisers engaged with the call for youth participation. Despite reassurances that youth were included as speakers, sessions did not include youth speakers.

 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

  1. The community indicated that in terms of Youth IGF’s they would be interested in setting up a session for IGF 2019 in which Youth IGF organisers could come together to discuss and share best practices but also results from their sessions and see where they can find synergies.
  2. The community encouraged to further consider recruitment of young people in schools and universities  through the creation of an education network.
  3. The community would like to emphasise the role of women in tech and creating opportunities for the girl person

 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

  1. YCIG offered to support and help YouthIGF organisers  with a workshop proposal for IGF 2019 to collect all organisers of YouthIGF’s to come together to further discuss good practices and outcomes of their events.
  2. YCIG organised a French language #JoinUs campaign which reached out to schools and universities for IGF 2018 and indicated that the campaign can only be as successful as the engagement of the community. We can consider extending it for 2019 but only with the support of the community.
  3. Only concerns raised, but no concrete resolutions

 

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

59 people

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

24 women

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

From the 2018 overview, the YCIG board spoke about their work encouraging girls and women participating in EU Code Week. Additionally the WG on Youth Participation in Internet Governance addressed supporting women on panels.

 

There were multiple interventions by the audience who raised the issue of female participation in local events and IGF sessions and the need to further invest and encourage in girls and women.


Updated: 06/12/2018 - 12:22
Report:

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Main session

Title: Effective policies for inclusive and prosperous digital transformation – what’s needed?

Date & Time: Tuesday 13 November, 15.00-16.20

Organizer(s): Jutta Croll (MAG / DC Coordination Group), Markus Kummer (DC Coordination Group), Timea Suto (MAG) 

Chair/Moderator:

  • Mr. Diego Molano, Former ICT minister of Colombia; International Consultant, Digital Transformation of Governments and Companies, Colombia
  • Ms. Nadia Tjahja, Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (YCIG), Netherlands

Rapporteur/Notetaker: TBC

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Panelists

  • Mr. Jackson Cheboi, Head of Cyber Investigations and Foreniscs, Communications Authority of Kenya
  • Ms. Bishakha Dhatta, Executive Director, Point of View - India
  • Ms Céline Saada-Benaben, General Manager France, eBay
  • Mr. Andres Sastre, Regional Director, Inter-American Association of Telecommunications Companies (ASIET)
  • Ms. Shamika Sirimanne, Director, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) *tbc

Interventions from IGF Dynamic Coalitions:

  • Mr. Gerry Ellis - DC on Accessibility & Disability (DCAD)
  • Ms. Carla Reyes - DC on Blockchain Technologies (DC-Blockchain)
  • Mr. John Carr / Ms. Marie-Laure Lemineur / Ms. Jutta Croll *tbc - DC on Child Online Safety (DCCOS) 
  • Mr. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy - DC on Core Internet Values (DC-CIV) 
  • Ms. Jac SM Kee - DC on Gender and Internet Governance (DCGIG) 
  • Mr. Christopher Yoo - DC on Innovative Approaches to Connecting the Unconnected (DC-Connecting the Unconnected) 
  • Mr. Maarten Botterman - DC on Internet of Things (DC-IoT
  • Ms. Janet Sawaya *tbc - DC on Public Access in Libraries (DC-PAL) 
  • Mr. Tracy Hackshaw - DC on Small Island Developing States in the Internet Economy (DC-SIDS) 
  • Ms. Minda Moreira - Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) 
  • *tbc - Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (YCIG) 

Theme (as listed here): Development, innovation and economic issues

Subtheme (as listed here): Internet for development and Sustainable Development Goals

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

This session aims to tackle the following questions:

  • What are the main opportunities and challenges of harnessing ICTs and digital transformation to  positively drive the SDGs?
  • What are the main elements of an enabling policy environment for supporting inclusive and prosperous societies?
  • Where can we identify areas of mutual collaboration within the policy space so we can increase our efficiency, improve communication between relevant actors, and reduce redundancy?

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…

Speakers in the session found broad agreement in a number of cross-cutting areas related to Internet for development. These centred primarily around the need for deeper cooperation and trust, as well as capacity building and educational measures, in order for the web to deliver on its development promise. This ranged from the message from the private sector that trust in physical infrastructure – the speed and security of Internet – needs to be established, to trust that users’ personal data is secure.

Views differed on the usefulness and future safety of the ever-widening phenomenon of the Internet of Things, with concern expressed that the gains brought by IoT were not worth the potentially considerable security risks. It was acknowledged that with discussion on how to make devices ‘talk to one another’ there should be a parallel discussion on their governance.

Raising what is often seen as a point of divergence in other discussions, the representative of the Dynamic Coalition (DC) on Child Online Safety emphasized that there is a false dichotomy between protecting children and freedom of information and expression online. The position of safety practitioners is that children should have as free and open access as possible while being protected from abuse on the web.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

It was recognized from different panellists that closer cooperation between Governments, the private sector and civil society would be needed to tackle the development gaps discussed. Related to this, the speaker from the DC on Accessibility and Disability (DCAD) made a general call for avoiding silos and ‘overspecializing’ special needs, especially where access is concerned, and reminded that addressing the needs of people with disabilities addresses the needs of all people via universal design.

Finally, civil society experts on gender urged for better data collection and analysis for gender needs, emphasizing that serious holes and inconsistencies existed due to lack of gender disaggregated data. For example, this prevents us from understanding how a newly connected community uses its new access, and whether women and girls have equal access to the web.

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

One concrete suggestion was to improve the tracking and recording of gender engagement at the IGF. It was recommended increasing the compliance with gender reporting via the ‘Gender Report Cards’ integrated in IGF session reporting.

Please estimate the total number of participants.

Approx 80 people.

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Approx half the participants were women.

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session had a strong gender focus, with two representatives from civil society specialized in gender issues. The need for better data in global gender studies, the persistent barriers women and girls face to access, as well as the need to more closely examine the quality of access women enjoy, were all discussed.


Updated: 12/11/2018 - 23:56
Report:

Updated: 06/11/2018 - 12:46
Report:

Updated: 23/11/2018 - 22:41
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): DC Session Workshop

 

- Title: Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance

 

- Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 Nov, 2018 - 11:20 - 12:20
 

- Organizer(s):
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India
Lisa Garcia, Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines
Smita Vanniyar, Point of View, India

 

- Chair/Moderator:
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Radhika Radhakrishnan, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, India

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Baldeep Grewal, Universität Würzburg (female, Academia)
Laura Breton Despradel, ISOC-RD, Dominican Republic (female, civil society)
Valentina Pellizzer, Association for Progressive Communications, Bosnia and Herzegovina (female, civil society)

 

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender, and Youth

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • What does the study on Gender Report Cards from the past few years of IGF tell us about the gender and gender diversity in workshops as well as the treatment of gender as a topic in these workshops.
  • The need to understand emerging issues such as dataveillance, and algorithmic decision-making, and their influence in the cyberspace through a gender and sexuality lens, and strategies to address this.
  • The status of ICTs and women’s rights online in the Dominican Republic, and how can we use technology and apps to disseminate more comprehensive knowledge on sexual education.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Laura, from UNFPA, discussed sexual and reproductive rights in Dominican Republic, and the efforts of organizations such as Pro Familia and apps like  Planeapp to include young girls and queer adolescents in discourses around SRHR.

Valentina from the Women’s Rights Programme, APC, discussed the work of the EROTICS network (Exploratory Research on Information and Communication Technology) initially focused on India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Key takeaways from her talk included the increasing collection and surveillance of user data by governments and other non-state actors, which can be misused (“dataveillance”) to target women and queer persons.

The stronghold of national policies and religious groups on women’s sexual rights and sexuality was a common thread that ran across both speaker’s talks.

Baldeep presented a draft research paper on the Gender Report Cards (GRCs) at IGF. There was broad support for the view that the GRCs were a substantial step towards the inclusion of and engagement with gender at IGF. However, there are challenges that remain, such as inconsistency in reporting resulting in difficulty of comparisons of categorical results.

There was also vibrant engagement from various participants present and interesting issues were highlighted. For instance, Jac from APC pointed out that all Human Rights issues tend to be clubbed into one main theme while there are multiple different themes for technical issues. Professor K. S. Park from the Dynamic coalition for Publicness also elucidated how the Right to be forgotten is being misused by perpetrators of sexual violence.  

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

There was discussion around how defamation is used as tool to silence women in many parts of the world, as truth is not always held to be a defence. Consequently, a proposal was made to set up a small global working group to gather consensus and release a joint statement on the issue (related also to the above discussion on ).

The need to have a separate Sexual Harassment policy for the IGF was highlighted and efforts to concretize the same were also outlined.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

The need to develop a new model of reporting was highlighted for the Gender Reports so that there can be a standardized manner in which analysis can be carried out across years. Another recommendation along the same lines was to collect statistics of women against total number of people present so the proportion of women could be analyzed. It was also noted that  To solve for the challenge of organizers not submitting the Gender Reports despite it being mandated, a suggestion that has been forwarded by Smita is to include the word “complete” (completed reports) in the mandate for submission of the Gender Reports.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

25

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Gender is a self-identified social characteristic and this cannot be estimated without participants identifying themselves as women or gender-variant.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The main theme of the discussion was gender. Hence, please see responses to above questions for response to this question.

 

Long Report

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): DC Session Workshop

- Title: Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance

- Date & Time: Wednesday 14 Nov, 2018 - 11:20-12:20

- Organizer(s):
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

Lisa Garcia, Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines

Smita Vanniyar, Point of View, India

- Chair/Moderator: Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Radhika Radhakrishnan, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, India

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Baldeep Grewal, Universität Würzburg (female, Academia)
Laura Breton Despradel, ISOC-RD, Dominican Republic (female, civil society)
Valentina Pellizzer, Association for Progressive Communications, Bosnia and Herzegovina (gender variant, civil society)

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender, and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

  • What does the study on Gender Report Cards from the past few years of IGF tell us about the gender and gender diversity in workshops as well as the treatment of gender as a topic in these workshops.
  • How data and information collected and surveillance by governments can be misused to target women and queer persons, and the need to include online expression through bodies in freedom of expression.
  • The influence of the Catholic church on the discourse sexual and reproductive health and the discourse around this in the Dominican Republic, its impacts, and how technology and apps are being used to disseminate more comprehensive knowledge on sexual education, including that for queer adolescents.

 

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words]

One of the speakers, Laura, from UNFPA, discussed sexual and reproductive rights in Dominican Republic which has immense influence from the Catholic Church. One of the impacts of this is that abortion is forbidden in all cases including when the mother is in danger and sexual education is also not conducted in schools (only 10% of which are secular). Laura also discussed the efforts of organizations such as Pro Familia and apps like  Planeapp to include young girls and queer adolescents in discourses around SRHR.

Vale from the Women’s Rights Programme, APC, used the Feminist Principles of the Internet (FPI) analytical framework to discuss the work of the EROTICS network (Exploratory Research on Information and Communication Technology) initially focused on India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Key takeaways from her talk included the increasing collection and surveillance of user data by governments and other non-state actors, which can be misused (“dataveillance”) to target women and queer persons. Discourse around freedom of expression also needs to include expression through our bodies online, as our bodies are becoming data in cyberspace. Thus, the user needs to be at the centre of principles on data and privacy, which is echoed by the FPI and GDPR. These principles also need to be transformed into uniform standards through an organized effort.

The stronghold of national policies and religious groups on women’s sexual rights and sexuality was a common thread that ran across both speaker’s talks.

Baldeep presented a draft research paper on the Gender Report Cards (GRCs) at IGF. There was broad support for the view that the GRCs were a substantial step towards the inclusion of and engagement with gender at IGF. When the reports were kicked off in 2011, there was negligible engagement with gender in workshops but the introduction of the reporting has seemed to fulfil its intended objectives. However, there are challenges that remain, such as inconsistency in reporting resulting in difficulty of comparisons of categorical results.

There was also vibrant engagement from various participants present and interesting issues were highlighted. For instance, Jac from APC pointed out that all Human Rights issues tend to be clubbed into one main theme while there are multiple different themes for technical issues. A speaker from the Dynamic coalition for Publicness, Professor KS Park, also elucidated how the Right to be forgotten is being misused by perpetrators of sexual violence.  

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

There was discussion around how defamation is used as tool to silence women in many parts of the world, as truth is not always held to be a defence. Consequently, a proposal was made to set up a small global working group to gather consensus and release a joint statement on the issue (related also to the above discussion on ).

The need to have a separate Sexual Harassment policy for the IGF was highlighted and efforts to concretize the same were also outlined.
 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

The need to develop a new model of reporting was highlighted for the Gender Reports so that there can be a standardized manner in which analysis can be carried out across years. Another recommendation along the same lines was to collect statistics of women against total number of people present so the proportion of women could be analyzed. It was also noted that  To solve for the challenge of organizers not submitting the Gender Reports despite it being mandated, a suggestion that has been forwarded by Smita is to include the word “complete” (completed reports) in the mandate for submission of the Gender Reports, and to ensure that all session organisers complete the reports, including for DC sessions.

There was also a suggestion from Lisa Garcia on developing cooperation with the DCs at the regional level as well, and not just at the global IGF level.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

25

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Gender is a self-identified social characteristic and this cannot be estimated without participants identifying themselves as women or gender-variant.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The main theme of the discussion was gender. Hence, please see responses to above questions for response to this question.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):


Updated: 26/11/2018 - 10:04
Report:

Updated: 06/11/2018 - 17:27
Report:
IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018 ‎ Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held ‎ ‎- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Thematic/Main Session ‎- Title: Evolution of Internet Governance (IG): NRIs focus on the multistakeholder approach ‎- Date & Time: 13 November 2018, 11:40-13:00 p.m. CET‎ ‎- Organizer(s): National, Regional and Youth IGFs (NRIs) in collaboration with MAG ‎- Chair/Moderator: Ambassadro Benedicto Fonseca and Anja Gengo, NRIs Focal Point ‎ ‎- Rapporteur/Notetaker: APrIGF and Nigeria IGF ‎- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ ‎transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Involved NRIs, speakers TBC, are:‎ ‎1.‎ Africa IGF (Makane Faye),‎ ‎2.‎ Albania IGF,‎ ‎3.‎ Albania Youth IGF,‎ ‎4.‎ APrIGF,‎ ‎5.‎ Arab IGF,‎ ‎6.‎ Argentina IGF,‎ ‎7.‎ Armenia IGF,‎ ‎8.‎ Barbados IGF,‎ ‎9.‎ Brazil IGF (Prof. Flávio Wagner),‎ ‎10.‎ Central African IGF,‎ ‎11.‎ Chad IGF, ‎ ‎12.‎ UK-IGF,‎ ‎13.‎ China IGF,‎ ‎14.‎ Colombia IGF,‎ ‎15.‎ DR Congo IGF,‎ ‎16.‎ Dutch IGF,‎ ‎17.‎ EuroDIG,‎ ‎18.‎ France IGF (Nicolas Chagny).‎ ‎19.‎ Ghana IGF,‎ ‎20.‎ IGF-USA,‎ ‎21.‎ Indonesia IGF;‎ ‎22.‎ Italy IGF,‎ ‎23.‎ Japan IGF,‎ ‎24.‎ Korea IGF,‎ ‎25.‎ LACIGF,‎ ‎26.‎ Lebanon IGF,‎ ‎27.‎ Macedonia IGF (tbc),‎ ‎28.‎ Namibia IGF,‎ ‎29.‎ Nigeria IGF,‎ ‎30.‎ Portugal IGF,‎ ‎31.‎ Panama IGF (Lia P. Hernandez)‎ ‎32.‎ SEEDIG,‎ ‎33.‎ Spain IGF,‎ ‎34.‎ Trinidad and Tobago (George Gobin and Tracy Hackshaw)‎ ‎35.‎ West Africa IGF,‎ ‎36.‎ Youth Africa IGF ‎- 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]‎ ‎1.‎ Examples from the NRIs on how the application of the multistakeholder model to discussing the ‎Internet governance pertaining matters, contributed to development of Internet governance. Is there an ‎impact on policies from the Internet Governance Forum initiatives? ‎[Inputs included: decision making through multistakeholder model, engaging all stakeholders to work ‎together]‎ ‎2.‎ What are the challenges we face while engineering/developing and implementing the multistakeholder ‎model for discussing the Internet governance pertaining matters? ‎[Inputs included: awareness level, competing initiatives, specific issues require specific discussion ‎models, complexities related to achieving consensus, stakeholders acting on unequal footing]‎ ‎3.‎ How can we improve the implementation of the multistakeholder model on the national and regional ‎levels? ‎[Inputs included: strengthening the multistakeholder model, raising awareness, increasing collaboration ‎between IG initiatives on national, regional and global levels; increasing NRIs outcomes and outreach]‎ ‎4.‎ Multistakeholder model on a global level: current status and recommendations for improvements ‎[Inputs included: functioning of the multistakeholder model in UN context; future of the IGF]‎ ‎- 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…‎ ‎- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next ‎steps. [100 words]‎ ‎- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this ‎issue? [75 words]‎ ‎- Please estimate the total number of participants. ‎ ‎- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.‎ ‎- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 ‎words]‎

Updated: 08/11/2018 - 20:30
Report:

Updated: 12/11/2018 - 20:06
Report:

Updated: 12/11/2018 - 20:08
Report:

Updated: 29/11/2018 - 15:12
Report:

IGF 2018 Long report

Human Rights, Gender and Youth Main Session

Session Type:  Main Session

 

Title: “The importance of human rights as a direct link to Gender, Youth and Equality”

 

Date: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018       Time: 16:30 to 17:50

 

Organizers:

Renata Aquino Ribeiro - MAG member - Civil Society - LAC

June Parris - MAG member - Private Sector - LAC

Adama Jallow - MAG member - Civil Society - LAC

Miguel Candia Ibarra - MAG member - Government - LAC

Jutta Croll - MAG member - Civil Society - WEOG

Lianna Galstyan - MAG member - Civil Society - AP

Zeina Bhouharb - MAG member - Government - AP

 

On site Moderator/Timekeeper:

Claudio Lucena - professor State University of Paraíba (UEPB/Brazil)

 

Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Renata Aquino Ribeiro - MAG member - Civil Society - LAC

June Parris - MAG member - Private Sector - LAC

Adama Jallow - MAG member - Civil Society - LAC

Jutta Croll - MAG member - Civil Society - WEOG

 

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations :

John Carr -  Male - Researcher and Online Child Safety Consultant. London United Kingdom. - WEOG

Marianne Franklin - Giganet - WEOG- Female

Minda Moreira -  Female - DC Internet Rights and Principles - WEOG

Lillian Nalwoga - President Internet Society Uganda Chapter and CIPESA - Africa - Female

Viviane Vinagre - Pre-law, gender activist - GRULAC.

Nidhi Goyal - Activist, Trainer & Researcher: Disability Rights & Gender Justice - India - Female.

Olga Cavalli - Gender Activist and Government Stakeholder - Argentina - Female.

Madeline McSherry - Public Affairs Lead, UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation - Female.

 

Remote Moderator:

Joy Wathagi  - Vice President of the Digital Grassroots- Kenya - Female.

 

Theme:  The importance of human rights as a direct link to Gender, Youth and Equality”.

 

Subthemes: Child Online Safety, Cyber Crime, Democracy, Digital Citizenship, Freedom Of Expression Online,  Online Expression, Gender Equality, Internet & Societal Challenges, Open Access, Refugees, Youth Inclusion.

 

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

 

1) Human rights includes everyone. In the internet governance landscape, it is essential the protection of human rights online through strengthening policies which affect and do not exclude the physically challenged (disabled), youth, older citizens and gender balance in internet policy making.

 

2) The importance of using the Internet as a networking platform was also highlighted on in essences as a platform to connect people easily regardless of social, economical and physical limitations. Putting into account we all shared the same values, norms and problems and need to connect with one another.

 

3) The discussion also highlighted on the importance of  including those experiencing domestic abuse, child online abuse, child pornography and online bullying from all across the world on that note it was highlighted reachout to areas with vulnerable children with limited or no access to resources and susceptible to child prostitution and trafficking in places like refugee camps and underserved regions.

 

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

 

Introduction - Session Description

The protection and promotion of Human Rights, achieving Gender Equality and securing Youth policies for the present and next generation is in the core of the international arena, and Internet Governance is not a foreign field for that argument. Human Rights online need to be protected and guaranteed as they are applicable both online and offline, for the human conflicts are not lost in the online expression of our lives. Women and girls account for half of the world’s population and inclusive policies that ensure access for women, girls, boys and men without any distinction are needed to take humanity to a standardized level of digital literacy and to end conflicts, so to find a interconnected future which is equal to all.

This is why this main session will brought different stakeholder perspectives on how internet governance directly intersects with pressing issues on the themes human rights, gender and youth. Intergovernmental organizations, civil society groups, government representatives, academia, business stakeholders were balanced in the speakers list. The innovative format of this session was a simpler version of a "fishbowl" debate. With an extensive amount of perspectives this was one of the most comprehensive and democratic main session the IGF has ever seen.

Session Format

The format of the discussion was fishbowl inspired and 1 extra chair was added besides the speakers, so that members of the audience can also make interventions on the same level as the speakers. The format was presented by Civil Society MAG member and organizer Renata Aquino Ribeiro.

 

Areas of agreement and disagreement

 

An area of agreement was the broad support for one of of speakers who is physically challenged and was able to add to the debate in a positive way. There was also a blind participant in the audience who brought disabilities to the forefront. The discussion was diverse but everyone tending to agree on the same thing, Human rights and inclusion for all members of society. We were happy to have a youth representative to speak on behalf of the Youth. Inclusion is a part of Human rights and we have managed to do just that.

 

An area of disagreement was whether enough consideration is given to the inclusion of gender and youth and the disabled is happening along with also considering how to take use the internet with responsibility.

 

Policy questions and discussions

 

The session was initiated by the moderator Mr Claudio Lucena, Professor, Law Faculty at Paraíba State University (UEPB). He reminded speakers to the initial policy questions which would guide the discussion, focusing on the intersectionality of internet governance and human rights. These were the policy questions:

 

  1. How do the themes human rights, gender and youth intersect with internet governance primarily?
  2. What has been done so far in this thematic intersectional debate that should be highlighted in terms of policy?
  3. What is urgently lacking in this thematic intersectional debate that should be formulated, publicized or adopted as policy?
  4. How can stakeholders collaborate more to ensure this thematic intersectional debate thrives despite changes or specific laws in their countries?
  5. What should be the regional concerns for policies in this thematic intersectional debate that stakeholders should always keep in mind when formulating, publicizing or adopting policy?

 

The panelists brought different views which were summarized by the Diplo report authored by Aida Mahmutovic (References section).

 

Ms Madeline McSherry, Secretariat, High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, brought three messages from the public consultations:

  • The importance of focusing on human rights, while attending to human agency. This means talking about access, but also thinking about agency;
  • A clear avoidance of ‘tech solutionism’, ensuring ‘we talk about how we can leverage tech for good’;  
  • A return to analog structures for the protection of human rights.

 

Mr John Carr, Researcher on Child Online Abuse, ECPA International, highlighted both ‘the most horrible things that can happen to children anywhere on or off the Internet’ and positive possibilities that technology can offer to children, in particular children in underrepresented and marginal groups. The Internet is the only way children can access information about their rights, assert those rights, gain information about health, etc. He stressed that while ‘everybody said Net Mundial was the best expression of Internet governance principles to have emerged from human endeavour,’ no mention was made of a child in the Net Mundial statement, because no children's organizations were present in the room, and ‘others came with their own agendas.’

 

Ms Marianne Franklin, Educator, Giganet, noted that noticeable transformations are occurring in the higher education sector, in high schools, in primary schools, and in kindergartens, as a result of a ‘technology push’, which means both marketing and selling tools and platforms to ‘a generation that is used to going online as a matter of course.’ She also noted the right to education on and about the Internet, as well as the right to culture and access to knowledge, which is currently often based online. Finally, she sent the message to all: ‘Let people make their own minds up, whether they're three, whether they're thirteen, whether they're twenty-tree, or ninety-three.’

 

Ms Minda Moreira, Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles, welcomed the presence of human rights, gender, and youth topics at the main session at the IGF. All of these are important issues that have been discussed within the IGF community over the last decade. Moreira said that a safe and protected environment needs to ‘go hand in hand with empowerment.’ Empowering young people is an important focus. The right to access information needs to be fully enabled, as well as the right to voice to share ideas in an online environment free from hate speech, bullying, and disproportionate data collection.  

 

Ms Lilian Nalwoga, gender activist, spoke about the importance of bringing more women online. She wondered how to get more women into policy discussions. She stressed that a lot of gender-based violence online has not been appropriately addressed. She highlighted a good practice example of ‘Wiki Loves Women’ activity in March 2018, which aimed to profile successful and prominent women. It is important to find strategies to bring more women online, not just to engage in policies, but as a practical step to ensuring safe and meaningful participation.  

 

Ms Viviane Vinagre, Gender activist, spoke about the North America Summit, a forum like an IGF, which is multistakeholder system and which debates about the inclusion of women and girls into science, research, technological areas, and the Internet. The Summit provides lecturers in schools who teach women about human rights ‘so they know what they can fight for.’ The topics include cyber-bullying, hate speech, freedom of expression, and other subjects important for the community. She noted that it was a surprise to see the lack of information, principally in Brazil, especially in certain places where ‘they have no idea of how important the Internet is.’

 

Nidhi Goyal, Activist for Young Women with Disabilities, reported that in the Millennium Development Goals disability was not mentioned, while in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), disability has been specifically mentioned in goal 5. She thinks that while SDGs aim to ‘leave no one behind’, specific inclusions are still important in addressing rights of marginalized groups. Sensitivity in shared principles is important if we want to see gender, youth, and intersections included. ‘Inclusion has to become the norm,’ Goyal concluded.

 

Ms Olga Cavalli, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Argentina, said that with the Internet, society has gained new voices, different ways of expressing ideas, and new revolutions that can happen only through social networks. With the Internet came freedom to communicate, freedom to learn, freedom to speak, as well as access to information that did not exist before. However, she stated that ‘from declaration to action’ is a long journey.

 

Interventions by the audience

 

There were a series of interventions by the audience onsite and online. The participants were from the IGF community and some newcomers too. We had participants from the BPFs, the DCs and workshops related to the theme, as well as IGF Village organization representatives voicing their views. In the end of the session the moderator reminded of the initial policy questions and summarized the three key messages for this session. During the session the use of the tag #HRGenderYouth was encouraged and other notes from IGF Social Media Guide.

 

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

 

We should include easier access for blind, deaf and those that are physically challenged. Support for wheelchairs access, lifts and sign language.We should also remember that Gender includes men, they should not be left out, as men do suffer gender bias, domestic abuse and human rights issues, they also need support.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

 

Earlier preparation with discussions with the host countries and MAG, include the public. To the improve online/remote participation and interventions through multilingual mechanisms. Support of Braille printed material and sign language. Involve more online participants with good linkage potential, send out emails to groups just prior to the session to give them time to log on. Educate the interested groups and participants. Using online links, some of them could not log on or connect or had issues speaking on the session.

 

Please estimate the total number of participants:

An estimated number of 200, including online participants. If we look at the rooms capacity the room was more than half full, some participants entered the room at various parts of the session.

 

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

More than half of the audience. We were happy to see that so many men shared an interest.

 

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

It was a core part of the discussion and it intersected with all the other themes present in the session, it connected to intersessional activities related and will feed into several outcomes. It was important that the discussion cover all aspects of Human rights, and it did so. The  panelists were varied and represented a wide range of problems and topics which added substance to the session.

This session was a huge success. Not just in the IGF community but amount other groups around the world. Barbados as an example where groups such as ‘Save Foundation, Life in Leggings and Say no to online abuse’ are active in the community. Out of this session groups that fight Human rights know that they have support from the UN and other NGOs. It is easy to feel like you are the only person out there who cares, but now interested parties know they have support. We not only have to look at all gender, but all those who face abuse in any forms. They rights of the child are also so important. Children are not always seen as important in the community, but, children of today are the adults of tomorrow. The main session was important and served a beneficial purpose.

 

References

Session on main schedule

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-human-rights-gender-youth

 

Diplo report

https://dig.watch/sessions/human-rights-gender-youth

 

IGF Chair Draft Summary

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/6037/1414

 

Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation

 

For each issue area covered during this session we have recorded input on the following questions:

 

1. What are values that digital cooperation should aspire to?

 

Human Rights, Gender and Youth online should be in the core of digital cooperation. Involving stakeholders on these debates and their intersectionality with internet governance is the road which needs to be taken to develop digital cooperation and strengthen partnerships in accordance to SDGs.

 

2. What are principles that digital cooperation should follow?

 

Transparency, communication and respect online should be on the principles of digital cooperation when issues like Human Rights, Gender and Youth are tackled. For child online issues, this is even more important as sometimes an intermediary (i.e. a parent sharing pictures of their children) is the actor in the process who is pivotal to how this dialogue will evolve.

 

3. Which digital cooperation mechanisms were mentioned during the session?

 

The internet as a network of support but also a reference for organizations and public policies knowledge database was emphasized by speakers. Several reports by intergovernmental organizations, governments, civil society groups and others were mentioned for consultation and mutual cooperation in new editions.

 

4. Based on the discussions during the session, how can digital cooperation mechanisms be improved (such as: addressing gaps in existing mechanisms, developing a cross-silo approach, increasing inclusiveness)?

 

The balance in multistakeholder dialogue was especially focused during the session, emphasizing the need for more gender balance in internet governance. The participation of women, young or with disabilities or non-binary gender, was indicated as a path that must be encouraged for all stakeholders in the dialogue.

 

5. Please indicate any other aspect related to digital cooperation that could be of relevance for the Panel’s deliberation

 

Considering youth and child online issues also means examining future possibilities, such as data gathered from those unable yet to understand the terms and permissions of applications and artificial intelligence tools and the possibilities to come. Education in technology as a key to internet governance and an intersectional view were ways forward presented in the discussion to increase digital cooperation.

 

Please click here for our long report in PDF format


Updated: 19/10/2018 - 18:21
Report:

Updated: 24/11/2018 - 07:12
Report:

-Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Special session

 

- Title:

Session of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network  

 

- Date & Time:

Tuesday, November 13, 2018, 1:30-3pm

 

- Organizer(s):

Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

 

- Chair/Moderator:

Bertrand de La Chapelle, Executive Director of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

Paul Fehlinger, Deputy Director of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Xavier Guyot de Camy, Project Officer, Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

The session is a special format and thus did not have formal speakers or a panel. The Coordinators of the thematic Multistakeholder Contact Groups of the Internet & Jurisdiction were asked by the Secretariat to take the floor and update IGF participants on the work underway.

Among the discussants were:

-       Bertrand de La Chapelle, Executive Director, Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

-       Paul Fehlinger, Deputy Director, Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

-       Robert Young, Legal Counsel, Canada – Department of Global Affairs (and Coordinator of the Data & Jurisdiction Contact Group)

-       Wolfgang Schulz, Director, Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (and Coordinator of the Content & Jurisdiction Contact Group)

-       Maarten Botterman, Director of GNKS Consult and Board Director, ICANN (and Coordinator of the Domains & Jurisdiction Contact Group)

-       Rudolf Gridl, Head of Internet Governance Division, Germany – Department of Economic Affairs and Energy

-       Luisa Paez, Policy Advisor, Canada – Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

 

 

- Theme (as listed here):

  • Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy
  • Evolution of Internet Governance
  • Development, Innovation & Economic Growth
  • Human Rights

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Development, Innovation & Economic Growth

  • Big Data

Human Rights

  • Cybercrime
  • Freedom of Expression

Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

  • Data privacy & protection
  • Internet of Things?
  • Legal & Regulatory Issues

Evolution of Internet Governance

  • Broadening stakeholder participation in internet governance
  • Multistakeholderism

Technical & Operational Questions

  • Domain Name System

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

The session of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network had two main objectives:

  1. To inform about the outcomes of the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, which was organized in partnership with the Government of Canada on February 26-28, 2018, in Ottawa, and institutionally supported by the OECD, Council of Europe, UNESCO, European Commission and ICANN.
  2. To update on the progress of the three multistakeholder Contact Groups that were set up to implement the Ottawa Roadmap. Over 100 stakeholders from all five continents currently work in the Data & Jurisdiction, Content & Jurisdiction, and Domains & Jurisdiction Contact Groups to develop proposals for operational solutions and policy standards. The result of their work will be released in April 2019 for deliberations, and serve as input for the 3rd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network on June 3-5, 2019, which is organized in partnership with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

 

- 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…

 

This session allowed the I&J Secretariat to report upon the outcomes of the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, held in Ottawa, Canada, on February 26-28, 2018, and to present progress made since in the three programs of Data & Jurisdiction, Content & Jurisdiction, and Domains & Jurisdiction. Discussants and participants highlighted the importance of jurisdictional issues online, and expressed support for the ongoing work organized within the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network. In particular, the participants emphasized the significance of the three multistakeholder Contact Group, whose objective is to develop proposals for operational solutions, to be tabled at the 3rd Global Conference of the Policy Network, in organized in partnership with Germany’s Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy in Berlin, on June 3-5, 2019.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

The session’s objective was to inform participants about the outcomes of the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, and update on the progress of the policy development activities organized by the I&J Secretariat. No formal policy recommendations or suggestions were therefore endorsed formally during the session. Participants expressed strong support for the continued relevance and importance of the work conducted through the Contact Groups and Working Groups of the Policy Network, within the three Programs of Data & Jurisdiction, Content & Jurisdiction and Domains & Jurisdiction.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

In general, it was highlighted at the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network that more cooperation and policy coherence on jurisdictional issues in cyberspace is urgently needed. The IGF is a crucial moment for different stakeholders to gather, exchange, and coordinate. Moreover, the outcomes on concrete policy standards and operational solutions of the 3rd Global Conference in Berlin will be presented at the 2019 UN IGF to reach broader levels of recognition and traction.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 120 participants.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 50 women.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session did not specifically discuss gender issues. The purpose of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network is to address the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and national jurisdictions, in order to preserve the cross-border nature of the internet, protect human rights, fight abuses, and enable the global digital economy. The Secretariat strives to fulfil this public interest mission through processes with geographical and gender balances, as all outcomes are intended to benefit all people, regardless of gender or origin.


Updated: 22/10/2018 - 15:23
Report:

Updated: 22/10/2018 - 15:04
Report:

Updated: 01/11/2018 - 14:33
Report:

Updated: 08/11/2018 - 19:00
Report:

Updated: 14/11/2018 - 18:06
Report:
  • Session Type: Lightning Session
  • Title: The DNS and children’s rights
  • Date & Time: Nov. 12th, 13.00 – 13.20 o’clock
  • Organizer(s): John Carr / Jutta Croll
  • Chair/Moderator: John Carr
  • Rapporteur/Notetaker: Jutta Croll
  • List of speakers and their institutional affiliations: John Carr, UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) UKCCIS (male)
  • Theme: Human Rights, Gender and Youth
  • Subtheme: Child Online Safety

Key issues for the discussion:

  1. The Domain Name System is a key part of the infrastructure of the internet
  2. It is managed by ICANN with Registrars and Registries as the  principal actors
  3. High volumes of child sex abuse images on the internet attributable to failures to police the DNS, particularly in respect of the ownership details  of web sites
  4. Only 23% of ownership details accurate i.e. accuracy the exception rather than the rule
  5. Self-regulatory initiatives by banking, insurance and pharmaceuticals show an alternative

Three key messages from the discussion

  1. ICANN is positioned perfectly well to help fight child sexual abuse imagery at the roots
  2. When awarding a contract or license to an entity to become the registry for a country code or generic toplevel domain, ICANN should include clear requirements to have due regard to the best interests of children. Such requirements should cover, for example, a clear prohibition by the registry of the registration or use of any domain name which advertises or suggests that child sexual abuse material may be available on any domain within the registry’s purview and the establishment by the registry of mechanisms to ensure this policy is enforced, including by registrars and registrants, as requested from States by the Council of Europe Guidelines to protect, respect and fulfil the rights of the child in the digital environment (Art. 80) adopted on July 4th, 2018.
  3. The Verified Topel Level Domain Consortium should be taken as a model to set up respective procedures supported by funds from ICANN to ensure domains registered under certain generic top level domains do not infringe the rights of the child.

Further information on the session

  • Number of paricipants: 15 - 20
  • Gender equally represented
  • Gender issues discussed in regard of female and male children both affected by CSAM.

Updated: 16/11/2018 - 10:58
Report:
- Session Type : Lightning Session - Title:  Emerging Technologies and Rights Future - Date & Time: November 2nd - 13:20 to 13:40 CET - Organizer(s): Dynamic Coalition IRPC  - Chair/Moderator: Hanane Boujemi  - Rapporteur/Notetaker: Minda Moreira - List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Sarah Moulton (female): Senior Technology Innovation Analyst- NDI Walid El-Saqaf (male):    Senior Lecturer, Sördertörn University Stockholm - Theme (as listed here): Emerging technologies - Subtheme (as listed here): INTERNET ETHICS, DISTRIBUTED LEDGERBLOCKCHAIN, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.  1-Emerging technologies: the impact of interaction between the man, the machine and the data generated by both on rights holders 2-How does the future of rights look like vis-a vis the exchange between Internet, things and humans and is Algorithmic literacy an indispensable criterion to technology transparency?  3-How do we holistically implement a rights’ approach to emerging technologies deployment? Overview of ongoing efforts to integrate individuals' rights by design. - 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… - Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words] - What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words] - Please estimate the total number of participants. - Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. - To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Updated: 13/11/2018 - 16:12
Report:

 Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Lightning Talk

- Title:

Solving Digital Divides in New Zealand: a multistakeholder approach

- Date & Time:

140pm 12 Nov

 

- Organizer(s):

Ellen Strickland, Internet New Zealand

- Chair/Moderator:

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Ellen Strickland, female

- Theme (as listed here):

Digital Inclusion and Accessability

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Access and connectivity

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
A range of factors create digital divides that still prevent people from benefitting from the Internet, even where access rates are high, such as in New Zealand.

Solving digital divides to ensure all people can benefit from the Internet remains an enduring challenge. 
 

Examples of efforts to meet these challenges in New Zealand were discussed.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. 

As a lightning sessions, discussion was as above.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. 

Recommendation for multistakeholder approaches to be used in digital divides work, with a view to research, collaboration and working locally with communities as key next steps.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

By working together.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

20 in room

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Around half

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? 

The role of gender in intersectional digital divides was discussed.

 

 


Updated: 03/12/2018 - 10:27
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

 

- Title: Human Rights, Youth and Gender- Freedom of Expression. Overview in Africa

 

- Date & Time: 14:00-14:20

 

- Organizer(s): Wathagi Ndungu

 

- Chair/Moderator: N/A

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: N/A

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Wathagi Ndungu, Paradigm Initiative

 

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Youth and Gender

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Freedom of Expression

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

  • The Copy-cat like situation that is going on in Africa in terms of policies. Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and Zambia pretty much enacted the same policies each after the other such as OTT.
  • Arbitrary arrests of digital rights defenders. This has been occurring and trending and therefore there is a need to develop a protection strategy.
  • Capacity building and neeed of awareness on digital rights issues

 

- 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…

 

-Many wanted to know more about the Digital Rights and Freedom Bill. There was a divide between those that were happy with the government regulating and those that were for self-regulation

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 word

 

-There is a need to educate legislators and policymakers on digital rights because they are  ones at the table making laws that cause human rights abuses.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

-Strategic litigation

-Strengthening advocacy efforts

Creating awareness especially to those that have a seat at the policy making table

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

-Thirty

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

-Fifteen

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

To some extent. We spoke on the arbitrary arrests of two female digital rights defenders and the need to protect them.


Updated: 16/11/2018 - 14:00
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Lightning session

- Title: Can we reduce poverty with technology?

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 14:00-14:20

- Organizer(s): ICC BASIS

- Chair/Moderator: Diego Molano, Chair, ICC BASIS, Former ICT minister of Colombia; International Consultant, Digital Transformation of Governments and Companies

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Timea Suto, ICC BASIS

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):  N/A

- Theme (as listed here): Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here): Internet for Development & Sustainable Development Goals

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

----- TO BE COMPLETED POST-SESSION -------

- 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… - Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

- Add your Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation as explained here:


Updated: 21/11/2018 - 19:11
Report:

IGF 2018 Short Report

Indigenous Community Intranet
 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): 

Lightning session

 

- Title: 

Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

 

- Date & Time: 

Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 13:20 to 13:40

 

-  Speaker:

Karla Velasco Ramos, Redes por la Diversidad, Equidad y Sustentabilidad A.C.

 

- Theme:

Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

 

- Subtheme:

Community Networks &/or Indigenous Connectivity

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  1. We must rethink connectivity
  2. Have an Internet with a Concept
  3. Appropriation and Self-determination 

 

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. 

To ask ourselves “why”, “what for”, “how” and “where” is the path of building a community network. In the case of indigenous communities the “why should we have an Intranet?” question normally is because: 1) indigenous communities rethink connectivity, 2) indigenous communities prove that Internet can have a context, 3) the appropriation and self-determination are the most important parts in each one of their processes. Therefore, the first part of the presentation talks about this questionings. We’ve seen in Mexico that indigenous communities that indigenous communities decide to create an Intranet because of four things: 1) In an Intranet, they can reflect their dreams, 2) they create the Intranet through a community process, which is based on their nature, 3) They reinforce their sense of autonomy and 4) it stands for the international self-determination of the indigenous peoples. 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

This presentation recommends to have the questionings “why”, “what for”, “how” and “where” in every community networks’ process. 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The presentation showed how, with these questionings, each process of each community turns out to be completely different one from the other. It also shows the immense creativity of the indigenous peoples. This creativity can be replicated by other communities, whether they are indigenous or not. This way of thinking is very different from the other panels at the IGF, where there’s sort of a traditional mindset of how Internet works. 

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

10 participants. 

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

2 women. 

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

It did not discuss any gender issues. 


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 18:17
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Lightning Session

- Title: Empowering women through Digital Markets: the case of Ayitic Goes Global

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 13:20 to 13:40

- Organizer(s):

Development and Cooperation Manager, Laura, KAPLAN, Technical Community, LACNIC

Head of Strategic Relations and Integration, Kevon, SWIFT, Technical Community, LACNIC

Coordinator of Development Projects, Carolina, CAEIRO, Technical Community, LACNIC

Development Projects Assistant, Beatriz, IRISARRI, Technical Community, LACNIC

 

- Presenter: Carolina Caeiro

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Kevon Swift

 

- Theme (as listed here):  Human Rights, Gender and Youth

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

This session presented an overview of Ayitic Goes Global and lessons to date. The goal of this joint LACNIC/IDRC initiative is to bridge young Haitian women from disadvantaged backgrounds with online employment opportunities.

 

The Project is a pilot program to test whether online work can offer sustainable livelihoods for women in Haiti and what type of capacity building it takes to get women from disadvantaged backgrounds participating in the digital economy. The program has trained its first cohort with an 86% graduation rate and is beginning to work with these women in applying for jobs online. The goal is to train a total of 300 women.
 

The discussion with the audience developed around how to effectively work with graduates from the online trainings in making their first steps in online employment and the challenges of going from a training to actually performing jobs.

 


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 17:31
Report:

IGF 2018 Report
Lightning Session #12
“Women’s Empowerment through ICTs”

- Session Title:
Women’s Empowerment through ICTs 
-    Date: November 13, 2018

- Time: 13:40pm – 14:00pm (Lightning session)

-    Session Organizer:
Lima Madomi, TechWomen.Asia (Civil Society)

-    Chair/Moderator:
Maria Beebe, Ph.D. Portland State University (Academia) 

-    Rapporteur/Notetaker:

- List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:
Maria Beebe, Ph.D. TechNation (Private Sector)
Osama Manzar. Digital Empowerment, India (Civil Society)
Lima Madomi/Anastacia Sendrea. TechWomen.Asia (Civil Society) 

-    Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):

•    ICT matters for gender equality. 
•    Gender equality requires elimination of discrimination against women, ending violence against women and children, including human trafficking, and ending harmful practices against children, including forced and early marriage and female genital mutilation.
•    Gender equality issues are complex and need multi-stakeholder collaboration. 

-    If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

The presentation is summarized in the discussion below. 

-    Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

•    Why does ICT matter for gender equality? Ignite global fund for women.org provides a good visual and summary. Technology reflects the people who make it, currently most technology is designed by MEN. Women have less access to technology. For example, in 2013, the gap between men and women’s access to Internet was 200 million. In 2016, the estimate is 350 million. A two-fold increase in only 3 years. In many parts of the world, women are 21% less likely to own a mobile phone. Finally, ignite indicates that: Teams that include women are smarter, faster and more innovative. Women-led companies show a 21% ROI compared to men-led. If 600 million additional women and girls were online, the boost to GDP would be 18 billion. ICT can give women access to basic needs such as healthcare and education. The private sector plays a pivotal role in investing in community-oriented training, deploying infrastructure and delivering a wide range of ICT services to meet these needs. But there are obstacles and challenges, in part because of discrimination against women and girls. Which brings us to our second key message:  To achieve gender equality, the SDGs set several Goal 5 Targets. Given the time limitation only the first three targets were discussed: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere; Eliminate all forms of violence against all women (VAW) and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking, sexual slavery, forced labor, and surrogate childbearing, organ harvesting, and other types of exploitation; and Eliminate all harmful practices, such as early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation. Case studies from Afghanistan, India, and the Philippines were shared.
•    India is a country where connectivity and Internet usage is skewed. While the country has a privilege to have the third largest Internet penetration it also has a paradox of having almost 80 percent population yet to be connected. Talking about women participation in the connected world, there are more than 92 percent rural women do not even have access to mobile devices or mobile connectivity. Besides, 72 percent of all women in India do not have access to mobile. Yet there is a huge population of women who are connected to the cyber world and while they are empowered through being connected they also face various online challenges like discrimination, violence and hate speeches. The discrimination against women to get them into digital inclusiveness is largely because of patriarchal practices in India where all digital devices first accessed or provided to males or brothers or fathers or sons. From the experiences of the large-scale work of digital empowerment foundation (DEF) in India it has been learnt that young girls and women either do not have access to Internet and mobile or they get second chance or opportunity after a lot of subjugation. In the meanwhile, since women get trolled online more than men, Ministry of Women and Child Development in India have created a helpline called “I am Trolled” helpline to enable anyone to report cases of trolling and online violence that may be affecting women and children. During the period from July 2016 to November 2017, they had received 97 complains. Besides DEF who does large scale digital literacy across India including women and adolescent girls, has incorporated special module on safety and security online and also how to tackle fake news and misinformation. One of the major examples as a government initiative is using aadhaar or unique ID as a mechanism to find missing children. Additionally, Ministry of Home Affairs has made IPC 153A expanded to include punishment for hate speech to strengthen legislation and safety to women and children online.

•    Women in Afghanistan have less access to justice, legal remedies, and compensation for crimes suffered. In Afghanistan, the most prevalent form of violence against women is domestic violence. Early marriage results in the exclusion of girls from education and limits future opportunities in the labor market. Under-age girls married to older men often have no negotiating leverage in family planning and early fertility is a major cause of childbirth complications and maternal mortality. 

•    Addressing gender equality needs multi-stakeholder collaboration. An example from the Philippines showed how different stakeholders could help end violence against women. For the woman/girl, empowerment, knowing their rights, speaking out and reporting to authorities, encouraging others to fight for their rights. For the men/boy, respecting women and girls at home, workplace, and community; joining male groups promoting anti-VAW efforts, enlightening perpetrators to seek help, etc. Other stakeholders, such as government agencies, local governments, private sector, and academia have their roles and responsibilities to fulfill. 

-    Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways (3 paragraphs):

•    A participant asked about the issue of anonymity when reporting on violence against women in countries like Afghanistan.
•    The moderator noted that in addressing violence against women with technology, another problem crops up, as in technology-based violence against women.
•    Several participants at the end of the session wanted to know how to partner up with TechWomen.Asia.

Gender Reporting

-    Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

There were approximately 30 total participants

-    Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

Approximately 15 participants were women. The panel itself was gender balanced, with two out of three speakers being women.

-    To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?
-    If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

The whole session focused on women’s empowerment and why ICT matters.


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 13:00
Report:

IGF 2018

After Lightning Session Report

 

-Session Title:

 

“Two Networks That Expand Internet Assess: A Unique Illustration at Work Today”

 

- Date: Tuesday, 13 November 2018

 

- Time: 1400-1420

 

-Session Organizer:

Garland T. McCoy, President, Technology Education Institute

 

-Chair/Moderator:

Garland T. McCoy, President, Technology Education Institute

 

-Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Marina Polachek, iSchool Syracuse University

 

-List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Lee McKnight, Associate Professor, iSchool Syracuse University, Academia, USA

Sara Weber, Director, Employer & Corporate Relations, Syracuse University, Academia, USA

Paul Rowney, Technical Advisor, Adaptrum, Inc., Technical Community, Namibia

 

- Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):

 

  • Speakers detailed how both power/electricity and access connectivity were critically interdependent
  • Speakers explored how their synergistic effects are essential to finish the job of bringing Internet access to the remaining billions as most live in rural areas beyond the reach of both network infrastructures.
  • Importance of looking beyond the silos and examine how technology advancements in both access and electricity generation and capture have created opportunities to accelerate the campaign of universal access even in very challenging rural environments in developing countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

 

  • There was time for only one presentation and that was of the Internet Backpack developed by Professor Lee McKnight at Syracuse University with National Science Foundation funding and designed to generate electricity, store the power and bring Internet access to rural areas where the challenges that need to be addressed are in both networks, power generation/storage and access.

 

- Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

 

            As this was a Lighting Session there was little time for robust discussions. That said there was discussion regarding the applications of the Internet Backpack and other similar “tools” that address both network needs (electricity and access) unique to rural areas in developing countries.

 

Gender Reporting

 

- Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

 

There were approximately 20 total participants

 

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

 

Approximately 10 participants were women and of the three presenters for the Lightning Session one was a women.

 

  • If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

As women are largely the educators both in the schools/classrooms and later at home overseeing homework , bringing to their lives both Internet access and electricity will have a huge and direct benefit to their lives and to the lives of their families and communities.


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 17:39
Report:

Session Title: How blockchain can impact the Internet

Date: November 13th, 2018

Time: 14:20 – 14:40

Session Organizer: Walid Al-Saqaf , Södertörn University (Academia)

Chair/Moderator: N/A

Rapporteur/Notetaker: N/A

List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

- Walid Al-Saqaf,  Södertörn University-Stockholm (Academia, Europe)
- Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Internet Society Blockchain Special Interest Group (Civil Society, Latin America and Caribbean)

Three Key Issues to be raised

• There are misconceptions about blockchain and no clear link to how they could impact the Internet since most of the public knowledge appears to focus too narrowly on the cryptocurrency aspect connected to FinTech only

• Public blockchains have clear characteristics that make them stand out compared to traditional database systems. Those are decentralisation (being fully distrupted), immutability and transparency

• Theoretically, many areas that could benefit from any of those three characteristics would also find value in using blockchain in comparison to other centralized, hackable and black-box database structures.

Presentation:

Walid Al-Saqaf made a brief presentation describing the origins of the blockchain techology by highlighting the fact that it emerged from the creation of bitcoin and became more widely known for to its disruptive nature in allowing financial transactions across the Internet with ease and without the need for an intermediary such as a bank or an exchange/transfer service. The presentation referred to the three main characteristics of blockchains, namely their distributed nature, transparency and immutability, which in turn facilitated a number of use cases from financial transactions to real estate and property registration and from countering fake news and disinformation to tracking IoT-based supply chains.

Discussions:

Since this is a lightning talk session, there was only one point raised by a participant on the potential use of blockchain technology to counter disinformation and expose human rights violations in places of severe conflict. Walid answered by noting that Truepic is one application that uses the bitcoin blockchain to store hashes of pictures and videos in a way that proves provenance since the app also adds meta data such as the geolocation of the image/video, the type of mobile phone used and the software used to take the photo. 

Participant suggestions:

There were no suggestions from participants on the way forward but the speaker highlighted the ongoing work done by him and a co-author Malin Picha Edwardsson of Södertörn University (https://sh.se) in publishing a scientific paper on how blockchain is used to promote quality journalism and confront disinformation. He invited the attendees to contact him for potential collaboration. He also noted efforts by the Internet Society Blockchain Special Interest Group (https://isoc-bsig.org)  in connecting Internet governance issues to blockchain technology.

Estimate of the number of attendees: 15 persons

Estimate of the number of women: 7 persons

Discussion around gender equality and/or women’s empowerment: 

The session did not address the issue of gender equality or women's empowerment directly. But it highlighted the use case of blockchain in enabling journalism to fight disinformation and abuse of the Internet in propagating violent content, which may in turn limit some of the damage to women.

 


Updated: 16/11/2018 - 19:58
Report:

Format: Lightning Session - 20 Min

Title: Internet Platforms, Sexual Content, and Child Protection

Date and time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 14:40 to 15:00

Theme: Human Rights, Gender, and Youth

Subtheme: Child Online Safety

Organizer: Prostasia Foundation

Speaker: Craig Harper, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  1. Pedophilia and sexual interests in children are particularly prevalent in mainstream society
  2. Social isolation and stigmatization are risk factors for sexually abusive behavior
  3. Internet companies and social media platforms can play an important role in the prevention of sexual abuse

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence: Although encouraged to do so, participants did not ask any questions or contribute towards discussion.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps: This session will lead into a workshop that Prostasia Foundation will be holding in May 2019 at the offices of Patreon in San Francisco. The event will be a private expert-led seminar and discussion with Internet platforms, along with representatives from marginalized stakeholder groups who are traditionally excluded from such discussions. From this event, a self-selected working group will be formed to work online to synthesize the learnings of the event in a draft, non-normative best practices document. A multi-stakeholder facilitated deliberation will then be held to further distill this draft document into a series of normative recommendations. 

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? A follow-up workshop will be proposed for the Berlin IGF in 2019 which will report back on the progress made since this initial event. 

Please estimate the total number of participants: 10

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 0

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? Child sexual abuse is a gendered problem, affecting about 4 times as many girls as boys. Equally, the perpetrators of child sexual abuse are predominantly male bodied, and men are also more likely to be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. The session examined the scientific evidence behind the causes of paraphilias that can contribute towards rates of child sexual offending.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 16:56
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): IGF 2018 LIGHTNING SESSION #16

 

- Title: Convention 108+ in the Digital Era

 

- Date & Time: 13 November 2018, 15:00 – 15:20

 

- Organizer(s): Council of Europe Data Protection Unit

 

- Chair/Moderator: Peter Kimpian

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Peter Kimpian

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Steve DelBianco, President of NetChoice, and leader at IGF-USA

Ayden Férdeline, Fellow, Mozilla Foundation

Alex Comninos, APC, VOUS.AI

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Data Privacy & Protection

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

The rights to privacy and data protection are universal human rights which must be respected throughout the world under every circumstance. For this we need solid, agile, modern, and robust international legal instruments and a workable and meaningful international cooperation which takes national specificities into account, notably when it comes to the level of privacy when using free internet-based services, the burden national legislation can impose on data subjects, and on countries’ capacities in safeguarding and enforcing privacy regulation. Flexibility in implementation should be ensured while an appropriate level of privacy and respect should be guaranteed throughout the internet to safeguard individuals against harm. Innovation and competition are key for the future of the internet and the services offered on it, so regulation should be kept at an appropriate level which does not disproportionately impact those positive processes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

It has been discussed that compared to other jurisdictions, in the US over 2 in 3 consumers say that they trust tech platforms either somewhat or a great deal, and it seems to be clear that Americans appreciate the model of FREE services supported by ads, and are not significantly concerned about privacy when they see targeted ads[1].

Ayden Férdeline (Mozilla Fellow) advised that personal and sensitive information should not be used to manipulate individuals, and said existing data protection regulations do not succeed at safeguarding this data because they typically place the burden of protecting privacy on to individuals themselves. Most people can articulate few specific preferences about data practices because all they want is something very simple: not to be taken advantage of. He noted that in other sectors, like the automobile sector, the expectation is that industry will perform the risk assessment and protect individuals. He called upon data controllers to provide their data subjects with a reasonable baseline of respect.

In African continent where 18 countries have privacy legislation already, security often undermines data protection and privacy considerations. There are alarming trends in intercepting communications which go across border that need to be tackled. Assisting countries in enacting privacy laws and parallel empowering DPAs and strengthening the capacities for enforcement of privacy legislation are seen as urgent matters.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

To promote international standards on privacy and personal data protection

 

To contribute that an appropriate level of privacy and respect is guaranteed throughout the internet to safeguard individuals against harm

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

To take into consideration international legal instruments when discussing rights to privacy and personal data protection

 

To ensure a better understanding of national, regional specificities as regards to the right to privacy and personal data protection

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

15

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

9

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

There was no gender issues discussed during the session

 

[1] Based on NetChoice nationwide polling of 1,200 American voters/consumers in Sep-2018.

 


Updated: 22/11/2018 - 13:32
Report:

IGF 2018 Report Template

 

 
 

 

 

 

- Session Type:  Lightening Session   

 

- Title:  ICANN and Capacity Building in Underserved Regions

 

 

- Date & Time:  Wednesday, 14th November; 2018

 

- Organizer                            ICANN

 

- Chair/Moderator:          Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board); Technical Community  

 

- Rapporteur:                       Nigel Hickson

 

- Speaker:                               

 

                                   

                                                     

 

- Theme:                                  Domain Name System / Capacity Building

 

 

 

Key Messages

 

1. That effective participation in the multi-stakeholder process (at ICANN) is enhanced through a level of knowledge in processes and practices which capacity building programmes allow;

 

2. That capacity building, whether in underserved or developed regions, is an on-going, and not a one-off process; it is part of a successful and inclusive multi-stakeholder policy development and assessment;

 

3. That the ICANN programme, targeting mainly government officials in the underserved regions, has been successful in enhancing GAC contributions, from the relevant regions, as well as enhancing generally knowledge about ICANN,

 

 

Overall Dialogue

 

The Lightening Session has a duration of 20 minutes and took place in an open area within UNESCO, and thus with a partly transient audience.  At any one time, there were 10-15 participants.

After Nigel Hickson called the session to order Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Member) went through a brief presentation in which he outlined the objectives of this unique capacity building programme. It was initiated in January 2017 to strengthen diversity and lower barriers to participation in ICANN by governments. The objective was to increase meaningful participation of GAC members from under-served regions (USR). Since this GAC consists of a large number of countries which are facing different local challenges, it has been decided to adopt a regional approach in order to deliver the most appropriate content to the concerned GAC Representatives.  The approach aimed at fostering collaboration and promoting sharing amongst countries of ideas and actions to achieve regional objectives. The project had a duration of 18 months and included eight regionals workshops held in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Caribbean and Latin America, and the Pacific (the last in Panama at ICANN62). He went over the types of stakeholders attracted to each workshop (generally government staff made up 70% of delegates) and the range of material delivered. He noted that while the ICANN Organisation had coordinated the delivery they were greatly aided by Board and ICANN Community members. He outlined some of the key messages that came out of the process, including the problems of turnover of GAC personnel (this as a result of both staff turnover and machinery of government changes) and the complexity of the ICANN environment.

In discussion

·      Where next programmes may take part; was noted that further developments of the Programme were awaiting GAC consideration and were subject to budgetary considerations;   

·      The case for including, in the capacity building programme, sessions on IP rights; was noted this could be part of Community led sessions (say on on-going PDP processes);

 

Key Points from Presentation and Discussion

 

1. The need for a continuation of this ICANN initiative; success cannot be sustained without an evolutionary approach to capacity building;  

 

2. The potential for broadening out ICANN capacity building to include key Internet issues which impact on ICANN.

 

 

Participants

 

There were around 15 participants

 

Estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

About 5 of the participants were women

 

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

 

There were no specific gender issues discussed.

 

 


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 15:30
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Lightning Session 19

- Title: Improving the Security of Consumer IoT: A New Code of Practice

- Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 13:20 to 13:40

- Organizer(s): UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)

- Chair/Moderator: Jasper Pandza

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: n/a

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Jasper Pandza, DCMS - Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Internet of Things

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• As we connect more devices in our homes to the internet and as we entrust an increasing amount of personal to online services, the cyber security of these products is now as important as the physical security of our homes.

• In October 2018, the UK Government published a new Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security. Its aim is to support industry with a set of guidelines to ensure products are secure be design and to make it easier for people to stay secure in a digital world.

• The guidelines within the Code of Practice can inform policy interventions on IoT security across the globe.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 16:01
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  lightninh sessions

- Title: from open data to open algorithms... and back : A French experience

- Date & Time: nov 14th from 14h to 14h20

- Organizer(s): Niels Braley

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Amélie Banzet, head of open government for Etalab, DINSIC, Prime minister office

Maud Choquet, legal advisor, Etalab, DINSIC, Prime minister Office

- Theme (as listed here): emerging technologies

- Subtheme (as listed here): Democracy

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

Since 2011, France has had a very active policy on open data and open government developing a strong legal framework for transparency, accountability and co-creation of public digital resources.

Open data and open government policies contribute to a more open global governance.

In France, the data governance model (led by the national chief data officer), the open data platform data.gouv.fr and a strong legal framework (Law 78-753 of July 1978 on freedom of access to administrative documents; the “Free of charge” Act; and the Digital Republic Act) enabled to set the bases for a key infrastructures such as “reference data” as a public service and the principle of source codes as open data.

The new legal framework for public algorithms enforced the transparency on algorithms that take individual decisions. Moreover, the French implementation of GDPR designed rules for automated decision making. These new rules are complex to implement as they lead to many questions: what is automated decision making? Which public administration use algorithmic treatment? Are the existing practices on algorithm compliant with the law? Should we share just the source code of the algorithm or should there be more explanations added? How to best explain an algorithm? etc.

It is also leading the French administration to prepare the next public algorithms generation and to realize that reinforcing open data is necessary to make AI more accountable, in particular on questions such as gender or racial discrimination.

 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Public AI and algorithm accountability is necessary to protect our democracy. Citizens should be able to understand when and how automated decisions are taken concerning their lives.

AI and algorithm accountability cannot be done without a strong open data and open source code policy; and an adapted legal framework.  The data and source code used to run the algorithm can be biased, and can include discrimination bias such as gender or racial discrimination. Thus, opening these data and source code is necessary to show transparency, accountability and identify potential bias. In order to design accountable algorithm and IA, the legal framework should set rules on data governance, open data and open source codes.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

IGF ecosystem should promote public algorithm and public AI accountability. It should support the development and exchange of best practices and doctrine on rules that reinforce open data, open source codes that lead to public algorithm and AI accountability.

Many questions still need to be addressed: what is automated decision making? Which public administration use algorithmic treatment and for what reason? Who is developing the algorithms? Who should be entitled to access these algorithms? How can Government make sure that existing algorithms are not distorted? How to audit an algorithm to make sure it corresponds to the legal text?

IGF ecosystem should also work on developing best practices : is transparency of an algorithm source code enough? Should we share the source code or give more explanations? How to best explain an algorithm to citizens? Is it worth it without publishing the related data? Etc.  

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

20

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

70%

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Gender issues where discussed when talking about IA accountability and fighting AI discrimination, on particular gender and racial discrimination.

 


Updated: 10/11/2018 - 11:25
Report:

Updated: 28/11/2018 - 05:33
Report:

IGF 2018 Report for Lightning Session #23

“Frags and Rushes: Esports and the digital competition explosion”

 

Session link: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-lightning-sess...

Timeslot: 14 November, 2018 - 14:40 to 15:00

Theme: Evolution of Internet Governance

Organizer: Chung, Jennifer (AP, DotAsia Foundation)

Speakers:

  • Datysgeld, Mark (LAC, Governance Primer)
  • Camacho, Salvador (LAC, Kalpa Proteccion Digital)

 

Objective

The session had the purpose of explaining to the IGF audience what Esports, the competitive version of video games, are and what is their relevance to the broader Internet Governance agenda.

 

Session report

The session began with a historical overview about the origins of Esports and how their growth took place. Mark Datysgeld explained how the practice began in the 1970s but was only made famous when Nintendo started sponsoring competitions between children, something which was featured on the movie The Wizard. Outside of that, most of the focus was on breaking records, as that was a tangible measure of skill in a given game that could be sent to magazines and such.

The scene kicked off for good in the 1990s with Quake, Counter-Strike (shooting genre) and StarCraft (strategy genre). The first big Quake tournament was held in 1997 and its prize was being able to drive the game developer's Ferrari; nowadays the prize pools of the major tournaments are in the millions of dollars’ range, so the progress can be observed in numbers.

The panelists commented on how while in Brazil these games were played in cyber café style places called “LAN houses”, in Mexico the scene was more focused on groups of friends playing locally. Only with the Internet did Esports really kick off, however, as it was the factor that enabled players from different regions to play together, and Eastern Asia saw deployment of the network quite early, which enabled South Korea to take an early lead in Esports, with a massive following of the StarCraft tournaments.

Salvador Camacho commented on how, as time went on, professionalization increased, with the assembly of leagues, associations, and major sponsorship deals. Different genres had their spotlight in different eras, with MOBA games being a hit in the early 2010s, and in the late 2010s we see a move towards so-called battle royale games such as Fortnite and PUBG. These competitive games find great success especially among a younger generation that follows them largely by means of online streaming services

Moderator Jennifer Chung brought to the table two questions that stand out in terms of Internet Governance: the business model and the matter of net neutrality. In terms of business models, it was discussed about how the monetization of games transitioned from a pay-upfront model to one centered around microtransactions.

This model can make games attractive for people initially and generate a more vibrant community, but it affects both the quality of the game and its final cost. As new gameplay modifications have to be introduced constantly to generate revenue, players that want to remain competitive need to continue spending money, only for their investment to be neglected later on because it unbalances the game, and the cycle continues, up to a point where the game saturates and dies off.

As for net neutrality, both players and spectators rely on the stability and predictability of the network order to enjoy matches. A connection with a low ping is key to keeping online matches fair and dynamic, but for that to be achieved, there are many factors that need to be accounted for, ranging all the way from quality of physical connections to the politics around prioritization of packets.

It was brought up that very few industries have the need for such time-sensitive delivery of packets. Ping times of over 100ms are common around the world, but what is considered a good Ping rate for Esports falls below the 30ms range. In that sense, would it be fair to charge extra from the players or from game developers for a prioritized delivery? Or does that ruin one of the great aspects of Esports, which is the horizontality and how almost anybody can become good at them?

While the panelists defended net neutrality, it was exposed how the question is a fair one to ask, and as Esports grow bigger, more competitive, and feature larger prizes, the discussion in bound to pick up steam at some point. Thinking up good ways to design Internet-focused policies that take into consideration gaming should be considered an important part of Internet Governance, and not a tangential footnote as it is in 2018.


Updated: 22/11/2018 - 13:18
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Lightning Session

- Title:

Living in Digital Darkness: A Study on Internet Shutdowns in India

- Date & Time:

14th November, 2018 - 15.00-15.20

- Organizer(s):

SFLC.in (Software Freedom Law Centre, India)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Shashank Mohan, Male (Volunteer at SFLC.in - Software Freedom Law Centre, India)

- Theme (as listed here):

Technical & Operational Topics

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet Shutdowns

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1) What are Internet Shutdowns and what is the extent (how many) of such shutdowns in India.

2) What is the impact of Internet Shutdowns in India - on basic human rights, the social fabric and its economic effects.

3) The way ahead.

Short Description.

Governments across the world have been increasingly resorting to Internet shutdowns as a means to control information exchange online. Internet shutdowns are imposed for a number of reasons, though most frequently as a response to law and order breakdowns. The frequent resort to Internet shutdowns, especially in developing countries is a cause for serious concern. Between January 2012 and November, 2018, India has experienced a total of 259 Internet shutdowns. Apart from India, Internet shutdowns have also been reported in over 30 other countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mynamar, Egypt, Congo, Syria, Sudan, Burundi, Iraq, and Venezuela.

As a non-profit organization working on digital rights, one of SFLC.in’s key drivers is advocating for unhindered access to the Internet for all. In furtherance of this cause, we have been maintaining a dynamic ‘Internet Shutdown Tracker’ - https://www.internetshutdowns.in/ , which documents reported instances of Internet shutdowns in India. Though it primarily relies on published reports, information is also collected directly from residents of affected areas, and this database has become a widely used repository of information on shutdowns. In addition, we recently (May 2018) published a report called - ‘Living in Digital Darkness: A Handbook on Internet Shutdowns in India’, in which we have discussed in detail about how Internet shutdowns have grown in India, the laws and policies that determine their imposition, the problems emanating from such shutdowns and the efforts to tackle the menace of such shutdowns.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence

SFLC.in initiated their discussion by sharing a story about a girl from India who had to skip a year of higher education due to an Internet Shutdown imposed on her locality which did not allow her to fill university applications.

We then moved on to our definition of Internet Shutdowns i.e. a government imposed complete suspension of access to the Internet in a particular locality in India or the entire country, for any duration of time.

We focussed on the extent of shutdowns in India – most in the world at 263 from 2012 to date. Reasons given by governments for imposing such shutdowns are – public safety and security. But India has also been witnessing shutdowns for reasons like – avoiding cheating in exams and during public festivals. Last year the government in India enacted a set of rules for imposing Internet Shutdowns called the – Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.

Studies show that there is a large economic and social impact due to shutdowns in India. A study conducted by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations had estimated the total cost to the Indian economy of shutdowns from 2012 to 2017 to be nearly $3.04 billion. In SFLC.in’s report on Internet Shutdowns we have captured the social impacts of shutdowns due their effect on business, human rights, and impact on the health industry.

Within the participants, there was a consensus that shutdowns shall not be imposed for reasons like avoidance of cheating in exams or during public festivals. Even in cases of public safety and security, the participants agreed that governments should follow a reporting mechanism. Some participants were of the view that in cases of national security and public safety, shutting the Internet is a reasonable and necessary course of action.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

One of the potential next steps/ recommendations was for advocacy and policy consultation with the Indian government(s) to build a reporting mechanism for imposing Internet Shutdowns. Other recommendations were around working with government(s) to ensure that shutdowns are not imposed in situations such as – avoiding cheating in exams and during public festivals. Some participants suggested that governments(s) should be consulted to ensure that they ensure compliance with the telecom suspension rules.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

The IGF’s multistakeholder community can help local civil society organizations in India towards their efforts in measuring the impact of Internet Shutdowns in India and support their work towards advocating with government(s) in India to reduce the extent of shutdowns.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

10 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

2 women was present for the discussion

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The discussion briefly touched upon how Internet Shutdowns adversely affect women’s rights and their access to the Internet. The discussion revolved around the fact that of the total number of Internet users in India, only 30% are women and in times of Internet Shutdowns, women get doubly affected. The recommendation was to work at grass-root levels to advocate for more use of the Internet by women in India.


Updated: 10/11/2018 - 09:34
Report:

Updated: 08/10/2018 - 13:21
Report:

Updated: 06/11/2018 - 13:04
Report:

Updated: 05/12/2018 - 17:02
Report:

Updated: 05/12/2018 - 17:00
Report:

Updated: 07/12/2018 - 13:46
Report:

Updated: 08/10/2018 - 16:39
Report:

Updated: 14/11/2018 - 11:52
Report:

Updated: 17/10/2018 - 13:19
Report:

Updated: 09/11/2018 - 09:19
Report:

Updated: 22/10/2018 - 15:03
Report:

Updated: 15/11/2018 - 01:08
Report:

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Outreach
 
Title: SEEDIG
 
Date & Time: 14 November, 13:30 - 15:00
 
Organizer(s): SEEDIG
 
Chair/Moderator: Sorina Teleanu, Chair, SEEDIG Executive Committee, Romania

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Jana Misic, SEEDIG intern, Serbia
 
List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
- all participants

Theme (as listed here): Evolution of Internet Governance
 
Subtheme (as listed here): /
 
Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
The future course of SEEDIG should include more emphasis on the local and national levels, deeply focused topics of relevance for the region, and more outreach and building partnerships.

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…
This was an outreach session, dedicated to updating the SEEDIG community on current and planned activities of the initiative. During the discussions, participants agreed that SEEDIG should strongly focus on its own region, with its own concrete activities, and ensure regional ownership of this platform for dialogue.
While many agreed that SEEDIG's model is strong, it was also underlined that this governance model does not assure that the work is done by itself. And the core team and the community need to find a way to ensure that the burden is shared among everybody. And the way to do that probably is to focus more on concrete activities and on building on what SEEDIG has already achieved.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]
SEEDIG's way forward should include a strengthened community, a more active and consistent presence in the region, more regional support (to complement the international one), more focus and relevance when it comes to topics addressed and activities undertaken, and enhanced overall sustainability

 

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]
n/a
 
Please estimate the total number of participants.
30
 
Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
More than half of the participants were women.
 
- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]
N/a

 


Updated: 27/11/2018 - 19:37
Report:

IGF 2018 Long Report

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Panel

- Title:

Content blocking and filtering: a challenge for Internet growth

- Date & Time:

Nov 14, 10:00 AM to 11:20 AM

- Organizer(s) by MAG members:

Sylvia Cadena (Female, Technical Community, APNIC Foundation. Colombia/Australia)

Sumon Ahmed Sabir (Male, Technical Community, [email protected]. Bangladesh)

- Chair/Moderator:

Bill Woodcock (Male, Technical Community, Packet Clearing House. United States)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

  • Sylvia Cadena (Female, Technical Community, Colombia/Australia)
  • Bhadrika Magan (Female, Technical Community, New Zealand)

- Remote moderator:

  • Carolina Aguerre (Female, Academia, Argentina)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Danko Jevtović, (Male. Technical Community, ICANN Board. Serbia)
  • Sumon Ahmed Sabir (Male. Technical Community, [email protected]. Bangladesh)
  • Peter Koch (Male. Technical Community, DENIC. Germany)
  • Andrew Sullivan (Male. Technical Community, Internet Society. Canada)
  • Sébastien Soriano (Male. Government, ARCEP. France)
  • Irene Poetranto (Female. Academia, CitizenLab - University of Toronto. Canada)
  • Alexander Isavnin (Male. Civil Society, Internet Protection Society. Russia)
  • Mariko Kobayashi (Female. Youth Representative, Master student, Keio University. Japan)

- Theme (as listed here):

Technical and Operational Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Content Blocking and Filtering

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

Understanding the architecture of the Internet and how it works, and the relevance of adhering to standards and appropriate use of Internet protocols is a corner stone of any discussion around the stability and growth of the Internet.

Fast and hard approaches to deal with harmful/unwanted content on the Internet can have unintended consequences and negative impact on its operations.

The best way forward to tackle the challenge pose by harmful/unwanted content requires dialogue, collaboration and due process, respecting civic fundamental rights.

There is great need for careful, responsible, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research around content-blocking and filtering and its real implications on censorship and surveillance.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The session started by setting the scene, discussing the focus of the session around content blocking and filtering, its technical implementations and operational implications.

Any mentioning of any technology does not include any judgment about its fitness for purpose or any endorsement for its utilization.

Two MAG members, Danko Jevtović and Sumon Sabir opened the session.

Mr. Jevtović stated that as the Internet developed and grew, the application of technical implementations for content blocking and filtering became almost a necessity, but it has also become clear how the use of technical deployments without following a proper due process or considering the operational implications have negatively impacted access to legal content, as well as increasing the burden on network operators to comply with such filtering and blocking requests. At the same time, the implementation of fast and hard approaches to deal with harmful/unwanted content on the Internet, seem to minimize the space for dialogue, where the interest of all stakeholders is discussed, and due process is observed.

Mr. Sabir stated the different ways that content filtering has been used for many years both at home and at work. At home, many families use gateway filtering to safeguard children. At the office, employers might block access to entertainment or social networks to avoid distractions and improve productivity. ISPs are also implementing filters and firewalls to protect their infrastructure. The growth of what might be considered as harmful content has led to some countries to request ISPs operating in their territory, to apply blocking and filtering rules for the whole country, at unprecedent scale. At the same rate that filtering and blocking techniques are implemented, ways to circumvent such techniques become available. Techniques such as filtering or blocking IP prefixes defined as the source, URI / URL blocking, DNS Blackholing are not effective as more content is transmitted via HTTPS/TLS encryption and DNSSEC implementation progresses. Requests from law enforcement to take down content have also increased significantly. The transparency reports from Google and Facebook show how almost every country in the world has submit such request, and most of them cite national security as the main reason.

The agenda for the session continued with two panellists from the Technical Community, Peter Koch and Andrew Sullivan.

Mr. Koch started his intervention with a basic concept about how the Internet works, referring to how anything that is transmitted over the Internet is chopped into small pieces called packets, that travel independent of each other.  As such, no content appears at any place in the network in its entirety, and therefore with some exceptions it cannot be inspected in total or judged in total at any point in time, except, of course, at the end point which is either the source of the traffic or the device in front of the consumer. This very same characteristic has a direct co-relation with how effective the content blocking and filtering methods can be. There are a variety of technical implementations for filter/block, from the simplest option of blocking IP addresses, block the resolution of the domain name (DNS), DNS over HTTPS, intercepting traffic, blacklisting, transport layer security (TLS), Content delivery network (CDN).

For example, to stop employees to access a website or to protect them from a phishing website, botnet mitigation or malware, can be easily done by blocking the IP address of a particular website, at their first route to the Internet, and then the traffic will not flow back and forth, and employees will not be able to access that website. Content can be replicated, technologies that help manage load spikes that help to distribute content, so IP blocking is also be easily circumvented.

Another method called blackholing. Instead doing the filtering close to the user as in the example above, the blocking of an IP address or a range of addresses is done at the ISP or IXP point. This affects all the packets going back and forth between anyone using the Internet, and those the address range in question. The further away the filtering is applied from the source, the more organizations have to interfere with the packets flow. That also means that some process should be in place to determine the ranges of addresses to block, and how many organizations should be involved so it is effective.

Blocking a website can also be done by blocking its domain name. This type of interference at the ISP level will stop the resolution of a particular domain name, will suppress the translation or the mapping of the domain name to an IP address.  However, if the user has the IP address from where the content originates and if the IP address is not blocked, they will be able to reach the content. Another method on this layer, is called domain name takedown, which means to remove the domain name from the DNS, so it will not resolve anymore. Same as the previous example, the content will still be available although unreachable as the domain name will not resolve.

On the examples mentioned, the issue about “judging” content as harmful or illegal, has been mentioned. There is no technical solution to apply such judgements, human intervention is required.

Mr Sullivan agreed with Mr Koch statements and took a few minutes to reiterate that the blocking and filtering techniques described are not removing the content from the Internet but blocking access to the point from where the content is coming from, and this can include other sources of content not identified as harmful or illegal. The Internet is a network with a common numbering and naming space, formed from many different networks. This means is not possible to block the end points from end-to-end in one place: the identified content will have to be blocked throughout all the cooperative networks, to get every network to block it, as there is no centre of control.

The blocking and filtering mechanisms described in RFC7754, written by the Internet Architecture Board, is an informational document, not a manual about how to implement them. Such technical mechanisms are not in line with the architecture of the Internet, intended to be neutral.

One of the challenges about inspecting content, is that it is very hard to say if intercepting traffic is actually legitimate, as it puts into question the validity of the exchange, for example on banking transactions where Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used to encrypt the information. When applied, filters do not work, and content can’t be blocked outside of its host.

When blocking content, the challenge is that due to the large scale, blocking techniques are proving to be incompatible with the policy goals at the macro level, like trying to prevent a house to be inundated by blocking the water at the molecular level.

Take-down notices have no technical component. They are a legal notification to a content publisher or producer, to stop publishing on the Internet, or face a penalty to be applied if a specific content is not removed from the server that host it. That is the spirit of the legislation, and there is no technical feature to be able to do that. To remove content from the Internet, it has to be removed from its source by the content publisher or producer.

In response to a question from the audience about how to ensure there is no misuse of the techniques for content blocking and filtering, Mr. Sullivan answered that there is no “evil bit” that identifies malicious packets, so in principle there is no way to make sure you are getting it right. He referenced RFC 3514 written as a joke, about the evil bit. Mr. Koch provided an analogy indicating that if access to the streets of a red-light district is blocked, ambulances and postman will also not have access. He also provided an analogy about the inability to inspect packets equating it to demolishing or closing down a whole building just because something inside that building was identified as bad, but as it was impossible to know exactly where in that address, then everything has to go.

On the following block of the agenda, the session looked at the approaches from Regulators in Europe around the content blocking and filtering, presented by Sebastién Soriano.

Mr. Soriano started his intervention by quoting Stephen Brown “information wants to be free”. This brings great opportunities around creation and exchange of information. Sadly, some individuals use this power to cause harm. These threads are defined differently by every country, according to their cultural sensitivities, balancing freedom vs. protection.

Mr. Soriano referenced President Macron’s speech at the IGF Opening Plenary, where cyberattacks, fake news specially around electoral processes, copyright infringement that threatens business opportunities and hate speech were mentioned as unacceptable uses of the Internet that are harmful and should be deal with.

In that respect, Mr. Soriano highlighted that the strategies independent regulatory bodies deal with such threats in Europe are based on two very important principles: network neutrality (defined as the non-discrimination in the management of traffic and freedom of choice for end users) and limited liability for hosting companies (defined as no legal responsibility for hosting illegal/harmful content if the company is not aware of that). In this context, if a public authority with a legitimate objective requests a hosting company to withdraw the content, then the company has to comply with such request. These requests are managed under a very clear process, respecting civic fundamental rights.

France is studying the creation of a new status for hosting companies that accelerate the propagation of content. As such, a pilot program will be implemented in 2019 where teams from different French regulators will work with Facebook to explore this proposal in more detail. He responded to a question from the audience seeking clarification about this approach, to explain that the idea is to protect content producers (such as bloggers) from being treated under the same regulations covering content accelerator platforms, such as Facebook, as they have a very different reach and impact on society. The big companies accelerating content should be covered under a different definition. He highlighted the importance of rethinking regulation in the Internet age, not to micro-manage content but to audit and verify how the content accelerator does it.

A member of the audience highlighted the delicate balance between determining what harmful/illegal content is and freedom of expression, in the context of how much the Internet can amplify access to such content. He asked if this is the first attempt to redefine freedom of expression as it applied to different media.

Mr. Soriano replied that the balance does not depend on the technology used but on the message being communicated, however the capacity the Internet has to propagate information freely and widely require specific responses. Such tensions have made possible that many countries defend more forcefully freedom of expression.

Mr. Woodcock, the session’s moderator, also provided distinctions around technical implementations that threaten the neutrality of the network, by allowing preferential treatment to some content providers while degrading performance to others as well as other implementations that provide access without restrictions or additional costs to certain content providers while charging additional costs (zero-rating). He clarified that misbehaviour among unregulated market dominant companies based in the United States has an overflow effect as regulators around the world have a difficult time enforcing regulations on them. In Europe, as there are more active privacy and individual rights regulators discussing these complex issues mostly generated by US companies, more ways to address these problems and find solutions are coming from Europe.

On the next block of the agenda, two speakers from the civil society shared their views.

Ms. Poetranto started her intervention referencing the work of the CitizenLab of the University of Toronto, done in collaboration with the Berkman Centre of the University of Harvard to investigate and expose Internet filtering in over 70 countries around the world. The Open Net Initiative research found that censor the Internet in different ways and intensities, often under arguments compelling and powerful as mentioned before by Mr. Sabir and Mr. Soriano (copyright protection, false news, national security). She added the preservation of cultural norms and religious values to the list of reasons mentioned.

Their research has documented widespread use of Western made software solutions such as BlueCoat (US company) or NetSweeper (Canadian company). They have also found relevant issues about accuracy of such deployments as defined by under-blocking or over-blocking. The first one, when the technology fails to block access for all the targets, while over-blocking refers to block content that was not intended to be blocked. One of the main problems identified is the incorrect classification used to apply such filters. The other problem identified was the lack of transparency and accountability when automatization is applied. As governments partner with such companies, the danger of any of these problems when such content filtering schemes are applied nationwide is very explicit.

On their most recent publication in April 2018, a pattern of mischaracterization by NetSweeper’s use of a category called “alternative lifestyles” results in over-blocking of LGBQ content of non-graphical nature such as media or cultural groups, HIV-aids prevention organizations, and non-pornographic websites, which has serious human rights implications. The filter can also be set for specific countries.

The CitizenLab continues their research in this area despite great risk. In 2015, they were sued by NetSweeper, as they published a report about the use of such tools in the state-owned and operated YemenNet. The lawsuit sought over 3M in damages and it was discontinued in its entirety in 2016.

Ms. Poetranto concluded her intervention highlighting there is great need for careful, responsible, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research around content-blocking and filtering and its real implications on censorship and surveillance.

Mr. Isavnin focused his intervention on his experience analysing content blocking and filtering in Russia over the last 6 years. There is a set of federal regulations, and content producers are required to take content down if requested. If content is not removed, the ISPs are obliged to restrict access. He warns about the fact that once content filtering starts to be an accepted practice in a country, it will never stop, and the resources required will only increase. In Russia, what started with a limited set of reasons why to filter or block content. The reasons as well as the number of agencies involved have only continue to grow. However, there is no evidence to support that filtering and blocking have worked for the reasons intended: no reduction on suicides, or prevention of terrorist or drug related crimes. A statistic from the European Union indicates that taking down sites increases revenues for content producers.

The ambiguity and lack of clarity of what to block/filter leads to real operational expenses to remove blocked resources. One of the most popular French video hosting sites, DailyMotion, is blocked in Russia without a clear way to take them out of the list.

As huge IP ranges were blocked trying to control access to Telegram messengering, it turns out that meant that because of shared hosting arrangements, over-blocking went up to 95% of the sites hosted on those IP ranges. As there is a strict enforcement and massive fines applied by the government, ISPs have resort to over-blocking. There are also huge range of resources devoted for further inspections. This has a direct impact on the technical capacity that an ISP requires to legally operate in Russia: more computational power, more auditing power, more special equipment. This has also led to misused of blocked IP addresses, appropriating them for use under internal infrastructure or to redirect other content to be displayed for advertisement using those blocked systems. The other risk for the operators is to play an active role on censoring of the political opposition.

Mr. Isavnin stressed how RFC7745 is used in some countries as an IETF approved manual for blocking content and because of that it is important that the IETF and the IAB show a stronger position against the use of these techniques.

Mr. Isavnin answered a question from Mr. Woodcock about how the costs of such implementations are covered. He stated that the blocking laws were passed in Russia without further spending of federal budgets required, so all costs are incorporated into what the ISP charge the end-user, at least doubling up the price so it makes it less affordable.

A member of the audience raised a question about DNS over HTTPS. Mr Koch explained how this technology is facilitating the mapping of domain names would be done over the browser (like accessing a web page) instead of the DNS, which will circumvent interception. A technology called “safe browsing” allows users to identify the real content circulating over the HTTPS session. DNS over HTTPS is rather complex and is endorsed as an "anti-censoring" mechanism, just the opposite of blocking.  However, the concentration that might result from its adoption by a small number of providers could, however, enhance blocking opportunities for the lower number of points of influence. This does not refer to naïve or idealistic architectural purity, but as a clear risk for Internet growth. DNS over HTTPS is considered a form of encryption. Mr. Woodcock mentioned the battle between the standards for DNS over HTTPS versus DNS over TLS and how in his view it is more likely that DNS over TLS will prevail. It is more widely deployed, commercially offered through the Content Distribution Network providers. Privacy is treated as part of what the user can choose to pay from such service. Mr. Sullivan highlighted that many other popular services over the Internet use the same approach, by transferring a certain type of content over the web that is actually not web content: one protocol inside another. It is a very effective way to circumvent filtering and blocking, passing content over the most used protocol, which makes very costly to filter everything: to use a protocol that we can’t afford to filter.

To finalize the panel interventions, Ms Kobayashi brought to the session the impact that the adoption and deployment of these blocking and filtering techniques have on the youth. She mentioned three main consequences: 1) young Internet users are growing with a limited view of the world, that may limit their ability to effectively articulate informed opinions, to participate in political processes; 2) these limits their possibilities to develop business, to innovate and create, and 3) to share their own ideas. The role of the youth, by asking questions from all stakeholders can help to establish dialogue. Young engineers have also been involved in the support for standardization of end-to-end encryption over the Internet.

To wrap up the session, Ms. Cadena, one of the organizers of the session, invited the participants to continue the dialogue because the Internet is built by an ecosystem of organizations that are actively engaged in this process, and the more we continue the dialogue, the better the Internet is going to be.

In summary:

  • The Internet is a network with a common numbering and naming space, formed from many different networks. The information that flows through the Internet, wants to be free. Content blocking and filtering are a reality today, but it is not possible to control everything in the network. There are clear tensions between freedom of information and protection against security threats, as requests to network operators to remove or to take down content increased. As such, it is key that due process, a transparent and accountable process with unambiguous and clear rules and guidelines, is carefully followed to address the concerns of users and governments while continue to support the development and growth of the Internet.
  • Authoritarian governments as well as democracies filter and block Internet content in different ways. These requests are increasing for reasons ranging from national security concerns to control the dissemination of phishing websites, malware, and botnets. However, there is no factual evidence that blocking or filtering actually works to lowering suicide rates, terrorism, while there is clear evidence that collateral blocking is hindering access to valuable information and that has been used as a tool to repress freedom of expression, quash dissent and opposite political views. On the other hand, there is evidence of the additional cost to establish government agencies to manage blocking and filtering.
  • There are a variety of technical implementations to filter/block, like blocking IP addresses, block the resolution of the domain name (DNS), DNS over HTTPS, intercepting traffic, blacklisting, transport layer security (TLS), Content delivery network (CDN) as well the not-so-technical solutions of a notice and take down system. Such technical mechanisms are not in line with the architecture of the Internet, intended to be neutral.
  • Consideration to intermediary liability is part of the framework to consider when addressing issues around content blocking and filtering to understand the burden placed on network operators to have the skills, the computer power and the budget to cover the legal costs to comply with such regulations. It is worth noticing how these costs can double the operational costs which in turn can reduce affordability for users. The review of the existing regulatory definitions to characterize content producers can offer avenues to explore and alternative solutions about the ways to protect and accelerate content provision that supports the growth of the Internet.
  • There is great need for careful, responsible, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research around content-blocking and filtering and its real implications on censorship and surveillance.
  • As a result of these practices, young Internet users are growing with a limited view of the world, that may limit their ability to effectively articulate informed opinions, to participate in political processes, to develop business, to innovate and create, to share their own ideas.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

The challenge posed by harmful/unwanted content to preserve the open and stable Internet that continues to grow, requires an understanding of the architecture of the Internet and how it works, and the relevance of adhering to standards and appropriate use of Internet protocols when reviewing the design and adoption of regulatory frameworks, definitions around content production, etc.

Fast and hard approaches to deal with harmful/unwanted content on the Internet have unintended consequences and negative impact on its operations and limit its potential.

Consideration to intermediary liability, to the burden placed on network operators and how that can reduce affordability for users is required, as well as unintended negative impact on how the Internet users, in particular the youth, can grow with a limited view of the world, limited to participate in society, innovate and share ideas.

France is studying the creation of a new status for hosting companies that accelerate the propagation of content. As such, a pilot program will be implemented in 2019 where teams from different French regulators will work with Facebook to explore this proposal in more detail.

There is great need for careful, responsible, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research around content-blocking and filtering and its real implications on censorship and surveillance.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

As the best way forward to tackle the challenge pose by harmful/unwanted content requires dialogue, collaboration and due process the IGF offers a unique space to bring together the views, knowledge and expertise from different stakeholders and disciplines to understand the problems and come with solutions, together.

The IGF has a key role to facilitate the discussion around all these issues and bring light to the perspectives of various stakeholders.

The IGF is the best venue to discussed current practices and their possible consequences of different approaches and do all that for the benefit of Internet and, of course, for the UN sustainable development goals.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 100 people were present in the room.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Around 25 women were in the audience.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The session referred to the technical and operational issues around content blocking and filtering. No specific discussion took place around gender on this session.


Updated: 28/11/2018 - 17:29
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Panel  

- Title:

AI and Ethics: privacy, transparency and construction of knowledge

- Date & Time:

5 pm 6:30 pm on 13th November.

- Organizer(s)

Yik Chan Chin Xi'an Jiao-tong Liverpool University
Ansagar Koene, University of Nottingham

Kuo-wei, Wu APNIC
Yang Shen, School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University

- Chair/Moderator:

On Site Moderator: Dr. Wu Kuo-wei, APNIC
Online Moderator: Mr. Le Song

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Dr. Yik Chan Chin

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Dr. Yik Chan Chin and Prof. Changfeng Chen             Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University and Tsinghua University 

Dr. Ansgar Koene                                      University of Nottingham   

Mr. Jasper Wang, Deputy Editor of Sina Weibo, Editor-in-chief of Weibo Think Tank in China.

Dr. Félicien Vallet,  a privacy technologist at the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the French data protection authority.

Mr. Yuqiang Chen,  the co-founder and chief research scientist of the 4th Paradigm.

Mr. Jake Lucchi, Head of AI, Public Policy, Google Asia Pacific.

 

- Theme (as listed here):

Emerging Technologies

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet Ethics

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

What are the most prominent ethical issues in related to the AI development and application?

What is the current landscape of policies and regulations of AI ethics in China, EU and USA?

What is the necessary policy environment to ensure the ethical development of AI?

 

Panel  

AI and Ethics: privacy, transparency and construction of knowledge

5 pm 6:30 pm on 13th November.

 

Yik Chan Chin Xi'an Jiao-tong Liverpool University
Ansagar Koene, University of Nottingham

Kuo-wei, Wu APNIC
Yang Shen, School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University

 

On Site Moderator: Dr. Wu Kuo-wei, APNIC
Online Moderator: Mr. Le Song

Dr. Yik Chan Chin

 

Dr. Yik Chan Chin and Prof. Changfeng Chen             Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University and Tsinghua University 

 

Dr. Ansgar Koene                                      University of Nottingham   

Mr. Jasper Wang, Deputy Editor of Sina Weibo, Editor-in-chief of Weibo Think Tank in China.

Dr. Félicien Vallet,  a privacy technologist at the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the French data protection authority.

Mr. Yuqiang Chen,  the co-founder and chief research scientist of the 4th Paradigm.

Mr. Jake Lucchi, Head of AI, Public Policy, Google Asia Pacific.

 

- 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…

Our panel involved stakeholders from the government agency (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)),  IT and AI companies (Google, 4th Paradigm, and Sina Weibo)  and academia/civil society (Xi’an Jiao-tong Liverpool University, Tsinghua University and Nottingham University, and IEEE working group on Algorithm Bias) . Speakers’/organisations’ geographical origins cove both  Asia and  Europe.

 

The panel first discussed the AI policy and ethical frameworks developed in China, France as well as by professional organisation- IEEE, and the underpinning importance of developing the ethical standards.  It is understood that the ethical framework of AI is still in the process of discussion and formation, there is no compressive standard has been proposed by

 

Secondly, we discussed the consultation done by the governmental agency such as CNIL (the French Data Protection Authority)  in producing digital technology ethics, i.e. the digital republic bill 2016 and its widely inclusive approach in conducting the process.  Two important founding principles- fairness and continued attention and vigilance were discussed. Most importantly, we discussed six policy recommendations made by CNIL in how to address the AI ethics.

 

Finally, three-panel speakers from private sectors including Google, Sina Weibo, and 4 Paradigm shared their companies’ policy and practices in addressing AI ethical issues – such as privacy protection, preventing algorithm bias and improving algorithm’s fairness and accountability.  

 

There was broad support for the view that it is important and in need to have international discussions of AI and algorithm 's industrial standards, regulation and ethical guidance.  The similar discussions have already been undertaken in different countries and regions.  The discussions must include different stakeholders of different backgrounds. And also at the national level,  it has to set up a shared ethical code and normative framework.

 

Panel members also showed concerns on the potential chilling effect on freedom of expression caused by actions taken to refute fake news, an action such as credit rating of online users, when users may not have the capacity to have their stories fact-checked before releasing it.  

 

 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Panel members and workshop participants highly endorsed and praised the importance of involving different stakeholders including academia, industry actors, NGOs and policymakers from different geographic regions in discussing and addressing AI ethics. While European and American actors were often presented in the IGF forum, actors from Asia and other regions are less presented, and in particular in the discussions of ethical issues. Taking into the accounts of participants' feedback and the importance of cultural diversities in ethics research and debates, the panel members and the organiser are exploring the opportunities to form a cross-countries-cross-sectors research collaboration in AI ethics (EU-China, and industry-government-academics).  

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 The IGF provided an open platform to allow the different stakeholders to involve in this debate of AI ethics. This open platform is important for both policy deliberation and public education purposes. It would be helpful if IGF could have more policymakers involved. 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

The total number of participants is between 50-60, which is the maximum capacity the room VII is allowed. Half of the participants queening outside the room was not allowed to enter by the UNESCO security staffs ( we guess it is because of the safety concern). 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

We had 2/3 participants in the room were men and 1/3 were women. 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Our session did not discuss gender issues. 

 

 

Long Report

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

 

Panel  

 

- Title:

 

AI and Ethics: privacy, transparency and construction of knowledge

 

- Date & Time:

 

5 pm – 6:30 pm on 13th November.

 

- Organizer(s)

 

Yik Chan Chin,   Xi'an Jiao-tong Liverpool University
Ansagar Koene, University of Nottingham

Kuo-wei, Wu APNIC
 

 

- Chair/Moderator:

 

On Site Moderator: Dr. Wu Kuo-wei, APNIC
Online Moderator: Mr. Le Song

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

 

 

Dr. Yik Chan Chin

 

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

 

 

 

Dr. Yik Chan Chin and Prof. Changfeng Chen             Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University and Tsinghua University 

 

Dr. Ansgar Koene                                           University of Nottingham   

Mr. Jasper Wang, Deputy Editor of Sina Weibo, Editor-in-chief of Weibo Think Tank in China.

Dr. Félicien Vallet,  a privacy technologist at the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the French data protection authority.

Mr. Yuqiang Chen,  the co-founder and chief research scientist of the 4th Paradigm.

Mr. Jake Lucchi, Head of AI, Public Policy, Google Asia Pacific.

 

- Theme (as listed here):

 

Emerging Technologies

 

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):

 

Internet Ethics

 

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

The 3 ‘Key Messages’ that are asked for essentially refer to the policy questions or policy points in your session. You should revise these if they in any way change once your session is

 

What are the most prominent ethical issues in related to the AI development and application ?

What are current landscape of policies and regulations of AI ethics in China, EU and USA?

What is the necessary policy environment to ensure the ethical development of AI?

 

- 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…

 

Our panel involved stakeholders from the government agency (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)),  IT and AI companies (Google, 4th Paradigm, and Sina Weibo)  and academia/civil society (Xi’an Jiao-tong Liverpool University, Tsinghua University and Nottingham University, and IEEE working group on Algorithm Bias) . Speakers’/organisations’ geographical origins cove both  Asia and  Europe.

 

The panel first discussed the AI policy and ethical frameworks developed in China, France as well as by professional organisation- IEEE,  and  the underpinning importance  of  developing the ethical standards.  It is understood that the ethical framework of AI is still in the process of discussion and formation, there is no compressive standard has been proposed by

 

Secondly, we discussed the consultation done by the governmental agency such as CNIL (the French Data Protection Authority)  in producing digital technology ethics, i.e. the digital republic bill 2016 and its widely inclusive approach in conducting the process.  Two important founding principles- fairness and continued attention and vigilance were discussed. Most importantly, we discussed six policy recommendations made by CNIL in how to address the AI ethics.

 

Finally, three-panel speakers from private sectors including Google, Sina Weibo and 4 Paradigm shared their companies’ policy and practices in addressing AI ethical issues – such as privacy protection, preventing algorithm bias and improving algorithm’s fairness and accountability.  

 

There was broad support for the view that it is important and in need to have international discussions of  AI and algorithm’s  industrial standards, regulation and ethical guidance.  The similar discussions have already been undertaken in different countries and regions.  The discussions must include different stakeholders of different backgrounds. And also at the national level,  it has to set up a shared ethical code and normative framework.

 

Panel members also showed concerns on the potential chilling effect on freedom of expression caused by actions taken to refute fake news, an action such as credit rating of online users, when users may not have the capacity to have their stories fact-checked before releasing it.  

 

 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

 

The policy recommendations include:

 

 

To develop a shared ethical code and normative framework of AI at the private sector as well as at the national level;

 

Protect minorities’ rights and avoid majoritarian tyranny

 

Prevent AI from doing evil by developing more powerful regulations tools and more regulations in collecting unethical data.

 

Different stakeholders from different sectors and disciplines need to be included in the process.

 

 

Making algorithmic systems comprehensible

 

Improving algorithmic system’s design: to prevent the black box effect; to empower individuals with more autonomy

 

Creating a national platform in order to audit algorithms: To ensure the compliance with the law and the fairness and accountability of AI systems

 

Increasing incentives for research on ethical AI: to foster research in computer sciences and engineering (such as explainable AI) as well as in social sciences ; to create fairer systems and raise the collective awareness

 

Strengthening ethics in companies: to organize dialogues between practitioners, specialists, stakeholders and communities involved; to deploy new governance tools such as ethics committees

 

Construction of moral agency.

 

Fostering education: to address everyone involved in the algorithmic chain: system developers and designers, professionals, citizens, etc. to make sure everybody understands what is at stake

 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

 

 

The IGF provided an open platform to allow different stakeholders to involve in the debate of AI ethics. This open platform is important for both policy deliberation and public education purposes. It would be helpful if IGF could have more policymakers involved. 

 

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

The total number of participants is between 50-60, which is the maximum capacity the room VII is allowed. Half of the participants queening outside the room was not allowed to enter by the UNESCO staffs (we guess it is because of the safety concern). 

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

We had 2/3 participants in the room were men and 1/3 were women. 

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

Our session did not discuss gender issues. 

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

 

Workshop organisors are exploring funding opportunities for a cross-countries-cross-sector research collaboration in Internet governance and AI ethics based on the session’s discussion.

Participants also reported the session’s discussion and its policy recommendation via their organisations’ platforms.

For instance, the report by the AI company “the 4th Paradigm”:

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAwMjM2Njg2Nw==&mid=2653146249&idx=1&sn=73b254eae8eb33b9ec2891617366668a&chksm=811ce075b66b6963fa6d4ed5f692ae5c074a42dc3826bf25a8e03bf8fc36cfc49b1068126e8a&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=1123mjP52tHSJnMwfVjA4vgF#rd

 

 


Updated: 26/11/2018 - 16:41
Report:

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

Three mega trends affecting the Internet’s architecture were presented on by three Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) representatives: encryption; consolidation and the change to service-based networking (and oriented to Internet of Things). The discussion following the presentations led to three main conclusions.

  1. Participants became aware of and had a better understanding of how the work at the IETF on Internet protocols affect everyone’s daily lives, something several other stakeholders were less aware of. The session proved its worth and that the IGF is capable of organising successful informative, interactive sessions;
  2. There is a general need for (more) reach out to other communities to make them understand not only the importance of the work on Internet protocols but also to assist them in understanding the implications of this work (and the trends) for their own decisions, whether commercial, political, in policy drafting, human rights, etc. The session led to invitations from (inter)national politicians to organise sessions for parliamentarians. However, not all stakeholder groups could be convinced participation is of importance. The IETF participants on the panel realised that actively reaching out to consumer organisations could be of importance to make them and thus the general public more aware of the work carried out and the influence this can potentially have on the deployment of Internet protocols. This reach out is or needs to be conducted in many places, of which the IGF is one;
  3. The three presentations given by the IETF on consolidation, encryption and Internet of Things show how profound these megatrends are and that they deserve a more holistic view to understand the impact on society better.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

This session focused on reach out to make stakeholders understand the work of the IETF better. No one contested the content of the presentations/introductions. The questions asked either assisted in clarifying the content for other stakeholders or opened the debate to a specific view. Those present not only agreed with the need for this outreach but also expressed the wish for it to continue in the future. Some offered to actively assist in options for IETF to reach out beyond the IGF.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

It was suggested to continue this kind of outreach. Using the IGF to make other stakeholders more aware of the IETF’s work is seen as important by all participants. The IETF participants on the panel realise that active reach out to other stakeholder groups, e.g. consumer organisations, could be useful. A full session in 2019 on ‘consolidation’ and its effects to Internet governance came highly recommended.

 

Also, one and a half hour was half an hour too short. With difficult topics like these, people need time to understand them better. An extra half an hour would have led to more thoughts and recommendations from the room. Next to that the room could have been at least twice as big for this workshop.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Use the IGF ecosystem to:

  1. Spread updates on developments within the IETF to the IGF community;
  2. Attract more and especially new stakeholder groups to join this discussion;
  3. Work on the impact of Internet megatrends more holistically.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

It is hard to say. All chairs were filled (57), all four walls were filled and people refused to enter outside. My estimation is between 90 and 100. The room was far too small. There was remote participation, including active questioning.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

75 % (m) - 25% (f)

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

None, as this topic was gender neutral. It affects all at the exact same level.

 

Session Time: Monday, 12 November, 2018 - 11:50 to 13:20

Room: Salle VI

 

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): interactive, informative workshop

- Title: Internet Mega-Trends’ impact on the Internet’s Architecture

- Date & Time: Monday 12 November 2018, 11.50 - Organizer(s): Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Society, De Natris Consult

- Chair/Moderator: Wout de Natris

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paula Real

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Alissa Cooper, IETF (F)

Jari Arkko, IETF (M)

Maria Ines Robles, IETF (F)

- Theme (as listed here): Technical and Operational topics

- Subtheme (as listed here): Evolution of Internet governance

- Key messages of the discussion:

The work of the IETF is seen as exclusively technical, resulting in its work and outcomes, let alone the potential results, being unknown to many in other stakeholder communities. This workshop allows other stakeholders not only to reflect on the IETF’s work as such, but also allows them to assess how (new) Internet standards and protocols impact their respective work, decisions and priorities. The main themes are:

  1. Can interaction between stakeholders lead to swifter adoption of Internet Protocols?;
  2. Can the IGF contribute to a better understanding of IETF’s work?;
  3. How to draw other stakeholders’ attention to this work?

This session is a pilot on active interaction and information sharing at the IGF. The results of this workshop will lead to a report that also allows the MAG to assess the use of interactive informative sessions at the IGF.  

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

                1) The work at the IETF on Internet protocols affect everyone’s daily lives, something many other stakeholders were less aware of;

                2) There is a need for more reach out to other communities to make them understand not only the importance of the work on Internet protocols but assist them in understanding the implications of this work (and the trends) for their own decisions, whether commercial, political, in policy drafting, human rights, etc.;

                3) The three presentations given by the IETF on consolidation, encryption and Internet of Things show how profound these megatrends are and deserve a more holistic view to understand the impact on society better.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

This session focused on reach out to make stakeholders understand the work of the IETF better. No one contested the presentations. The questions asked either assisted in clarifying the content for other stakeholders or opened the debate to a specific view. Those present agreed with the need for this outreach. Some offered to actively assist in options for IETF to reach out beyond the IGF.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

It was suggested to repeat this work: Using the IGF to make other stakeholders more aware of the IETF’s work is seen as important by all participants. The IETF realises that active reach out to other stakeholder groups, e.g. consumer organisations, is useful. A full session in 2019 on ‘consolidation’ and its effects to Internet governance came highly recommended.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Use the IGF ecosystem to: 1) spread updates on developments within the IETF and use it to attract more and especially new stakeholder groups to join this discussion; 2) work on the impact of megatrends more holistically.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

It is hard to say. All chairs were filled (57), all four walls were filled and people refused outside. My estimation is between 90 and 100. The room was far too small.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

75 % (m) - 25% (f)

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

None, as this topic was gender neutral. It affects all at the exact same level.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 14:33
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

[sample report here]

 

 
 

 

 

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

 

- Title: 1.3 Billion Reasons for Making your Technology Accessible

 

- Date & Time:  Day 2, Nov 13, 10:10 – 11:40

 

- Organizer(s): Andrea Saks, Dynamic coalition on Accessibility and Disability (DCAD) coordinator

 

- Chair/Moderator: Gerry Ellis

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: 

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

  • Gunela Astbrink, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  • Muhammad Shabbir, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
  • Derrick L. Cogburn, Executive Director, Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP)
  • G. Anthony Giannoumis, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

 

- Theme (as listed here):

Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Persons with disabilities

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • Accessibility is not just for persons with disabilities only, but everyone can benefit from it. Universal design principal 'Necessary for some - good for everyone’ should be implemented. 
  • Internet of Things (IoT) issues such as privacy and security are key concerns generally but potentially harmful for people with disability.
  • It is important to remove barriers to accessibility, by awareness raising of accessibility in general, technology and accessibility standards, as well as providing training.

 

- 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…

Five topics related to accessibility were presented at the workshop, followed by questions and answers, to share information on good practices, case studies and challenges. The topics include: web accessibility; IoT; text mining method for IGF discussion analysis; learning experiences in persons with persons with Cognitive and Psychosocial

Disabilities. The messages to remove barriers to accessibility were well received by audience.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

Accessibility should be considered from the designing phase of implementation of technologies, to avoid costly efforts to rectify barriers. Interoperability of ICT technologies is vital, especially for emerging technologies, such as IoT, etc. IoT and accessibility for persons with disabilities should be addressed in policy, research and technical settings. Implementing international standards will help the process, and will improve the provability of interoperability of products and services. Persons with disabilities should be included in all levels of society, including policy decision process, implementing the motto “nothing about us, without us”.

 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

There are 1.3 billion persons with disabilities globally, and they experience daily barriers towards their full and effective participation in society. This is a constant challenge everywhere, especially in developing countries, this challenge is increasing. There are multiple reasons in developing countries, including but not limited to: low income vs high cost of technologies; absence of accessibility policy or gap between policy and practice; lack of awareness about accessibility in general and training.  

 

 

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 30 participants were present.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Approximately 15 women participated in the workshop.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. However, the session focused on the equal opportunity of everyone especially persons with disabilities including women with disabilities.    


Updated: 26/11/2018 - 21:28
Report:

- Session Title:                       Who is Collected, Disclosed and Protected: CERTs Viewpoint

- Date:                                        14 November 2018           

- Time:                                       11:30 - 12:30

- Session Organizer:           Pablo Hinojosa

- Chair/Moderators:             Madeline Carr, Duncan Hollis

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Madeline Carr

 

- List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:  

(in order of participation)

  • Duncan Hollis, Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
  • Dr. Madeline Carr, Associate Professor of International Relations and Cyber Security, University College London
  • Pablo Hinojosa, Strategic Engagement Director, APNIC
  • Paul Wilson, APNIC
  • Cristine Hoepers, CERT Brazil
  • Becky Burr, ICANN
  • Grégory Mounier, Europol
  • Jac Sm Kee, APC Women
  • Farzaneh Badii, Georgia Institute of Technology

 

- Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):                 

  • As in the past two IGF sessions, this roundtable is an effort to improve dialogue between the policy, technical and internet governance communities.
  • We always choose one specific issue around which we can gather and exchange views in an effort to better understand diverse perspectives on a contentious topic.
  • This session touched on the difficulties of implementing the GDPR in the context of the WhoIs databases, however, the main focus was on issues around accountability online.
  • The implementation of the GDPR has raised questions about the use of, access to and distribution of the WhoIs databases.
  • While these questions are still to be resolved, the CERTs that rely on this information are very concerned that any steps that interrupt their easy access to critical information will hamper their ability to carry out security practices and respond to incidents.
  • Although law enforcement can still access WhoIs databases, the process is now slower and more cumbersome than it was previously and this has negative implications for investigations.
  • WhoIs databases can contain personally identifiable information which, under the GDPR, can only be shared under prescribed conditions such as ‘legitimate use’ or with the consent of the data subject.
  • There remain very real concerns in the community about the possible infringement of human rights and the right to privacy that arise through access to personally identifiable information (PII) contained in the WhoIs databases.
  • The WhoIs database is not a single, unitary database. Rather, there are many different databases that contain different information and serve different purposes.
  • Some WhoIs databases contain more PII than others.
  • These databases or registries operate independently.
  • For CERTs, it is critical to be able to quickly identify the owner / administrator of a network that may have been affected by a security incident.
  • Free access to the WhoIs databases is a key tool in the toolbox of the CERTs.
  • Not being able to access the WhoIs databases that they rely upon will mean that they struggle to identify those at risk and notify them in a timely manner.
  • This access is not only important for large, national CERTs but is also important for small and large organisations that need to quickly find peers in other networks to exchange information and collaboratively problem solve security incidents.
  • From the perspective of the European CCTLD landscape, there has been little change in terms of data collection for the WhoIs databases post GDPR.
  • For law enforcement, although criminals tend not to use their real names to register, the information in the WhoIs databases remains a key element of investigations.
  • The implementation of GDPR has impacted law enforcement investigations negatively due to the added time it takes to access the data they need.
  • There was a point made that CERTs do qualify as ‘legitimate interest’ under the GDPR and therefore, should still be entitled to access the WhoIs databases.
  • CERTs are clearly identifiable within their community and recognise their accountability in terms of protecting sensitive data.
  • While the WhoIs databases are a necessary source of information for CERTs and law enforcement, they are also open to abuse by perpetrators of gender based violence who use them to find personal details of their victims.
  • The CERT representative pointed out that she really needs access to IP addresses and admin details, rather than domain names.
  • It was acknowledged that further clarity about exactly what information is needed, by whom, would help this discussion move forward.
  • It was suggested that it is now necessary to devise a system of due process that can operate globally, including clear checks and balances to define who are the actors, who are their interest and what information they should have access to including clear safeguards against abuse.
  • The issue of a valid email address as a point of contact in case there are trademark infringements was raised as important for the intellectual property constituencies.

 

 

- If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:                 

 

n/a

- Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):    

  • The exact nature of the information that CERTs require access to was discussed in some detail. As were the challenges that law enforcement face in their investigations due to time constraints now imposed by GDPR compliance.This discussion was useful in terms of developing a better understanding amongst participants of which personally identifiable information is or is not at risk through CERTs access to WhoIs databases.
  • There was also an important discussion about the ways in which WhoIs database information can and is used by perpetrators of gender based violence, to suppress political free speech and also as harvested information that is then on-sold without permission of the data subjects.
  • It was clear from the discussion that relevant stakeholders had not had the opportunity for clear discussion and understanding of these competing perspectives in adequate detail. By the end of the session, there was a general sense in the room that a more fine grained conversation was essential and that, having done so, there were certainly pathways for forward momentum on this issue and a resolution that brought all parties together in an acceptable framework.

- Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways (3 paragraphs):   

  • CERTs need to provide more clarity about exactly what information they need and under what circumstances. They also should take a role in outlining which entities qualify for that access, given the tightly controlled parameters of their community which has a high degree of accountability.
  • The administrators of WhoIs databases need to have a clear understanding of the range of ways in which the information they collect and control can be abused by those who can access it. They should work with law enforcement, CERTs and those who work in human rights protection to develop adequate safeguards that allow CERTs to continue their work without undermining human rights.
  • Further discussions of this type would be useful to tease out these future collaborative working practices and avoid the road blocks that have characterised past engagements.

 

Gender Reporting

- Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

Around 70 pax.

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

35 pax.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?

n/a

- If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

  • The list of speakers was big and quite diverse in terms of gender, stakeholder group and geographic representation.

 


Updated: 27/11/2018 - 02:44
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):

 


Updated: 27/11/2018 - 15:07
Report:

IGF 2018 Report

- Title:

 
Approaches to a Wicked Problem: Stakeholders Promote Enhanced Coordination and Collaborative, Risk-Based Frameworks of Regional and National Cybersecurity Initiatives

- Date: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018

- Time: 09:20 to 10:50

- Session Organizer(s):

Carolin Weisser Harris, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC), University of Oxford, female
Kerry-Ann Barrett, Organization of American States, female
Sophie Tomlinson, ICC BASIS, female
Barbara Wanner, U.S. Council for International Business, female

- Chair/Moderator:

Onsite Moderator: Claudia Selli, European Affairs Director of AT&T, female
Online Moderator: Matthew Griffin, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC), University of Oxford, male

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Carolin Weisser Harris, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford, female

Matthew Griffin, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC), University of Oxford, male

 

- Speakers:

Bill Dutton, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford, male

Greg Shannon, Chief Scientist for the CERT Division at Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute, and Vice Chair of IEEE Internet Initiative, male

David van Duren, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE), male

Amanda Craig, Microsoft, female

Kerry-Ann Barrett, Organization of American States, female

Wilches, Juan Manuel Commissioner, Comision de Regulacion de Comunicaciones, Government of Colombia, male

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

  • A holistic view on Cybersecurity: it is important to be thinking about cybersecurity beyond just the technical elements and to address the socio-cultural elements within countries and but also within organisations. There is the need to ensure that cybersecurity is addressed holistically: prioritised on the highest government levels, mainstreamed vertical and horizontal in organizations as part of their risk management and become part of the mind-set of users.
  • Risk Management and multistakeholder processes are crucial to start the conversation around issues in cybersecurity but also to work together, participate, and build trust. Transparency empowers those involved, such as civil society, and contributes to the quality and effectiveness of the process and its outputs. Speakers also raised the importance of distributed agency to reduce the risk of fragmentation. Raising awareness among citizenry is a critical complement to secure their support.
  • Sharing Best Practices: For capacity building, the mapping, development and dissemination of best practices to be action-oriented, efficient and in the position of scaling up those positive lessons learnt.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

  • Cybersecurity as a policy issue in its own: There was a broad support that cybersecurity policy cannot be approached with the existing policy approaches as the Internet is a hybrid media. Some suggested that policy area may need experimentation to some extent to assess what works on the national, regional and global levels.

 

  • Research & Evidence: There is the need evidence-based support on the importance of capacity building but so far the research community has not yet provided the evidence what works and what does works despite some early observations and preliminary findings.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

 

  • National capacity-building should be accompanied by regional/globally collaboration, in the sense of “acting globally to help locally”;
  • Cybersecurity must be approached as a foreign policy priority on the regional and national levels;
  • Highlighting of best practice in a variety of areas via case studies, practical products, toolkits, and guidelines for regional/global collaboration and national capacity building. This would make a positive contribution to the debates and the implementation of cybersecurity capacity building efforts;
  • There is evidence that resources on cybersecurity capacity building is money well spent but there is a need for evidence-based support on the importance of capacity building.
  • Fostering an ongoing sharing between countries and regional organizations is critical.
  • Important that it is a multistakeholder process: Mix of top-down –government acting as convener, but also bottom-up in terms of technical capacity and best practices are coming from the community.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

  • Providing evidence for what works and what doesn’t work in cybersecurity capacity building
  • Developing and sharing of best practices
  • Encourage more stakeholders to get involved in cybersecurity policy and capacity building

 

- Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

There were approximately 50 total participants

 

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

Approximately 20 participants were women. The panel itself was gender balanced, with two out of six

speakers being women (one female speaker had to cancel before the session)

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?

- If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief

summary of the discussion:

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment.

However, it did consider challenges in how technical community, government and public sector security

teams can successfully cooperate with civil society organizations.

 


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 16:57
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Panel/Workshop

 

- Title: “Hack the Hate: Empower society to face Hate Speech”

 

- Date & Time: 11.12.2018; 11.50 AM-1.20 PM

 

- Organizer(s):

Henri Isaac, Renaissance Numérique

Sasha Havlicek, Institute for Strategic Dialogue

Cécile Coudriou, Amnesty International France

 

- Chair/Moderator:

Sasha Havlicek, Institute for Strategic Dialogue

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Mike Fedida, Renaissance Numérique

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Louis Brooke (male), International Managing Director of Breakthrough Media (United-Kingdom)

Guillaume Buffet (male), Vice-president of Renaissance Numérique and Founder of the Seriously project (France)

Robi Chacha (male), Program officer of Amnesty International (Kenya)

Tonei Glavinic (male), Director of operations of the Dangerous Speech Project (United States of America)

Nalaka Gunawardene (male), Journalist, communication specialist (Sri Lanka)

Cristiana Lucaci (female), Vice-president of Group of the European of the Youth for Change (Romania)

Delphine Schram (female), Member of the association Le Bal (France)

Alexandria Walden (female), Public policy & Government relations Advisor of Google (United States of America)

 

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Hate Speech

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

  • It is a particularly difficult task to define what a hate speech is and, therefore particularly difficult to adapt a specific and pertinent answer to that phenomenon.
  • No sector alone can manage these challenges, and this requires a holistic approach.
  • It is necessary to educate all those stakeholders, should they be citizens, corporations, or policy makers.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

 

A discussion has been held on the difficulty to differentiate a hate speech from the freedom to tell an unpopular opinion. Platforms give us ability to communicate worldwide but also give rise to polarising discourses; in this sort of space there is no model to work together, governments, brands, civil society actors...

 

During the debate, a consensus appeared on the fact that regulation can’t, by itself, be the only solution to tackle hate speech. Removal of content has been at the heart of government initiatives, raises a range of important challenges that need to be taken on board; but content removal can’t be the full answer to this problem. There is a wider challenge in terms of free speech. Problem moves from big platforms to smaller platforms. And there is the evolving landscape of online platforms.

 

Through four projects, designed to tackle hate speech, the discussion focused on two main solutions: collaboration and education. On the one hand, collaboration between civil society, academics, governments and private sector has been recognised by all speakers as one of the most important steps to tackle hate speech. On the other hand, through education of all stakeholders, resilience to social harms can be built. To achieve that objective, and as a conclusion, most participants also agreed on the importance of individual actions.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

Regarding the issue discussed, two main solutions have been brought to the debate:

  • Firstly, by educating policy makers, NGOs, citizens and corporations and creating a collaboration between them.
  • Secondly, on a technical level, developing further tools which empower citizens and creating new reporting systems.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

  • Sharing the best practices, tools of civil society around the world and allowing them to be disseminated in other countries, adapted to local context.
  • Encouraging international partnerships on these experiences.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

120

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

50-50


Updated: 19/11/2018 - 16:44
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

- Title: Who is in charge? Accountability for algorithms on platforms

- Date & Time: 12 November, 12.10-13.40

- Organizer(s): Kristina Olausson, ETNO; Lorena Jaume-Palasi, the Ethical Tech Society; Pablo Bello, ASIET; Andrés Sastre, ASIET

- Chair/Moderator: Gonzalo Lopez Barajas, Telefonica

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Kristina Olausson, ETNO

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Oscar Martín González, male, Public Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

Speaker 2: Lorena Jaume-Palasí, female, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 3: Fanny Hedvigi, female, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 4: Pascal Bekono, male, Government, African Group

Speaker 5: Phillip Malloch, male, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

 

- Theme (as listed here): Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here): INTERNET MARKETS - TELCOS, INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, COMPETITION

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. The use of algorithms has become increasingly common not only in private but also public sector. There is a clear benefit in terms of assessing large amounts of data. However, challenges such as access to data, differences in legal frameworks and the impact of mathematical models for algorithms on the freedom/autonomy of the individual also need to be addressed.

2. With rapid technological development, we need to ask how well current legislative frameworks are adapted to address human rights in the case of use of automated decision-assisting.

3. As the discussions are still at an early stage, the multi-stakeholder model can be used to map and identify risks/challenges to increase the exchange between different regions.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

There was overall agreement that “transparency” and “explainability” are two different issues. While transparency was seen as key for ensuring accountability of algorithms, not all actors in the session saw this as enough and demand more active participation by the person who’s data is used in the process.

 

The session noted that governments and private sector plays an important role in ensuring human rights and ethical principles. There was also broad agreement among the session participants that it is too early to regulate algorithms on platforms. The current framework for human rights is sufficient. However, some participants noted a lack knowledge about how individual are impacted.

 

Private sector also took a more positive outlook, not only to look at challenges but also opportunities of algorithms. They can be an important tool to address SDGs by providing efficiency gains, making better analysis of data and creating values for individuals. Companies compete on trust from users. Convergence and globalization has brought a lot of competition. Users do not only care about price and quality but also whether a brand is trustworthy. These values will help ensuring that companies continue enforcing human rights.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Start with setting standards and technology and design technology according to those standards. It should be made clearer what is meant by “responsibility” and “accountability” as the legal concept has different meanings in different regions.  The human rights framework is sufficient to address the current issues with algorithms, but we should extrapolate them to this new context. This will be key in ensuring trust from users of platforms. Therefore, users should be engaged and consulted when issues address by algorithms are impacting them.  Finally, we should not rush into regulation that could hamper innovation.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

IGF should continue being a forum for exchange of information and best practices. While the participants concluded that a broad set of stakeholders should remain engaged, their specific roles need to be further discussed. Some of the concrete topics that we need to continue addressing are:

  • how can we make the utilisation of algorithms really understandable for all those people involved?
  • how can we reconcile transparency with people's intellectual property rights in the private and commercial space?
  • what is the role of a government actor, the private sector and others?

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Ca 70 people.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 40-45 women.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session discussed how algorithms can both enforce and uncover bias in society. Gender biases are one example. It was noted that algorithms therefore should be transparent and be based on a legal system respecting human rights.


Updated: 26/11/2018 - 10:39
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): 

Workshop

 

- Title:

Well-being in the Digital Age (OECD Going Digital Project)

 

- Date & Time:

12 November, 10:30-12:00

 

- Organizer(s):

Molly Lesher, Carlos da Fonseca and Marc Rotenberg

 

- Chair/Moderator:

Molly Lesher

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Molly Lesher

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Speaker 1: Fabrice Murtin, OECD (male)
  • Speaker 2: Molly Lesher, OECD (female)
  • Speaker 3: Mónica Aspé, Ambassador of Mexico to the OECD (female)
  • Speaker 4: Carlos da Fonseca, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil (male)
  • Speaker 5: Claire Milne, Antelope Consulting (female)
  • Speaker 6: Valeria Milanes, Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council (female)
  • Speaker 7: Makoto Yokozawa, Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (male)
  • Speaker 8: Katie Watson, Internet Society, The Internet Society (female)

 

- Theme (as listed here):

Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet & the Environment; Internet for Development & SDGs

 

 

 

 

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

 

  • Connectivity underpins a positive and inclusive digital transformation.
  • Three issues were identified as being critical to promoting well-being in a technology rich environment: skills, trust and quality work.
  • The multi-stakeholder model was identified as essential to ensuring well-being in the digital age.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Well-being in the digital age is multi-faceted, and has varying ramifications for individuals and society as a whole. In particular, differences in quality access and connectivity persist across geography, while other factors like gender, age, income and level of education are often significant in determining the confident use of digital technologies. All panellists agreed that digital technologies could provide positive contributions for society, especially in terms of well-being, insofar as these technological tools are used appropriately provided that there is effective policy guidance. While many issues were mentioned, three stood out as being essential to ensuring well-being in the digital age.

 

First, skills were identified as one of the keys to making digital transformation positive and inclusive, and there was broad agreement that women and people of ethnic minorities are particularly impacted. Second, trust – including privacy, security and consumer protection – was identified as another important aspect to making digital transformation work for societal well-being. Indeed trust is earned when actions meet words, which is something that was widely agreed upon. As such, it was widely agreed that all stakeholders must work collaboratively in order to create a trustworthy and safe environment for the use of digital technologies and data. Third, quality work was identified as critical to promoting well-being in a technology-rich environment. In particular, participants highlighted that quality work is not just about a pay check, but about workers’ feelings of self-worth.

 

Participants agreed that ensuring that actors from bodies with diverse interests, from civil society to the business community, can help to ensure that policies are made with diverse and wide-ranging positive impacts. Ultimately, granting quality access and promoting the effective use of digital technologies across all portions of society will be a step closer towards ensuring well-being in an increasingly digital world.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

While the OECD work to measure well-being from a digital perspective was much appreciated, the complexity of such an exercise requires the international community to work together to continue to push the well-being measurement agenda forward. This requires co-operation and co-ordination by the international statistical community and beyond. Participants also noted the need to expand access to digital technologies to all aspects of society, including rural and remote communities and those in the developing world. However, the panellists also noted that the benefits of digital technologies come from their use, which are often predicated on having digital skills. Therefore, initial policy recommendations must be primarily be two-fold. First, to provide access to digital technologies and, second, to provide tools and create environments in which to acquire the necessary digital skills needed for digital transformation. This would promote a holistic digital transformation of society with the intent of minimal drawbacks on societal well-being, whilst also striving to dispel any negative repercussions caused by a digital divide between those that possess digital skills and those that do not.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

The panellists repeatedly mentioned the need to include many diverse communities and perspectives in the digital policymaking process, and affirmed the role of the multi-stakeholder process. To this end, the IGF eco-system can help to foster discussion and come to agreement on the cross-cutting issues associated with well-being in the digital age, including digital skills, trust and more. Moreover, it cannot be denied that, thanks to the United Nation’s wide-reaching convening power, the IGF’s geographical positioning at the UNESCO’s Headquarters in Paris this year meant that high-level officials and policy-makers were guaranteed to attend and therefore participate and foster progress on issues such as internet governance, which have proven to be so crucial in today’s digital transformation.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

55-60

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

20 (approximately 40%)

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The panellists underscored gender as a significant dimension that determines access to and the use of digital technologies, and noted that the digital gender divide constituted a major risk for well-being in the digital age. Other particular gender issues were discussed, including that men tend to work longer hours in digital intensive jobs than women. Conversely, however, it was also mentioned that digital transformation allows more women to access and leverage digital skills than ever before.

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

 

http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/topics/well-being/


Updated: 25/11/2018 - 05:06
Report:

IGF 2018 Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

Long Report Due: 23 November 2018

[sample report here]

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round Table - 90 Min

 

- Title: Balancing Cybersecurity, Human Rights & Economic Development

 

- Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 12:10 to 13:40

 

- Organizer(s):

Organizer 1: Carolin Weisser, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre
Organizer 2: Barbara Marchiori de Assis, Organization of American States
Organizer 3: Belisario Contreras, Organization of American States (OAS)
Organizer 4: Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International
Organizer 5: Amalia Toledo, Karisma Foundation

- Chair/Moderator:

Onsite Moderator: Kerry-Ann Barrett, Cybersecurity Policy Specialist, Cybersecurity Program, Organization of American States (OAS) (Female)

Online Moderator: Carolin Weisser Harris, Lead International Operations, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Female)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Matthew Griffin, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Male)

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Speaker 1: Lisa Vermeer, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Netherlands (Female)

Speaker 2: Prof William Dutton [intgovforum.org], Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Male)

Speaker 3: Claudio Cocorocchia, Acting Head of Information and Entertainment System Initiative, Global Leadership Fellow, in World Economic Forum. (Male)

Speaker 4: Angela Mckay, Senior Director, Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy, Microsoft (Female)

Speaker 5: Leandro Ucciferri, Lawyer and Researcher, ADC (Male)

 

 

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

Over all the panellist discussed a wide ranging issues.  Some of the discuss

1.       They addressed the relevance of balancing Cybersecurity, Human Rights and Economic Development issues and explored best practices applied in different regions and stakeholder groups.

2.       The panel explored the cross-sectional issues that should be discussed when considering economic development, multi-stakeholder involvement and human rights.

3.       They examined the fact that cybersecurity is one those topics that affect the ecosystem that supports development.

- 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…

There was general agreement from the panel that empowering digital citizens and rethinking how we engage on issues that have an impact on cybersecurity is critical.  There was also consensus on the need to have not just a vertical multistakeholder concept but an inclusive multi-disciplinary and wide-raging dialogue in order to have meaning policies.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

 

Some of the policy considerations were practical in nature and included:

·       Be aware that not everyone in the room is speaking the same language. Ensure everyone with the different background speaks to each other.  It was noted that a broad set of arguments brought about by a broad set of actors is best to ensure impact. As such actors need to work together to push and fight back against cyber threats.

·       It is important to have a broad inclusive dialogue to ensure that human rights considerations and economic development work in tandem.

·       Having a human rights perspective is not incompatible with the economic perspective on cybersecurity development.

·       Conversation between people, government and industry need to be managed to reflect rights and values in law.

·       You can implement security and human rights parallel, they're not exclusive. At the same time, there will be trade-offs and the trade-offs are something that the society has to be involved in in making helpful decisions to represent, again, the values of a particular geography and context.

 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

During the discussion some key concepts emerged which can be considered for future workshops:

·       Measuring the impact of cybersecurity incidents that affect civil society groups should inform cybersecurity policies;

·       Ecology of Games – each of the policy areas have a variety of stakeholders shaping the policy in other areas directly or inadvertently. The outcome of those efforts shape security.

·       Security and Human rights can operate in parallel.

·       Need to overcome the language barrier between the stakeholders in terms of ensuring everyone is talking about the same issue

·       Ethical development – Human rights should be built in by design to economic development plans and cybersecurity investment.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

There was approximately 42 participants.

 

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

·       Audience: 23 females, 19 Males

·       Panel: 3 Females, 3 Males

 

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

 

IGF 2018 Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

Long Report Due: 23 November 2018

[sample report here]

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round Table - 90 Min

 

- Title: Balancing Cybersecurity, Human Rights & Economic Development

 

- Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 12:10 to 13:40

 

- Organizer(s):

Organizer 1: Carolin Weisser, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre
Organizer 2: Barbara Marchiori de Assis, Organization of American States
Organizer 3: Belisario Contreras, Organization of American States (OAS)
Organizer 4: Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International
Organizer 5: Amalia Toledo, Karisma Foundation

- Chair/Moderator:

Onsite Moderator: Kerry-Ann Barrett, Cybersecurity Policy Specialist, Cybersecurity Program, Organization of American States (OAS) (Female)

Online Moderator: Carolin Weisser Harris, Lead International Operations, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Female)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Matthew Griffin, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Male)

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Speaker 1: Lisa Vermeer, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Netherlands (Female)

Speaker 2: Prof William Dutton [intgovforum.org], Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Male)

Speaker 3: Claudio Cocorocchia, Acting Head of Information and Entertainment System Initiative, Global Leadership Fellow, in World Economic Forum. (Male)

Speaker 4: Angela Mckay, Senior Director, Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy, Microsoft (Female)

Speaker 5: Leandro Ucciferri, Lawyer and Researcher, ADC (Male)

 

 

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

Over all the panellist discussed a wide ranging issues.  Some of the discuss

1.       They addressed the relevance of balancing Cybersecurity, Human Rights and Economic Development issues and explored best practices applied in different regions and stakeholder groups.

2.       The panel explored the cross-sectional issues that should be discussed when considering economic development, multi-stakeholder involvement and human rights.

3.       They examined the fact that cybersecurity is one those topics that affect the ecosystem that supports development.

- 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…

There was general agreement from the panel that empowering digital citizens and rethinking how we engage on issues that have an impact on cybersecurity is critical.  There was also consensus on the need to have not just a vertical multistakeholder concept but an inclusive multi-disciplinary and wide-raging dialogue in order to have meaning policies.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

 

Some of the policy considerations were practical in nature and included:

·       Be aware that not everyone in the room is speaking the same language. Ensure everyone with the different background speaks to each other.  It was noted that a broad set of arguments brought about by a broad set of actors is best to ensure impact. As such actors need to work together to push and fight back against cyber threats.

·       It is important to have a broad inclusive dialogue to ensure that human rights considerations and economic development work in tandem.

·       Having a human rights perspective is not incompatible with the economic perspective on cybersecurity development.

·       Conversation between people, government and industry need to be managed to reflect rights and values in law.

·       You can implement security and human rights parallel, they're not exclusive. At the same time, there will be trade-offs and the trade-offs are something that the society has to be involved in in making helpful decisions to represent, again, the values of a particular geography and context.

 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

During the discussion some key concepts emerged which can be considered for future workshops:

·       Measuring the impact of cybersecurity incidents that affect civil society groups should inform cybersecurity policies;

·       Ecology of Games – each of the policy areas have a variety of stakeholders shaping the policy in other areas directly or inadvertently. The outcome of those efforts shape security.

·       Security and Human rights can operate in parallel.

·       Need to overcome the language barrier between the stakeholders in terms of ensuring everyone is talking about the same issue

·       Ethical development – Human rights should be built in by design to economic development plans and cybersecurity investment.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

There was approximately 42 participants.

 

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

·       Audience: 23 females, 19 Males

·       Panel: 3 Females, 3 Males

 

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

 

 

 


Updated: 27/11/2018 - 00:28
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

 

- Title: Towards a Decentralized Internet Constitution?

 

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 16:40 to 18:10

 

- Organizer(s): Dennis Redeker, Mauro Santaniello, Francesco Pirro

 

- Chair/Moderator: Dennis Redeker

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Dennis Redeker

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Lisa Garcia, Foundation for Media Alternatives (female)
Speaker 2: Primavera De Filippi, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School (female)
Speaker 3: Suzor Nicolas, Queensland University of Technology (male)
Speaker 4: Guy Berger, UNESCO (male)
Speaker 5: Andrea Beccalli, ICANN (male)

 

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): DEMOCRACY

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

  1. Digital rights declarations and other documents written to advocate for human rights protection in a digital age ("digital constitutionalism") are proliferating locally and on the level of the nation-state. This moves agency and discourse in this field away from international and global fora of Internet governance (like IGF) toward more peripheral arenas of public policy. Across this fragmented constellation of initiatives, a common set of universal principles and rights can be identified, and further research and discussion should be encouraged on the topic.
  2. Another decentralizing tendency (that seems at first unrelated) is the development of a decentralised cryptographically organized infrastructure (e.g. blockchain technology). However, with its self-enforcing smart contracts, the technology may be a crucial location for contestations over which and how digital rights should be protected online (e.g. automated fines if data is leaked by a data collector). The discussion's outcome emphasized the need of a multistakeholder approach able to inform the design, the scope and the kind of authority embedded in design choices.
  3. These two developments, if taken together, create tensions: Advocacy for digital rights on the local level produces momentum for local realization of human rights on the Internet, while blockchain-based smart contracts have the potential to permeate (national) borders and entrench certain norms transnationally, ignoring whatever political communities have decided locally/nationally.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The discussion on digital constitutionalism and blockchain technology dealt with the role of the nation state, civil society and of multistakeholder governance bodies. While some contributions on blockchain stressed that a reliable central authority is important in a well-functioning governance system on blockchain, others said it is important to move on in a multistakeholder mode in order to include more and broader interests at the intersection of human rights and the development of emergent technologies like blockchain. It can be considered agreed broadly, that blockchain technology per se will not solve the challenges regarding human rights on the Internet.

 

Concerning digital constitutionalism, it has been highlighted that the variety of initiatives, with their own different perspectives and drafting processes, are social processes reflecting the tensions between, on the one hand, contingent and specific needs of power limitation and, on the other, the protection of a universal set of fundamental rights within a transnational network (cfr. UNESCO's Internet Universality Indicators).

 

A common issue underlying both the reasoning about blockchain technology and digital constitutionalism was represented by the kind of authority required to enforce human rights, while the issue of decentralisation - enabled by the blockchain or represented by recent initiatives of digital constitutionalism- was treated as an enabling, not a determinant, factor.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

While no concrete policy recommendations were agreed among the participants, there is this strong conviction that further discussion needs to be promoted around this topic. There was a comprehensive and inclusive discussion, but no specific human rights digressions were discussed in detail with regard to blockchain technologies. Consequently, more policy-oriented discussions should follow, e.g. focusing on one particular application or one particular human right.

A useful platform from which to start discussion about policy recommendations is represented by the 2017 UNESCO's work on multistakeholderism (van der Spuy, “What if we all governed the Internet? Advancing multistakeholder participation in Internet governance, UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom), which was briefly presented and distributed by one of the speakers. The work presents a useful framework to conceptualise a set of basic values for multistakeholder initiatives – including inclusion, diversity, transparency, equality, flexibility and relevance, privacy and security, accountability and legitimacy, responsiveness - and to operationalise them into meaningful indicators. It identifies eleven policy recommendations, which are broadly shared by workshop's participants.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

Since the IGF is a forum for policy debate, it will be the proper institutional setting in order to discuss human rights and new technologies both at a conceptual and a concrete level. The IGF ecosystem may provide room for the ongoing discussion, whose relevance is expected to dramatically increase in the next few years. The network of knowledge, interests and competencies the IGF is able to produce and feed, also beyond the annual meeting, represents a fundamental resource in order to develop a human rights-based approach to Internet governance and to the design of emerging technologies. The challenge faced by the IGF community with reference to the topics addressed by participants, is to rapidly elaborate clear and comprehensive recommendations and to gather around them political consensus.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

60 (onsite)

15 (remote)

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About half the participants were women; the audience showed great diverse across a number of factors.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The discussion included one contribution that dealt with the Feminist Principles for the Internet, a specific initiative to include critical gender-issues into the debate on human rights and governing principles online.

 

 


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 07:51
Report:

- Session Type: Roundtable

 

- Title:  Refugees digital rights :Necessities and Needs

 

- Date: 11 th Nov,2018

Time: 12:20 -1:20

 

- Organizer(s):

Egyptian Foundation For Refugees Rights (EFRR)

 African Civil Society on information Society (ACSIS)

 

- Chair/Moderator: Mr. Ian Brown

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

1. Mohamed Farahat(Male) Egyptian Foundation For Refugees Rights (EFRR) & African Civil Society on information Society (ACSIS)

2. Ms. Xianhong Hu (Female) (UNESCO)

3. Dr. Cisse Kane (Male) African Civil Society on information Society (ACSIS)

4. Aron Martain PhD Research Fellow in Data Ethics,Tilburg Law School

 

 

- Theme (as listed here):  Human Rights, Gender & Youth

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Refugees                                    

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

For refugees Connectivity is not a luxury. The digital rights are very important for refugees in host countries , to what extent the exited legal framework is relevant to ensure refugees digital rights ?

 

In education. Connectivity would enable refugees to take part in online training courses and access education remotely—and, for refugee students at the secondary and university levels, it will enable them to continue their disrupted education. Without connectivity, millions of displaced children won’t get the education to improve their skills and knowledge

 

In Livelihoods / self-reliance. Besides, Connectivity would make it much easier for refugees to create and sustain their own businesses, as well as make remote work possible, which will be particularly important in situations in which there are constraints on the right to work or limited opportunities in the local economy, and to what extent  access to internet could change the refugees life in host or resettlement countries.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

 

Mr Mohamed Farahat, Lawyer, Egyptian Foundation for Refugee Rights and African Civil Society on Information Society (ACSIS), said that the main challenge for refugees in any county is limited access to the Internet and to education, which makes it impossible for families to reunite. Access to the Internet is the last resort for displaced people to communicate about important issues and challenges in both the host and the county of origin. Farahat added that the one of main legal challenges in the same context is the impact of national digital crime legislation on the refugees international protection which could lead to deport refugees back to their country of origin which could put them in the riske of torture or and kill .  

 

Mr Ciss Kane, Chair, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS), stated that there is an ongoing debate about the relationship between the rights online and the rights offline, but, ‘all the rights offline should be also implemented online’. Kane noted that for refugees ‘the Internet is a luxury when in most of the cases they do not have clean water, toilets, cannot settle’. He suggested that the use of ICTs is probably the best way to ‘weight on the processes’ related to refugees in order to ‘make them have their own rights in all aspects’. The year 2019 will be ‘the year of refugees and displaced persons’. He reminded about the importance of access and cost-effectiveness, and the local content. ‘Sometimes they don't have a penny to have connection and they need to be in touch

 

Ms Xianhong Hu, Assistant Programme Specialist, UNESCO, noted that UNESCO is advocating for the Internet, fundamental principles, and information to be developed based on human rights that should be accessible by all. Hu noted that she thinks that digital rights need to be equally applied to refugees. ‘When a refugee comes to a country, they first have to ask for water and a shelter, but then they ask for a WiFi and a connection.’ She stated that the ICT and the Internet are central to satisfying refugees’ basic needs and address their well-being. She mentioned the following rights to keep in mind when we talk about refugees digital rights: freedom of expression, freedom of information, privacy and personal data protection. She said that barriers in using the Internet need to be removed for both women and children.

Mr Aaron K. Martin, PhD Research Fellow in Data Ethics, Tilburg Law School, joined the session via video link. He noted that it is crucial for refugees to be able to register for their own SIM card when in a foreign country, and to use bank cards. In Bangladesh, refugees are forbidden to have a SIM card and are even being imprisoned if found with one in their possession.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

1. Farahat  recommended ‘amending the 1951 Convention’ by adopting new instruments which would relate specifically to rights of  forced displaces people in connection to the digital rights.

Ms Xianhong  recommended that following rights to keep in mind when we talk about refugees digital rights: freedom of expression, freedom of information, privacy and personal data protection. She said that barriers in using the Internet need to be removed for both women and children.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

35-40 persons out of 45 available places in the room , the session had a full room by participants

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

60% women and 40 % men

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The gender issues has discussed during the session , Ms Xianhong  has shed lighted on this issues the main discussion point on that regard was about if there is specific statistic about the gender balance in context of refugees digital rights specially access to internet. The gender issues has covered during the session from other aspect when of audience spoke about the importance to consider  the livelihood component when speak about refugees digital rights , in this issue there was agree between the participants digital rights and access to internet is vital for refugees women specially for single mothers specially in the case of access to work being not allowed for refugees in host country , as women could start their own work and projects through internet , So the recommendation was it is very important to secure   access to internet for women refugees.  


Updated: 23/11/2018 - 11:47
Report:

Pre-Session Synthesis

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): debate (90min)

- Title: Net neutrality vs. 5G and new technological challenges

 

- Date & Time: November 13th, 2018/ 11:50am – 1:20pm

 

- Organizer(s):
Laura Létourneau (regulatory authority)
Jean Cattan (regulatory authority)

 

- Chair/Moderator:
Laura Létourneau (onsite moderator)
Jean Cattan (online moderator)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Jean Cattan

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Carol Anderson, AT&T - Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), female

Estelle Massé, Access Now - Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), female
Lisa Felton, Vodafone - Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), female
Luca Belli, FGV, Center for Technology & Society - Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), male

- Theme (as listed here): Technical & Operational Topics

- Subtheme (as listed here): Net neutrality

 

- [PRE-REPORT] Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • With 5G, Internet Service Providers have the technical capability to provide a broad range of qualities of service, tailored to the diverse requirements from vertical applications. Technologies such as network slicing and edge computing allow for the development of several innovations: tele-surgery, automated driving, virtual reality etc.
  • Net Neutrality is a set of fundamental principles guaranteeing non-discrimination in access to the internet. The impact of rules prohibiting or limiting certain practices on the development of cutting-edge broadband services as 5G is a subject of debate.
  • Assessing how Net Neutrality applies to 5G in some concrete use cases is the way of ensuring a sound development of this new technology. This debate should be the starting point of an ongoing dialogue between operators, regulators, civil society and academia.

- [REPORT] Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

- Operators are committed to maintaining an open internet. Operators participating to the debate don’t block or throttle traffic (except as permitted or required by law).

- According to some operators, there is no need to change the European Open Internet Regulation to deal with 5G. Only the BEREC guidelines need to be clarified or amended in some aspects. It is about evolution not revolution.

- Operators believe these changes are needed in order to safeguard the rights of consumers to choose the services they want to access and to maintain a diverse, open and innovative internet ecosystem.

- 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 is a broad agreement among regulators, civil society and operators that innovation, 5G and net neutrality shall be all promoted.

Net neutrality is enshrined in the constitutional design of the internet, i.e. a general purpose network. It puts intelligence at the edge and is now the basic foundation of democracy and competition.

There has been a discussion on what 5G will bring in addition to previous mobile generation. Operators tend consider that 5G will be quite distinct from previous technologies since it is not about going faster but having more control on many parameters. It may also offer a better reach to rural areas.

On the other hand, emphasis has been put on the fact that 5G, just as 4G, needs infrastructures and deployment. 5G may also take many years to be deployed. Also, the use cases accessible through 5G were already taken into account during the drafting of the Guidelines.

According to some operators, BEREC guidelines create barriers to innovation, by including prescriptive requirements or failing to address new issues – examples given include:

  • Defining “necessary” as a service which does not work on the best efforts internet, which fails to take into account the needs of specific services e.g. agriculture cases which may require higher latency and lower power, virtual reality which may require additional quality to prevent nausea in end users
  • Requiring operators to ensure specialised services will not impact current or future internet access services in advance, which may have the inefficient result of discouraging efficient sharing of network resources and which fails to take into account investment already made in 5G resources
  • Failing to take a technology neutral approach. For example by prohibiting sub-internet offers other than services limited by a device – but failing to make it clear that this does not prohibit other internet of things services , for example, machine to person services set up in the network on the request of the end user (e.g. connected car communicating to a service centre).
  • Addressing new issues such as the fact that this will be the first time that we move to software-managed networks to adjust to users’ needs. New players other than operators may also be able to control the quality delivered.

For the civil society:

  • 5G could be an extraordinary opportunity to increase connectivity but the practical sides need to be examined in more detailed before one can say whether and how it would impact net neutrality. Net neutrality is at the core of the functionning and availabibility of the internet, all new technology should adapt to it. Deploying 5G all over the territory will be extraordinary costly. For long, 5G may only be used as an updated 4G, to which the current framework is perfectly fit to regulate.
  • 5G uses cases presently put forward were already taken into account during the drafting of the Open Internet Regulation and BEREC guidelines and therefore can and should be developed in line with net neutrality. As we don't see the type of changes that would make the technology differ from what has been considered so far, it is more to 5G to adapt to net neutrality, and not the other way round. We need to examine how much these services are so new that we need to rethink the whole structures that has been agreed upon.
  • The framework already makes sufficient room for 5G to be deployed. All frameworks allow differentiated treatment as long as this is not discriminatory, meaning as long as this does not target specific users, services, or applications.  So you can utilize the full potential 5G shaping traffic.  Article 3.3 already states that discriminatory reasonable traffic management is feasible as long it is transparent, it doesn't target specific services and it is justified by the specific nature of the traffic. It is the same thing in Brazil, where  differentiation is possible as long as it is compatible with international standards, meaning IETF standards (RFC 6057 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6057).

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

What is now needed is a common understanding of use cases on one side and of the framework on the other. This is all the more important at a time when the BEREC guidelines and/or the European Open Internet Regulation will be put under examination.

While for operators 5G appears as an opportunity to clarify the standards already integrated in the framework, representatives of civil society and academia highlighted that the framework is technologically neutral and that it is up to 5G to be brought in line with the guidelines. All speakers however agreed that it matters to have more guidance from regulators for operators when offering new services that enable innovation across a range of industrial and consumer sectors.

There was an agreement among all speakers that the EU net neutrality law is a positive framework that should not be re-open or re-negotiated. 5G can be delivered in line with the EU Regulation.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

A multistakeholder approach to the discussion and ongoing review of the BEREC Guidelines would make them more robust, adaptable and future proof.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 80/90 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Mostly male (other than on the panel)

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

No


Updated: 19/11/2018 - 12:12
Report:

Date & Time:
November 12th, 2018; 10:40-12:10
 
Organizer(s):
Steffen Leidel (DW Akademie)
Lena Nitsche (DW Akademie)
Julius Endert (DW Akademie)

Chair/Moderator:
Steffen Leidel (DW Akademie)
 
Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Julius Endert (DW Akademie)
Lena Nitsche (DW Akademie)

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
Osama Manzar (Digital Empowerment Foundation),male
Sarah Kiden (Mozilla Foundation), female
Mary Rose Ofiango (Women Empowerment Phillipines, technocal community, female
Talal Raza (Media Matters for Democracy), male
Daniel O'Maley (Center for International Media Assistance), male
 
Theme:

 Digital inclusion & Accessibility

Subtheme:
Digital Capacity Building
 
Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
- Digital inclusions means more than technical access to the Internet. In order to understand the barries and drivers for citizens participating in the digital spehere, you need to gain deep insights into various fields influencing digital inclusion.
- DW Akademie developed a model of digital inclusion consisting of five thematic fields: Access, Digital Rights, Media and Journalism, Society and Innovation that describes more than 100 attributes to assess digital inclusion on a country basis.With the help of the model, we can highlight challnges to digital inclusion in the five respective fields.
- Points for discussion: What are approaches to overcome challenges regarding digital inclusion in the future? What are the neglected aspects that keep people from participating in the digital sphere?

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

There was a broad support of the view that it is not enough to support access to the Internet, people need to have a meaningful access that can change their life for the better. Meaningful access is seen as being connected to media and information literacy, quality content and a free media environment. Panelists also noted that digital inclusion can lead to exclusion and mentioned that when digital literacy programmes are being introduced, those who haven’t got access already, won’t benefit from it. 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.  Promising solutions included community networks, public broadband access, flexible spectrum allocation, consumer focused initiatives, capacity building, universal design and multistakeholder approaches.  Participatnts discussed that issues influencing digital inclusion are mutually influencing each other, for example in some countries aspects of media sustainability - for example special licensing fees for bloggers - could cut down independent voices and lead to self-sensorship of users. That is why the multi-stakeholder model was agreed to be the most promising solution to discuss issues of digital inclusion. 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Digital inclusion is multifacted, it involves many stakeholder and the issues that lead to digital inclusion vary between countries. With regards to the many overlapping issues and thematic fields involved, panellists and participants agreed that the multi-stakeholder model should be the method to be followed. Short-sighted solutions for digital inclusion might lead to digital exclusion in the end.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 80 participants

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

50 % women, 50% men

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

In the topic of digital inclusion, gender-related issues were seen as a cross-cutting issue relevant to issues such as internet access, digital security – especially for female journalists. Also cyber mobbing was discussed as an important barrier towards more digital inclusion of women.

Relevant links:

DW Akadmeie project #speakup barometer that assesses aspects of digital participation and digital inclusion worldwide: www.dw.com/barometer

 

 


Updated: 28/11/2018 - 10:29
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round table 

- Title: WS #156 What does the data say? Analyzing the Gender Digital Divide

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 09:00 to 10:30

- Organizer(s): 
- Organizer 1: Claire Sibthorpe, GSMA
- Organizer 2: Sharada Srinivasan, University of Pennsylvania    
- Organizer 3: Ursula Wynhoven, International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

- Chair/Moderator:
    - Onsite Moderator: Judith Mariscal
    - Online Moderator: Sharada Srinivasan

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
- Muge Haseki 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
- Speaker 1: Aileen Agüero, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
- Speaker 2: Alison Gillwald, Civil Society, African Group
- Speaker 3: Muge Haseki, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
- Speaker 4: Claire Sibthorpe, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
- Speaker 5: Helani Galpaya, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

Some key messages from the discussion were the following:
1.    There is a gender gap in phone ownership and Internet use in countries of Asia and Africa such as Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Rwanda and Mozambique; according to the After Access survey, it exceeds 30%. However, regarding the urban-rural gap, South American countries also show large gaps which indicates that there are more challenges besides the gender dimension. In this sense, it is important to recognize and identify the importance of equality in the access and use of the Internet for social and economic development of groups with disadvantages, in this case women and their adequate inclusion in the contemporary world. In addition, these gaps mask deeper issues that must be studied considering additional methods such as qualitative research.
2.    Data analysis at the regional level shows that education and income are important determinants of gender inequality in Internet use. This would indicate that women are less likely to use this service, which is further supported by the findings that women lag behind men in using the internet for various purposes such as social networks or transport and e-commerce applications. In short, people with higher levels of income and education are more likely to be online in these regions, besides other factors such as social or cultural norms. 
3.    The data shows that it is important to work in providing an adequate infrastructure that allows to expand coverage, as well as to focus on barriers to use the Internet such as affordability. In this sense, case studies show potential in providing insights on the challenges and lessons from grassroots projects that are currently deployed in the field.
- 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…

During the panel, some discussions emerged about topics with great relevance, such as intersectionality, skills and cultural factors that contribute to digital inequality.
First, some people indicated that the non-binary conceptions of gender should be considered, that is, people who have a different gender identity  that is not  masculine or feminine. In other words, it is important to go beyond the binary gender conceptions and not only focus on inequality between men and women.
Traditional binary gender indicators also tended to treat women as a homogeneous group, whereas from an access, and beyond access perspective poor men and women were more likely to have issues in common, than women across different income and education levels.
In the discussion it was agreed that gender should be seen as a transversal issue, with the requirement of the cooperation of multiple actors to face the challenges of each particular reality.
Another debate developed as a consequence of the first discussion. There was broad support for the opinion that intersectionality is relevant to understanding the different levels of marginalisation of people and its effect on the use of the Internet. Thereby, intersectionality helps to separate more accurately the different realities in which people find themselves and provides better insights into the policy intervention required to redress digital exclusion. 
Finally, some of the methodological issues were raised with regards to very different claims about gender inequality. The importance of demand side surveys was identified as the only way to move beyond descriptive statistics which besides often not being accurate, in their national aggregation mask national and other inequalities within categories of people.  Nationally representative surveying enabled the modelling of data that could reveal the underlying factors determining inequality.  However, there are many questions that cannot be answered by quantitative methods. The challenges and importance of assessing non-quantifiable  factors, such as culture in  explaining digital inequality  was raised and the importance of qualitative methods better able to elicit this evidence highlighted. 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]
Some suggestions for policy recommendations are:
1.    Consider the elaboration of quantitative and qualitative research where either do not exist, because they are complementary and necessary to provide more holistic explanation for digital inequality.
2.    Keep in mind what the drivers of digital inequality are and what women and men with particular characteristics experience, because neither is a homogeneous group.
3.    Understand the dangers of ICT use for women; for example, harassment or some type of online violence against women.
4.    Examine and study the demand side of ICT, not only access and use, but also other factors, such as digital literacy or education, which are determinants for digital inclusion and the reduction of digital gender inequality.
5.    Analyse the stimulants of the demand of ICT devices, such as the reduction of taxes or tariffs of the Internet, mobile phones, etc.; in such a way that the income barrier can be reduced and both men and women can connect to the digital world, as well as the reduction of the gender gap in Internet access.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

The issue of gender and, particularly, gender inequality online should be considered as a reflection of offline structural inequalities, that is, inequalities according to income, education, geographical location, etc.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 
    30

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
Impossible to determine but predominantly women.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words] Focus of the session.

In particular, the relevant gender issues in the session discussed were the consideration of non-binary gender both for analysis purposes as well as for policy recommendations. 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):
www.afteraccess.net
 


Updated: 02/11/2018 - 23:52
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): workshop

- Title: Information disorders: towards digital citizenship

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 16:40 to 18:10

- Organizer(s):

  • Internet Society France (Lucien M. CASTEX, Francesca Musiani)
  • Savoir*Devenir (Divina FRAU-MEIGS, Pascale Garreau) 
  • UN Youth Coalition on Internet Governance / Sunium (Nadia Tjahja)
  • Tencent (Liyun Han)

- Chair/Moderator: Lucien Castex

  • Online Moderator: Francesca Musiani, Virginija Balciunaite

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

  • Rapporteur: Pascale Garreau

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Speaker 1: Emmanuel ADJOVI, Male, Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, Intergovernmental Organization, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
  • Speaker 2: Denis Teyssou, Male, Agence France Presse, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
  • Speaker 3: Lemrini Amina, Female, Haute Autorité de la communication audiovisuelle, Government, African Group
  • Speaker 4: Paula Forteza, Female, French Member of Parliament, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
  • Speaker 5: Villano QIRIAZI, Male, Conseil de l’Europe, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization
  • Speaker 6: Liyun Han, Male, Tencent, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group

- Theme (as listed here): Media & Content

- Subtheme (as listed here): Fakenews

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1) We need a transdisciplinary and a collaborative approach to tackle information disorders.

2) Information disorders require both to deploy educational measures alongside technological ones, in particular a hands-on approach.

3) Education should include technical and social digital literacy skills with the aim to increase public awareness.


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 18:00
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

[sample report here]

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

 

- Title: Accountability for Human Rights: Mitigate Unfair Bias in AI

 

- Date & Time: 13 November 2018.  09:00 – 10:30

 

- Organizer(s): Bernard Shen, Microsoft Corporation

 

- Chair/Moderator: Bernard Shen and Camille Vaziaga, Microsoft Corporation

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Bernard Shen, Microsoft Corporation

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Speaker 1: Scott Campbell, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Speaker 2: David Reichel, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
Speaker 3: Layla El Asri, Microsoft Corporation
Speaker 4: Wafa Ben-Hassine, Access Now
Speaker 5: Sana Khareghani, Office of Artificial Intelligence, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), HMG

 

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): “Internet & Societal Challenges”; “Gender Equality”; and “Reduced Inequalities”

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

·        Technology can help detect unfair bias and human rights violations.

·        Build trust with people impacted by AI through transparency -- designing AI that includes explanation of its recommendations (e.g., characteristics that influence the AI recommendation or prediction).

·        Important not to leave out parts of the world from the benefits of AI (e.g., due to lack of access to the internet, etc.)   

 

 

 

- 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 consensus on the importance of a multi-sectorial and multi-stakeholder approach.

 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

·        Importance of conducting human rights impact assessments.

·        States actors have a higher duty to protect human rights than non-state actors.  Therefore, state actors’ use of AI (e.g., in law enforcement and criminal justice) need to meet a far greater duty of care and responsibility.

·        Peer-learning: creating an environment in which human rights can be discussed among peers (e.g., peer-to peer programs for companies).

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

·        On-going multi-stakeholder dialog, collaboration, and relationship/trust building is critical.

·        Conferences tend to segregate into those for policy experts and those for data scientists.  Data scientists are investing a lot of research on how the science can help humans better address unfair bias or other risks.  We need more cross-pollination, dialog and understanding between the two communities.

 

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

130

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

Approximately half.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

Much of the discussion on unfair bias used gender bias (as well as age discrimination) as the context (e.g., including bias in job hiring, and insurance premiums).


Updated: 29/11/2018 - 09:33
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Panel – 60 minutes

- Title: Multi-stakeholding cybersecurity in Africa

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 17:20 to 18:20

- Organizer(s):

Anri van der Spuy, Research ICT Africa, Civil Society, African Group, female

Enrico Calandro, Research ICT Africa, Civil Society, African Group, male

- Chair/Moderator:  Enrico Calandro

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Anri van der Spuy

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Koliwe Majama, APC, Civil Society Organisation, African Group, female

Speaker 2: Michael Nelson, Cloudfare, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), male

Speaker 3: William Dutton, Oxford Martin School, Academia, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Male

Speaker 4: Matthew Shears, Global Partners Digital, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), male

- Theme: Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 - Subtheme: CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

  • The successful implementation of a collaborative model for cybersecurity strategy development and implementation resides in agile adaptability, transparency, and trusted information sharing among and between all participations;
  • Cybersecurity collaborations should display both vertical and horizontal collaboration between stakeholders, be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and be sufficiently  flexible in order to adapt alongside evolving cyber risks and technologies.
  • Participation should extend not only to public and private sector entities who tend to own and control critical information infrastructure, but also stakeholders from other sectors (e.g. the banking and finance sectors, business process outsourcing (BPO), health, tourism, energy sectors) and non-for profit stakeholder groups (e.g. the technical community, academia, and civil society)

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The session was moderated by Dr Enrico Calandro, Senior Researcher, Research ICT Africa (RIA).

Ms Anri van der Spuy, Associate, Research ICT Africa, talked about the why cybersecurity is a particular concern at RIA and in Africa, highlighting that there is an increasing interest in cybersecurity in Africa. This could be attributed to governments increasingly realising how central the Internet is to economic development. She noted that challenges in Internet governance also apply to cybersecurity, hence the need for fast response rates, expertise, flexibility and resources. Generally, few countries have cybersecurity strategies and many citizens lack education and digital literacy skills. She mentioned that the nature of the cyber environment means that it is difficult to deal with cyber risks as governments are involved to protect public interest and private sector owns a lot of technological infrastructure.

Ms Spuy shared research conducted by RIA on collaborating models for cybersecurity in Mauritius. According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Global Cybersecurity Index 2017, Mauritius is ranked as the top country in Africa and has become a regional hub for cybersecurity. Findings from the research show an improvement in public-private partnerships though still facing shortcomings, some parties being more dominant than others, the need for broader participation and no mention of digital rights.

Provisional policy recommendations include flexibility, transparency, information sharing, descriptive rather than prescriptive arrangements and involving stakeholders who find it difficult to participate and are vulnerable to cyber harm.

Responding to Dr Calandro's question on the need for multistakholder collaboration in the cybersecurity domain, Prof William Dutton, Oxford Martin Fellow, The Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, said that the Mauritius example shared was a great example for collaboration. He however noted that there are a lot of criticisms to the multistakholder model and one of the complaints is about limited communication, yet cybersecurity capacity building involves communication. He highlighted that the Global Cybersecurity Center is setting up hubs in different parts of the world in order to scale up. Prof Durron added that the security discussion is often removed from reality and as such, the people discussing do not know anything about users or the developing world.

When asked if the multistakholder is emerging in practice, Mr Arthur Gwagwa, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT), mentioned that policy formulation in Africa is half-hazard.  He added that Internet governance (IG) in most cases is running parallel to cybersecurity such that IG issues are discussed in public while cybersecurity discussions often do not involve everyone. He emphasised the need for different approaches to different threat models because different threats lead to different ideas of harm.

Ms Koliwe Majama, Consultant, Association for Progressive Communications (APC), mentioned that there are no frameworks for encouraging civil society engagement in cybersecurity in Africa, and the law-making process is not always clear. She referred to the African Union Article 27 that would generally be categorised as multistakeholder, but Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), are not inclusive. She gave an example of the Zimbabwe CERT which had mostly government/defence and state security but no technical, women's/children's rights representatives. She concluded that civil society needs to ensure that the end-user is being represented and that the discussion is inclusive.

When asked if capacity building is an effective tool for multistakholder participation, Mr Matthew Sheers, Director, Cyber, Global Partners Digital (GPD), mentioned that GPD undertakes programs to build cybersecurity capacity in Latin America, Africa and other developing regions. He referred to GPD's recent report on mulltistakholder approaches to national cybersecurity strategy development, which had been done in 4 countries: Mexico, Chile, Kenya and Ghana. He acknowledged that the key recommendations raised by RIA match with GPD. He noted that in many countries, multistakeholder only includes government and the private sector, but there is need to work across stakeholders and team with particular groups like the technical community.

Mr Michael Nelson, Tech Strategy, Cloudflare, mentioned that Cloudflare protects websites by filtering content coming to them, for example botnets, and distributing content from websites across 150 centres, 9 of which are in Africa. He encouraged the need to build the Information Technology (IT) consultant industry in the content and allow foreign companies to invest.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

The following policy recommendations were made:

  • The successful implementation of a collaborative model for national cybersecurity strategies resides in agile adaptability, transparency, and trusted information-sharing among all participants;
  • Cybersecurity collaborations should display both vertical (e.g., between overseeing organisations and other stakeholders) and horizontal (e.g., between peer stakeholders) collaboration between stakeholders, be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and be sufficiently flexible in order to adapt alongside evolving cyber risks and technologies;
  • Participation should extend not only to public and private sector entities who tend to own and control critical information infrastructure, but also stakeholders from other sectors (e.g. the technical community, the banking and finance sectors, business process outsourcing (BPO), health, tourism, energy sectors) and not-for-profit stakeholder groups (e.g. academia and civil society);
  • Special steps must be taken to involve stakeholders who could find it difficult to participate or who are more vulnerable to cyber harm, including civil society organisations and marginalised communities who may be more at risk of cyber threat;
  • Not only commercial interests should drive private sector stakeholders to participate in collaborative cybersecurity effort. Also, the private sector should innovate and mitigate threats, building security into applications and systems along with the need for raising awareness.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Approximately 60 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Approximately 2/3 women.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

https://researchictafrica.net/2018/11/08/igf-panel-discussion-on-collabo...

https://dig.watch/sessions/multistakeholding-cybersecurity-africa


Updated: 27/11/2018 - 17:58
Report:

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

Title: WS #172 Accessibility Improved: building inclusive societies with AI

Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 11:50 to 13:20

Organizer(s): 

  • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS);
  • Association for Accessibility and Equality, Kenya;   
  • Latin American Internet Association (ALAI), Uruguay.

Chair/Moderator:

  • Ms Carolyn Nguyen, Director, Technology Policy, Microsoft - private sector, WEOG

Rapporteur/Notetaker:

  • Ms Sophie Tomlinson, ICC BASIS - private sector, WEOG

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Ms Olga Cavalli, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina - government, GRULAC
  • Ms Susanna Laurin, CEO, Funka, Sweden (remotely) - private sector, WEOG
  • Mr Gonzalo Navarro, Executive Director, Latin American Internet Association - private sector, GRULAC
  • Mr Nobuhisa Nishigata, Economist / Policy Analyst - Artificial Intelligence, OECD - International Organization, APAC
  • Mr Christopher E. Wilson, Senior Manager, Public Policy, Amazon - private sector, WEOG

Theme (as listed here): Digital inclusion and accessibility

Subtheme (as listed here): Persons with disabilities

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

15% of world’s population have some form of disability and 80% of them live in the developing world. Participants considered the potential of AI to create solutions for new opportunities. Many shared examples of how AI is assisting people with disabilities and other marginalized groups to access technology and establish or improve their professional, educational and human connections. Key messages emphasised a need for:

  • Greater awareness on how AI can be used to enrich people’s lives.
  • Public private partnerships to ensure diffusion of technology for diversity and inclusiveness
  • Holistic policy frameworks to support cross-cutting technical, social, cultural, economic, and governance issues.

If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:                 

The session was opened with two videos, set as examples of capabilities developed by Amazon and Microsoft that can assist people with disabilities.

Panelists gave a short presentation before the floor was opened to the public.

Nobuhisa Nishigata, Economist and Policy Analyst at the Artificial Intelligence Division for Digital Economy, OECD

The OECD is currently working on the development of principles on Artificial Intelligence with an expert group, to foster trust in the technology and its wider adoption in society. Initial findings of the OECD show that the investment in AI is led by China and the U.S. Investment by startups and small companies has also been rapidly growing.

In terms of policy development, the OECD is preparing a framework, taking into account the applications of the technology, the need for innovation and the impact on work . Mr Nishigate noted that over 25 countries already have national strategies for AI, and there are many private initiatives working on ethical principles (UNESCO, the IEEE, the Partnership for AI, or Future Life).

Olga Cavalli, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina

With 80% of the people with disabilities living in the developing world, this is a specially challenging topic for developing countries. There are also challenges for developing countries to make AI a priority. Efforts to enhance the use of technologies for disabilities can sometimes lag behind. Accessibility needs to be part of an overall holistic policy framework. Regulations in Argentina can incorporate “accessibility by design”. When the tools and technology are designed, it is important to consider access to health, education and mobility with the disability in mind.

Ms Cavalli spoke of TifloLibros, a project that created the first digital library of spanish language audio books for the blind, highlighting the value of  multistakeholder partnerships (the project is coordinated by a local NGO with support from  the Argentinian government) to provide innovative solutions. At the same time, she underlined the need for education and skilling to support the wide use of these technologies.

She also noted the Marrakesh Treaty as a good example of how to balance intellectual property rights and also ensure content is available for humanitarian use or people with disabilities.

Gonzalo Navarro, Executive Director, Latin American Internet Association

The business community in Latin America is aware of the accessibility necessities, recognize their potential to create better conditions for people.The private sector is responding to the need for accessibility by creating new technologies, devices and services for people with disabilities. Although there is still a gap in terms of accessibility, technology is already available. There is ongoing research in Latin America on how technology is going to have an impact on the workforce in the future.

ALAI announced that a report will be launched by next year, with a special focus on AI and how it can improve the conditions of accessibility in Latin America.

Christopher E. Wilson, Senior Manager, Public Policy, Amazon

Mr Wilson noted how Amazon approaches AI and accessibility through “accessibility by design”. He explained how, upon embarking on a new project - AI related or not - the objective of Amazon is to enforce a customer-centric approcah, to focus on their needs, what is good for the customer and whether it improves their lives. One of the introductory videos showed how Amazon’s “Alexa” can be used to improve the lives of those with autism or similar disabilities. Mr Wilson alse presented “Voice View”, a speech-to-text learning technology used in Kindle devices and tablets to enable blind people to access material.

The “Partnership on AI” was noted as a good example of cooperation between industry and other stakeholders, coming together to develop best practice standards and constructive thinking about AI and to demystify the concept of AI. Mr Wilson highlighted the value of industry and other interested parties coming together to talk about AI in order to create shared understanding and embrace the potential of this set of technologies, to further enable AI innovation, rather than constrain it.

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 view that greater awareness and understanding is needed on how AI works and the opportunities it can bring for well-being and development. Many indicated that AI has the potential to empower everyone and is an effective tool in supporting people with disabilities by creating new opportunities for work, supporting human relationships and integration into the society. 

Some indicated that OECD analysis provides a good starting point for considering AI principles with the goal to promote trust and well-being overall. The OECD framework includes pillars such as access, use, innovation, jobs, society, trust, market openness. More than 25 countries have developed an AI strategy on how to address AI. Others noted the challenges for developing countries to make AI a priority.

Since regulation does not develop at the pace of innovation, participants agreed that partnerships are important to stay future orientated and connect supply with demand.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

A holistic policy framework is necessary to address challenges including steps to support:

Skills and education: Training and capacity building is important to ensure meaningful access.

Availability of content: Marrakesh Treaty is a good example of how to balance intellectual property and also ensure content is available for humanitarian use or people with disabilities.

Design: Products can encompass diversity and accessibility by design.

Partnerships: Multistakeholder exchanges promote constructive thinking and de-mystify the notion of what AI is and how it can be used.

Common understanding: Understanding benefits and challenges AI poses is necessary to have evidence-based approaches.

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Since the IGF brings together different countries and stakeholders there was a suggestion for IGF to continue to discuss how AI can be used to encourage inclusiveness and diversity. There was a proposal for IGF to organise a Best Practice Forum on AI and disabilities. This will create awareness of the issue and support opportunities for further dialogues.

Please estimate the total number of participants.

60 (maximum room capacity, standing room only)

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

35

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The research community is working with the private sector to address concerns about bias (including gender) to make sure that datasets are representative. Technical solutions can also be proposed to ensure sure groups such as women are represented.


Updated: 08/11/2018 - 20:37
Report:

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Birds of a Feather (90 minutes)

- Title: NN and beyond: ensuring freedom of choice online

- Date & Time: November the 13th, 2018/ 10:10am – 11:40 am

- Organizer(s):

Joseph Manoharan, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Anaïs Le Gouguec, Arcep

- Chair/Moderator:

Vincent Toubiana (in-site moderator)

Helene Bout (online moderator)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Boris Gartner

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Sunil Bajpai, male, Government, Asia-Pacific Group

Philippe Tousignant, male, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Anaïs Le Gouguec, female, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Amba Kak, female, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

Thomas Lohninger, male, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

- Theme (as listed here): Technical and Operational Topics

- Subtheme (as listed here): NET Neutrality

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • A principle-based approach is not sufficient when it comes to preserving an open internet. Monitoring, measuring, collecting data, enforcing rules and coordinating at regional or global scale is required.
  • National frameworks on net neutrality (notably on traffic management practices and differential pricing practices) may differ, but all reinforce the idea that network should be conceived and deployed as open and as a common good.
  • Beyond net neutrality and rules imposed to ISPs, many restrictions to an open internet have been identified. Some measures may for instance bring more fluidity and provide freedom of choice to users when it comes to app stores and devices.

Updated: 14/11/2018 - 17:34
Report:

Session Type: Workshop/ Round-table

Title: Artificial Intelligence for Human Rights and SDGs

Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 11:20 to 12:50

Organizer(s): UNESCO

Chair/Moderator: Mr. Guy Berger and Mr. Indrajit Banerjee, UNESCO

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Ms Xianhong Hu and Ms Macarena Rivera Lam, UNESCO

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

  • Mr. Marko Grobelnik, Co-Chair, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Jožef Stefan Institute (Slovenia)
  • Ms. Nnenna Nwakanma, Interim Policy Director at the World Wide Web Foundation (Nigeria)
  • Ms. Silvia Grundmann, Head of Media and Internet Division and Secretary to CDMSI, Council of Europe
  • Mr. Thomas Hughes, Executive Director at ARTICLE 19 (UK)
  • Ms. Liudmyla Romanoff, Data Privacy and Data Protection Legal Specialist, UN Global Pulse (USA) (Remote)
  • H. E. Mr Federico Salas Lotfe, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Delegate of Mexico to UNESCO (México)
  • Ms. Elodie Vialle, Head of Journalism & Technology Desk at Reporters Without Borders (France)

Theme: Emerging Technologies

Subtheme: Artificial Intelligence

Key messages of the discussion

Fostering global, multi-stakeholder, open and inclusive mechanisms to address the key issues surrounding AI, particularly the development of AI technologies and in the formulation of global AI policy, human rights and ethical standards and norms

Creating opportunities for collaboration on the research, learning and development of AI technologies

Harnessing the development of AI technologies in a way that:

  • It contributes to the achievement of democracy, peace and the Sustainable Development Goals
  • It avoids exacerbating existing inequalities and increasing the technical and digital divide

The discussion

Speakers agreed on the fact that AI has great potential to foster open and inclusive societies; to promote openness in education and scientific processes, digital inclusion, and cultural diversity; to contribute to the strengthening of democracy, peace and help achieve SDGs; while pointing out that AI technology could also exacerbate inequalities and increase the digital divide.

The group also discussed the importance of the ROAM principles to encompass the development of AI and other new technologies. In particular, speakers underlined the issue of access and data openness and protection as a few of the main challenges in the development of AI policy.

A panelist raised the importance of using AI for the best of humanity and to challenge the worst in humanity.

Panelists insisted on the importance of data (and of data governance) in the context of the development of AI technologies, as the “blood” feeding intelligence to AI systems.

Policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward

The group discussed the importance of developing regulation strategies and initiatives on AI at the very outset (now), in order to maximize benefits and minimize risks.

Speakers underlined the importance of strengthening and promoting alliances among stakeholders, including governments, civil society and the private sector.

The group also pointed out UNESCO as the better-placed institution for putting the development of AI and new technologies in the rights framework.

A speaker addressed the importance of fostering investment in AI infrastructure (for quality data, better Internet connectivity, and data protection).

The panelists mentioned the importance of formulating a human-centered ethical framework to guide the development of AI technologies.

Ideas with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress

A participant suggested promoting the delayed deployment of AI technology, to better address AI policy at the outset.

The importance of the availability of free, accessible and open data, as well as the need to work towards data integrity and the protection of privacy.

A speaker underlined the importance of putting human rights and SDGs into the focus of AI-related discussion.

Estimate number of participants: 200

Estimate percentage of women present: 50%. The panel itself was gender balanced.

Gender issues

The session did not directly address related to gender. However, several speakers brought a number of gender issues to the table, inasmuch as they were related to the context of the discussion.

For instance, a speaker mentioned that gender-based discrimination and inequality offline come online, in the form of physical or oral shutdowns, etc., and that one thing to keep in mind is the fact that AI technologies to which women have access are usually developed by middle-aged, White men.


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 09:43
Report:

Session Type: Workshop

Title: Preventing Youth from Online Radicalization leading to Violent Extremism

Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 15:00 to 16:30

Organizer: UNESCO

Chair/Moderator: Mr. Boyan Radoykov, UNESCO

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Jaco du Toit, UNESCO

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Ms. Chafica Haddad Grenada Immediate past IFAP Chair Female
Mr. Marc Hecker France Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI) Male
Ms. Lillian Nalwoga Uganda Internet Society (ISOC) Female
Mr. Saddem Jebali Tunisia Net MED Male
Ms. Divina Frau-Meigs France Universite la Sorbonne Female

Theme: Human Rights, Gender & Youth

Subtheme: Internet and Societal Challenges

Key messages of the discussion

  1. Studies of cases of terrorists using the internet show that the Internet is used in four ways as a tool for radicalization: as a radical library, as a recruitment platform, as a means of communication and as a tool to plan attacks.
  2. In order to counter the use of the Internet for radicalization, strategies or policies are to be designed, implemented and monitored addressing the phenomena.These strategies or policies can foresee activities related to gather proof about the issue, engaging in counter-messaging, blocking or deleting content and engaging in media and information literacy.
  3. Youth initiatives designed by youth for youth, that give young people the tools that allow them to resist manipulation linked to social media and other digital means are to be developed and rolled out.

The discussion

The discussants highlighted the importance of continued conclusive research and sensitization on the issue of online radicalization and the use of the internet.  The absence of reliable data, the difficulties in reaching targeted audiences, and terminology used, were highlighted as factors that hamper adequate documentation of its causes and effects on society.  While discussants highlighted that some governments implement measures for preventing radicalization leading to violence, more is to be done to develop such strategies and implement these initiatives.  Some countries apply regulation in the field of online violent extremism, but discussions were not conclusive if regulation is the most efficient way to deal with the phenomena.  Participants and discussants highlighted the importance of involving youth, building on existing best practices and empowering women to deal with online radicalization leading to violent extremism. Media and information literacy initiatives were particularly highlighted as an important sustainable strategy to deal with manipulation linked to social media and other digital means.

Policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward

  1. Policy makers should define the problem of online violent extremism in a clear way in order to assure online safety and security but also not intrude on basic rights of citizens;
  2. In designing measures to counter online radicalization leading to violent extremism, young people, civil society and government institutions are to work together in designing, implementing and monitoring sustainable and holistic strategies;
  3. Policy makers are encouraged to engage in a range of media and information literacy initiatives as a sustainable approach to address online violent extremism.

Ideas with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress

The importance of multistakeholderism was underscored during the session, with specific emphasis of youth participation and the delicate relationship between civil society and governments in some countries.

In addressing the question of online violent extremism it is important not to intrude on the privacy of citizens, while at the safe time assuring a safe online environment.  As one panellist remarked, Internet as double-edged sword.

Several policy makers, alongside various stakeholders are engaging in developing approaches to deal with online violent extremism and these best practices can be duplicated in more countries. 

Estimate number of participants: 100

Estimate percentage of women present: 50%

Gender issues

While the panel of representatives represented 3 women and 2 men, the importance of constructing a counter narrative against violent extremism targeting women was highlighted as a good practise in addressing gender issues.


Updated: 24/11/2018 - 05:50
Report:

IGF 2018 Report

“Local content: a unique opportunity for underserved regions”

- Session Title: Local content: a unique opportunity for underserved regions

- Date: 14 November 2018

- Time: 10:10 – 11:40

- Session Organizer:

Emmanuel ADJOVI , International Organization of La Francphonie

khouloud Dawahi, UN MYCG (Civil Society)

- Chair/Moderator:

In-person moderator: Christine Arida, NTRA, Egypt

Remote moderator: Komi Nuga, Academia 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Rachida Fakhri, OIF

- List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Since the session format was “ Birds of Feather ”, there weren’t “Speakers, but experts who contributed in the discussion giving their  lightning and/or the result of their findings to frame the debate. They were:

  • Betty Fausta, CEO, IPEOS I-Solutions (Technical Community)
  • Tijani Ben Jemaa, Executive Director, Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (Civil Society)
  • Mona Al Ashkar, Professor, University of Beirut (Academia)
  • Destiny Tchehouali, Quebec University, Montreal (Academia)

- Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):

  • Underserved regions don’t produce local content in local languages for the use of the population at the grassroots’ level.
  • Lack of reliable and affordable connection in these regions is a barrier for the development and the use of local content.
  • Insufficient national public policy support to the production and the dissemination of the local content

- If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

There were no presentations during the session (birds of feather format).

- Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

The moderator made a short introduction and then open the discussion that highlighted 4 aspects of the local content in local language for underserved regions and communities:

  • The need for local content created by the recent evolution of the Internet such as IPV6, new gTLDs, IDNs, that represent a unique opportunity for the underserved regions to develop local content in local languages conceived for the need of the populations.
  • Success stories from Lebanon concerning the production of local content that improves the quality of life of the citizens such as:
    • Beirut Electricity: Alerts for regular breaks in Beirut
    • Zawarib: a mapping application that helps Lebanese find addresses
    • The game « Birdy Nam Nam »
    • Dermandar: a photographique application
    • Ya Maalem: to find artisans
    • Eyes of Lebanon: real-time traffic around the capital
    • Sukleen: the application of the group Averda to arrange the garbage collection
    • Applications of gastronomy and tourism
  • Open Source Software for the development of local content:
    • How Open Source can help local technical communities access cutting-edge tools in tight markets to produce local content. Open source promotes local expertise and makes technologies available to local pro communities
    • the constraints of the Caribbean small island regions in Digitally enclaved environments (Broad Band is a scarce commodity). The professionals of these zones must be ingenious and erase the differences with the big cities of the world
  • The role that global digital platforms (Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, etc.) play
    • Concentration and lack of diversity in the global cultural offer
    • issues and challenges related to the regulation of digital platforms, their business models, the transparency of their algorithms but also to the consideration of international cooperation and national public policies to support production and distribution of local content.
    • Adaptation and renewal of cultural policies in the digital age.
    • financing the production and dissemination of local / national content (especially digital cultural products),
    • Regulatory or legislative measures to impose local content quotas on international VoD or VoD subscription platforms whose catalogs are dominated by foreign content, etc.).
    • Need for an Internet governance that favors the emergence and development of cultural and linguistic diversity).

Unfortunately, the remote participation didn’t work due to a technical failure.

- Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps /key takeaways (3 paragraphs):

  • A participant suggested that Governments and private sector support financially the development and dissemination / distribution of local content in local languages by local youth.
  • Another highlighted the need for national strategies for digital transformation providing an enabling environment for the production of local content that eases the daily life of the local populations
  • An expert noted that the the Open Source can help local technical communities access cutting-edge tools to produce local content, and that it promotes local expertise and makes technologies available to local pro communities. She suggested that a special effort of capacity building be made for these local communities on the use of open source software in the development of local content.
  • A participant proposed that regulatory or legislative measures be taken to impose local content quotas on international VoD or VoD subscription platforms.

Gender Reporting

- Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

There were approximately 40 participants in the room and at least 20 in the corridor (Small number of seats in the room and UNESCO staff prevent people from entering and stand around by the walls).  

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

Approximately 15 participants in the room were women. The panel itself was gender balanced, with 2 women and 2 men.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?

- If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment.

 


Updated: 25/11/2018 - 09:26
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

[sample report here]

 

 

  • Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round-table

 

  • Title: IGF 2018 WS #193 Submarine cables governance & sustainable development goals

     

  • Date & Time: November 12 from 10:40 to 12:10
  • Organizer(s): Internet Without Borders / Access Now

 

- Chair/Moderator: Florence Poznanski

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Félix Blanc

 

  • List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Robert Pepper, Global connectivity and Technology Policy , Facebook (U.S.)

Camille Morel, PhD Student - Centre Lyonnais d'études de sécurité internationale et de défense (CLESID)

Qemal Affagnon, Head of the West Africa Desk, Internet Sans Frontières (Bénin)

Dwayne Winseck, Professor, Carleton University (Canada)

Barbara Simao, Researcher, telecommunications and digital rights, IDEC (Brazil)

Doug Madory, Senior Analyst, Internet Intelligence (U.S.)
 

Discussant and concluding remarks: Peter Micek (Access Now)

 

  • Theme (as listed here): Development, Innovation & Economic Issues
  • Subtheme (as listed here): INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • Submarine cables governance help at achieving sustainable development goals
  • International or national regulation could make the governance of submarine cables more transparent, inclusive & participatory
  • Submarine cables are key infrastructures to monitor network interferences, reduce the digital divide and enhance scientific research on global warming & geohazards

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Large consensus to say that international norms appear insufficient to protect human rights and SDG related to submarine cables (the 1884 Law convention does not cover many issues we discuss). 

There was broad support for the view that submarine cables are extremely important to keep traffic within regions, lower cost and improve performance and latency, but also that they are a matter of strategic interests for states and critical for human rights. Moreover, some indicated that the submarine cables are sometimes used under their capacity, especially in African.

Some supported that vertical integration from our devices and desktops from the apps and services down into the cables provide further evidence of the extent to which GAFAM attempt to rule the world while others noted that such vertical integration can be explained by the fact that CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg are personally involved in the fact that the last billion has to be connected. 

There was no agreement on the real impact of additional submarine cables on increasing regional connectivity and reducing digital divide in landlocked countries (Chad, Afghanistan) or small countries (Ecuado, Benin).

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

The legal regime of submarine cables has to be updated to include protection of human rights and promote SDG and the IGF would be the perfect vehicule to support such initiative.

We need public networks to build additional capacity and public-private coinvestment to reduce the cost for everybody.

We need to prepare cable infrastructure for the next crisis (surveillance scandal, cyber security or terrorists) and promote substantive measures, standards and good practises such as the ELLALINK cable or the Ghana IXP.

Guiding principles on business and human rights could be used to put human rights and the users at the center of submarine cable instrastrures (cf. Article 19 report on Infrastuctures and human rights)

We need a global authority to adress these issues that are partly coming under ITU's competencies, partly coming under the UN SDG chapter. The International Cable Committee is not competent today to adress such SDG issues.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The main issues the IGF should make progress on is the question of how the IGF could promote outputs and good practices at the UN level, so that each local and global actors could use these good practises to implement new policies more efficiently. 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

60 people

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

50%/50%

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

none


Updated: 26/11/2018 - 21:39
Report:

IGF Long Report

  • Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

 

Open Forum

 

- Title:

 

Technology, Suicide, and the Mental Health of Youth

 

- Date & Time:

 

Tuesday, November 13, 4:40 - 6:10 PM

 

- Organizer(s):

 

Larry Magid, ConnectSafely (Civil Society)

 

- Chair/Moderator:

 

Larry Magid (In-person moderator)

Michael Luchies, After School (Remote moderator)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

 

Larry Magid, Jeff Collins

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

 

Jeff Collins, Vice President, After School (Private Sector), male

Hrefna Sigurjonsdottir, Professor of Biology, University of Iceland (Civil Society), female

Monica Guise Rosina, Facebook Policy Brazil, Facebook (Private Sector), female

Victoria McCullough, Social Impact and Public Policy, Tmblr (Private Sector), female

Philippine Balmadier, Eighth Grade Student, Paris, female

 

- Theme:

 

Human Rights, Gender & Youth Development

 

- Subtheme:

 

Child Safety Online

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

 

  • There is a correlation between use of the internet and mental health. Hrefna Sigurjonsdottir, the General Manager of Home and School – The National Parent Association in Iceland, reported on the connection between use of the internet and a decline in mental health, but stated, “we do not know about causal factors yet although it is evident that it is important how young people choose to spend their time and we need to take care of basic needs.” She continued, “research done by the Icelandic Centre of Social Research and Analysis (ICSRA) shows us that there is a link between time spent on social media and increased depression and anxiety, especially among teenage girls and self harm is on the rise among teenage girls.”

 

  • How the public, private, and non-profit sectors can minimize detrimental mental health impacts of internet-related technologies, while maximizing the benefits. The focus of this discussion was the importance of collaboration.

 

“There has been a lot of public discussion about the issue and intervention based on cooperation. So by using the same methodology of cooperation between all relevant sectors, running evidence-based practices and working on a community level instead of a whole country approach, we might be onto something,” said Hrefna.

 

  • How proactive approaches to preventing suicide are currently working and what areas still need to be addressed. We discussed the current efforts in Australia and how their Living is for Everyone (LIFE) program can be mirrored around the world.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

 

Panelists discussed how technology, and in particular social media, is affecting the mental health of young people, and whether it is causing a rise in the rate in suicide.  

 

Panelists agreed that there is a correlation between increasing social media use and higher rates of suicide globally, but no conclusive evidence of a causative relationship.  Some studies have demonstrated that prolonged use of social media can lead to negative consequences among youth. In light of this background, Panelists agreed that social media companies have a corporate social responsibility to take steps to minimize negative mental impacts and work to use technology for positive ends when it comes to mental health and suicide prevention.

 

Facebook’s Monica Guise Rosina mentioned research showing that active engagement in social media is correlated with positive emotional responses while more passive engagement is correlated to negative outcomes.

 

After School’s Jeff Collins noted that technology can serve as an early warning detection system with respect to mental health and suicide. After School, for example, uses natural language detection in its app to detect instances when users may be struggling with a difficult issue, such as pregnancy or “coming out.” In such cases, the app offers users the opportunity to connect free of charge to Crisis Counselors at Crisis Text Line. After School has assisted tens of thousands of teens, leading them to trained Crisis Counselors, which has led to over 65 active rescues where emergency medical teams were able to intervene and save the lives of teens in need.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

 

Panelists discussed how their respective companies and organizations and other stakeholders could collaborate to better address the mental health of youth using technology and social media.

 

ConnectSafely.org CEO Larry Magid noted that there are numerous cases of intervention on social media that have helped prevent suicide and self-harm. “Many people are alive today because of social media,” he said. He also pointed out that there is a strong correlation between mental health issues and suicide and that resilience seems to be a major factor in determining how young people will react to negative experiences, online or off. He pointed out that two people can have the same negative online experience with one becoming very depressed and the other better able to cope and pointed to expert commentary that a single negative incident is rarely proven to be the “cause” of a suicide.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

 

Due to the tight-knit IGF community, collaboration is easier to come by. By networking with other IGF members, stakeholders in the fight to prevent suicide among youth and improve the wellbeing of children and teens can work together to create a larger positive impact.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

There were around 50 attendees at our session.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

Around half. Approximately 25 women and gender-variant individuals attended the session.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

The panel discussed the different challenges that young women and men face when using technology. Each have different risks and expectations when it comes to social media, including how they are targeted in instances of cyberbullying, bullying, sextortion, and other issues. It was pointed out that the suicide rate among girls has risen faster than among boys.

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

 


Updated: 23/11/2018 - 22:37
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

- Title: I Can’t Use This App: Closing the Web Accessibility Gap  (WS 217)

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 09:00 - 10:00

- Organizer(s):
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India
Gunela Astbrink, Women with Disabilities, Australia

- Chair/Moderator:
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India (female)

- Remote Moderator:
Valentina Pellizzer, Association for Progressive Communications, Bosnia and Herzegovina (female)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Baldeep Grewal, Universität Würzburg, India (female)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Nidhi Goyal, Point of View, India (female, Civil Society)
Shadi Abou-Zahra, W3C, Egypt (male, Technical Community)
Vashkar Bhattacharjee, Young Power in Social Action, Bangladesh (male, Government/Civil Society)
Ellis Jerry, Feel The BenefIT, Ireland (male, Private Sector)
Gunela Astbrink, Women with Disabilities, Australia (female, Civil Society)

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here): Persons with Disability

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • How accessible is the web for persons with motor, vision, and hearing impairments based on their personal experiences of using digital devices
  • What are the barriers to accessibility as per the W3C classification on content, web browsers, media players, assistive features and technology etc. according to empirical data and evidence-based research on the same
  • Some key recommendations which, if implemented, will improve web accessibility at all levels, including but not limited to web development, design, and usability features.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

The session spanned from personal experience to policy and standards to solutions. The topic of accessibility was addressed by each panelists from their respective standpoint as stakeholders: civil society, policy making, technical know-how etc. It was noted that we need to facilitate access to online resources and offline infrastructure that pertain to libraries, banking services, dating apps and even something as commonplace as ordering food in a restaurant. One thing was unanimously agreed upon: technology creates a tremendously enabling environment for people with disabilities but at the same time the rapid growth of the web and digital infrastructure has not shown much concern for universal accessibility. An important point that was raised was that accessibility infrastructure also helps temporarily able-bodied people since everyone benefits from a larger font size, better roads and walking routes, text-to-speech and speech-to-text facilities etc. Often the burden to facilitate access and advocate for it falls on disabled persons, and the default solution is often to make special apps for only persons with disabilities instead of making mainstream platforms accessible.

 

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

The influence of the workshop was immediate: participants requested panelists for resources and more information on designing training modules on accessibility and disability. The suggested solutions involved individual actors in addition to policy improvements and infrastructure optimization. We must think about access as individuals in our own spaces. Organizations and stakeholders should go beyond procurement and user policy – understanding we are all temporarily abled – with a strict policy to engage with only those platforms that are accessible which will push developers to take these guidelines in mind when building tech. Accessibility is often an accident and the service is lost with the next version. It has to be a concerted, conscious effort.

 

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

As mentioned before, the workshop helped many participants gain knowledge and resource for their respective work on disability rights. A socio-legal concern was making online technology more affordable in countries where governments do not provide social security and the costs for accessible tools (online and offline) fall on the disabled person and their family. Development of online free resources with AV media and tactile materials would help young people with disabilities with a view to affordability and access.

 

Please estimate the total number of participants: 30.

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 18 (excluding the on-site and remote panel)

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

An important point that was raised was that something as simple as a pregnancy kit may not be accessible for a blind woman. This means that they lose a certain level of autonomy with regard to their bodies. Especially in countries with strict abortion laws, inaccessible pregnancy kits jeopardize the privacy and dignity of blind women.

 

Long Report

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Workshop

- Title: I Can’t Use This App: Closing the Web Accessibility Gap (WS 217)

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November 2018 - 09:00 - 10:00

- Organizer(s):

Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

Gunela Astbrink, Women with Disabilities, Australia

- Chair/Moderator: Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Baldeep Grewal, Universität Würzburg, India (female)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Nidhi Goyal, Point of View, India (female, Civil Society)
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra, W3C, Egypt (male, Technical Community)
  • Vashkar Bhattacharjee, Young Power in Social Action, Bangladesh (male, Government/Civil Society)
  • Ellis Jerry, Feel The BenefIT, Ireland (male, Private Sector)
  • Gunela Astbrink, Women with Disabilities, Australia (female, Civil Society)

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here): Persons with Disability

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

  • Instead of treating accessibility as a niche facility or a special component provided in any form of technology, we have to move beyond this ghetto mentality of making exclusive apps for disabled people. Accessibility is often present in most apps accidently and the service is lost with the next update. Accessibility should be a mainstream issue in the development of any technology. This should also urge people to think about access as temporarily abled individuals in their own spaces - at home, in public, and at work. Organisations and stakeholders should make a concerted, conscious effort to facilitate accessibility, hire disabled professionals, and should follow a strict policy to only engage with platforms that are accessible. This will push developers to keep accessibility guidelines in mind when building their products including the fact that every disability has different accessibility needs.

 

  • There is a need to educate IT developers and consultants on issues of disability and access. A large majority of IT professionals that graduate every year have seldom heard of disability or the need for inclusive apps and devices. These are people in charge of creating products that make life easier but there is an entire consumer base that they never build for. Additionally, from screen readers to larger font sizes, accessibility services are not just helpful for people with disablities but make life easier for temporarily disabled people too. Accessibility must be addressed from end to end - accross production, functionality and till the user end.

 

  • Discussions around disability and access often boil down to making out discussions around internet governance more inclusive of these issues too. Since the IGF allows massive global reach and cooperation among stakeholders, we must do more to bring more voices from the disabled community to our IGF sessions. This includes supporting them in attending the IGFs either in person or remotely. Creating opportunities for disabled activists and professionals to participate in the IGF space is vital for sound internet governance.

 

- 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 session spanned from personal experience to policy and standards to solutions. The topic of accessibility was addressed by each panelists from their respective standpoint as stakeholders: civil society, policy making, technical know-how etc.

Nidhi Goyal and Vashkar Bhattacharjee noted that we need to facilitate access to online resources and offline infrastructure that pertain to libraries, banking services, dating apps and even something as commonplace as ordering food in a restaurant. One thing was unanimously agreed upon: technology creates a tremendously enabling environment for people with disabilities but at the same time the rapid growth of the web and digital infrastructure has not shown much concern for universal accessibility.

An important point that was raised by Shadi Abou-Zahra was that accessibility infrastructure also helps temporarily able-bodied people since everyone benefits from a larger font size, better roads and walking routes, text-to-speech and speech-to-text facilities etc.

Reflecting on how and where responsibility to facilitate access is located, Nidhi observed that often the burden to facilitate access and advocate for it falls on disabled persons, and the default solution is often to make special apps for only persons with disabilities instead of making mainstream platforms accessible.

Gunela Astbrink talked briefly about overcoming sociocultural barriers in different countries in the global south. She described a pilot project in Vanuatu which conducted interviews to collect data on how disabled people use ICTs. This further led them to develop modules for training ICTs developers to develop products that can be accessed by disabled people. A highlight was including disabled people in the conceptualization and running of these training programs.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

The influence of the workshop was immediate: participants requested panelists for resources and more information on designing training modules on accessibility and disability. The suggested solutions involved individual actors in addition to policy improvements and infrastructure optimization. We must think about access as individuals in our own spaces. Organizations and stakeholders should go beyond procurement and user policy – understanding we are all temporarily abled – with a strict policy to engage with only those platforms that are accessible which will push developers to take these guidelines in mind when building tech. Accessibility is often an accident and the service is lost with the next version. It has to be a concerted, conscious effort.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

As mentioned before, the workshop helped many participants gain knowledge and resource for their respective work on disability rights. A socio-legal concern was making online technology more affordable in countries where governments do not provide social security and the costs for accessible tools (online and offline) fall on the disabled person and their family. Development of online free resources with AV media and tactile materials would help young people with disabilities with a view to affordability and access.

The IGF should make efforts to bring more disabled people to the floor and take cognizance of the access/assistance issues this entails.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

30

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

18 (excluding onsite and remote panel)

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

An important point that was raised was that something as simple as a pregnancy kit may not be accessible for a blind woman. This means that they lose a certain level of autonomy with regard to their bodies. Especially in countries with strict abortion laws, inaccessible pregnancy kits jeopardize the privacy and dignity of blind women.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs)


Updated: 01/11/2018 - 10:06
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Round table

- Title:

Unleash the Power of Digital Economy & Society with Mobile Internet

- Date & Time:

Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 10:10 to 11:10

- Organizer(s):

Patrick

- Chair/Moderator:

Patrick

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Patrick

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Sandra Cortesi, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 2: Caroline Jeanmaire, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 3: Ines Hfaiedh, Government, African Group

Speaker 4: Stephen Mawutor Donkor, Technical Community, African Group

Speaker 5: Malavika Jayaram, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

 

- Theme (as listed here):

Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):

INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

From the perspective of culture--The world is connected more than ever but the same technology has also disconnected us from our identities. Culture is withering away by the fast-paced advancement of technology. How do we assess what is more important?

From the perspective of economy--The world has gone digital with practically all parts of life seemingly easily accomplished online but what about the other 4 billion people who were offline in the era of fixed Internet? Is mobile internet helping them or causing them more harm?

From the perspective of society--Mobile apps have vastly changed the way we live, with connected devices becoming our smart assistants and helping us with menial tasks. But with the onset of these advancements, how can industries cope with the possibility of mass unemployment, privacy issues, etc.?

From the perspective of culture, economy and society--This panel will discuss how innovations can leverage mobile internet to drive an inclusive digital economy and society.


Updated: 27/11/2018 - 14:26
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Round Table

 

- Title: IGF 2018 WS #224 The Past, the Present and the Future for Multi-stakeholderism

 

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 2018- 10:40 to 12:10

 

- Organizer(s): Yeseul Kim, Olumuyiwa Caleb Ogundele, Ayden Férdeline, Sandra Hoferichter

 

- Chair/Moderator: Yeseul Kim

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Yeseul Kim

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Markus Kummer, M, ICANN
Speaker 2: Ayden Férdeline, M, Mozilla Foundation 
Speaker 3: Sandra Hoferichter, F, EuroDIG
Speaker 4: Yeseul Kim, F, ISOG-IGF Ambassador
Speaker 5: Kuo Wu, M, TWNIC

 

- 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. [300-500 words]

 

Multistakekholder model has been first suggested in 2003 as a new methodology to embrace and enhance the participation from sectors outside business and governmental organizations. It was officially adopted to be the participation methods for Intergovernmental and International forums in WSIS 2005 in Tunis. Before that, most of the intergovernmental organizations have been run based on multilateral model, not multistaekholder model, which only permits conversations and dialogues among different governments, not including other private sectors. It was extremely hard for actors or stakeholders other than governmental organizations to voice their opinions especially in the intergovernmental conferences and forum which are run based upon multilateral model as they were only given 5 or so minutes at the end of meetings to speak up. It was only after the Internet Governance Forum that people outside business sectors or governmental sectors started to be actively engaged in policy making and agenda shaping. This is the very brief history of the adoption of the multistkaeholder mode in the Internet Governance Field. However, since WSIS and other orgs started to embrace multistakeholder model, people from civil society and technical community could also start to be actively involved in the policy making especially concerning the Internet.

 

Ayden Férdeline (Mozilla Fellow) especially said that multistakeholderism is desirable and something to be protected, but not necessarily necessary for the Internet to governed. He explained that there are two classical explanations for multistakeholderism: firstly, that it was a natural extension of the Enlightenment and Jeffersonian democratic principles, who noted that the exercise of political power without the consent of the governed is illegitimate. Multistakeholder governance thus means that representatives of parties other than governments – like public interest advocacy groups, business associations, and other interested parties –  can participate in governmental policy deliberations alongside governments. Therefore, Internet institutions like ICANN gain their legitimacy to govern in direct proportion to which they facilitate the participation of impacted stakeholders. The second explanation he put forward was that one can not have a global infrastructure whose interoperability is dependent upon dozens of different overlapping rules and frameworks that all must be checked to determine valid communications.

 

Overall, multistakeholder model is not a static, complete model but rather a dynamic, ever evolving model as we’ve seen over the past 13 years of IGF. As has been seen in IANA transition, the model has become more open to the civil society and has become much more stable over the years.

 

- 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…

 

Panelists broadly agreed that multistakeholder model is the present and the future of the Internet governance, and the majority of the panleists also agreed that the model needs to be further supported by the Internet community at large. This was especially the viewpoints from the (comparatively) elder panellists, who have been making the multistkaholder model per se, and who have been working to disperse the model as much as possible. However, Ayden, who’s the youngest among the panellists, opined that with the rising nationalistic attempt to tame and govern the Internet on each nation’s whim, the multistkaeholder model is not being tested as the role of civil society seems to be not as powerful and effective as that of the governmental organizations. Thus, although there was a broad consensus on the fact that multistakeholder actually been functioning as it has been envisaged to be, as the strong regulation and other legal regimes started to dominate the discussions of the Internet Governance throughout the world, it seemed that panellists actually did not consent upon whether the model can be the leading example of the governance model for the future in the end.  

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

 

Ayden Ferdeline explicitly expressed the following suggestions saying that to ensure that the Internet operates as a global common, these frameworks and policies needed to be established through open and transparent multistakeholder processes because the historical solution to this problem (global treaty organizations) can provide overall commonality of framework but fail to provide for open and equitable non-governmental participation. He expressed concern, however, that this may no longer be true, as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation has effectively validated states taking extraterritorial regulatory measures, and provides proof that state interests can be maintained via the creation of regulations with Internet-wide effects. In order for the multistakeholder model to remain effective, he suggested that improvements are required, such as better efforts to avoid capture by certain stakeholder groups, more effective dispute resolution processes, and a focus on measuring and improving performance.

Overall, systematic implementation of the model throughout the national, regional and international IGFs and some different additions can be thought of, and also can be added to the model with global resources and more decentralized, non-governmental efforts such as independent conflict resolution systems for the matters happening concerning the cyberspace.

 

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

 

As the IGF is only celebrating its 13th birthday this year, we need to watch the model naturally grow further into its more mature form, and thus, it’s still early to say that the multistkaeholder model failed, or multisktaeholder model is destined to be overwhelmed by the governmental regulations which go against the very nature of the model per se. Sandra explicitly argued that for the model to be mature and to be fully developed, the community support from all the sector is necessary and required,

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

5 speakers (4 panellists and a moderator) and about 30 audience in the room.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

2 Female speakers including the moderator

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Sandra Hofereichter assimilated the progressive development of multistakeholder model to that of women’s right movement (thus, the development of feminism). She also emphasized that the change never comes fast and without effort, and thus we need to see how the multisktaeholder model evolves in the future over time. However, aside from this, the session did not specifically deal with any gender issues and rather focused on the fundamental philosophy and history of multistakeholder model.

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhieI61IJuo


Updated: 03/11/2018 - 03:51
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Workshop

- Title: IGF 2018 WS #227 Blockchain for Social and Humanitarian Applications

- Date & Time: 90 MIN

- Organizer(s):

Organizer 1: Mónica María Trochez Arboleda, Nucleo TIC S.A.S.

Organizer 2: Lucena Claudio, Researcher, FCT Portugal, Professor, UEPB, Brazil

Organizer 3: Olga Kyryliuk, The Influencer Platform

Organizer 4: Citterio Alvarado Raitme Osvaldo, Isoc Chapter Venezuela

- Chair/Moderator: Claudio Lucena, Academy, Researcher FCT Portugal, Professor, UEPB Brazil.

- On line Moderator: Raitme Citterio, Technical, Consultant in capacity development in information technologies. Venezuela

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Olga Kyryliuk, Civil Society, The Influencer Platform ONG. Ukrania.

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

1: Mónica María Trochez Arboleda, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
2: Garcia Van Hoogstraten Catherine , Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
3: Walid Al-Saqaf, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
4: Satish Babu, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
5: Olga Cavalli, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
6: Andrea Romaoli Garcia, Intergovernmental Organization, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
7: Sam Goundar, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
8: Glenn McKnight, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

- Theme: Emerging Technologies

- Subtheme: Distributed ledger-Blockchain

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

¿How blockchain technology can be applied to carry an innovative factor in the resolution of social and humanitarian problems?

What challenges must blockchain overcome by providing a comprehensive solution to a scenario of humanitarian problems?

Identify good practices of blockchain solutions in the care of humanitarian incidents and their added value for society.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

We begin with the introduction of the moderator, the speakers begin their presentation exposing the applications of Blockchain in topics related to natural disasters, freedom of expression, population not unbanked, trafficking in persons, agriculture between Other. It will also present the state of application of Blockchain in Latin America and the increase of companies that use the technology and impact in the ONG´S and the third sector.  

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? 

El ecosistema multisectorial del IGF es apropiado para impulsar soluciones con impacto social y humanitario, la idea es crear sinergia entre las partes interesadas para adoptar la tecnología. The multi-sectoral ecosystem of IGF is appropriate to promote solutions with social and humanitarian impact, the idea is to create synergy among the stakeholders to adopt the technology.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

10

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

60 % Mens

40 % Women

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? 

We will talk about Blockchain applications that help mitigate human trafficking that affects women and children in particular.


Updated: 27/11/2018 - 18:51
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Panel - 90 Min

- Title: Measurement & specs to support net neutrality enforcement

- Date & Time: 13 November 2018, 16:40 - 18:10

- Organizer(s): SBC (Brazilian Computer Society) and CGI.br

- Chair/Moderator: Ms Tanara Lauschner (SBC and CGI.br)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Ms Nathalia Patrício (NIC.br / CGI.br) and Mr Vinicius W. O. Santos (NIC.br / CGI.br)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Ms Alissa Cooper, IETF, Technical Community, female
  • Mr Christopher Lewis, Public Knowledge, Civil Society, male
  • Mr Christopher Marsden, University of Sussex, Technical Community, male
  • Mr Klaus Nieminen, FICORA, Government, male
  • Mr Sunil Bajpai, TRAI, Government, male

 

- Theme (as listed here): Technical & Operational Topics

- Subtheme (as listed here): NET NEUTRALITY

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

(1) A first key message would be the fact that appropriate measurement is strongly recommended  to enable the work of law enforcement agents, because not being able to measure the network means that the possibly damaging practices are not traceable, and therefore no oversight is possible at the end;

(2) A second key message would be that in fact there are already diverse tools and standards that could be recalled so as to support oversight and enforcement, ranging from hot topics and field studies in Academia to proper deployment by some authorities worldwide;

(3) The third key message is at last the call for debate on that subject, as there is little systematic debate over the issue involving different stakeholders. It’s been demonstrated that the subject discussed is still quite hermetic and people from different areas and fields of actions are yet sticking to the surface of the debate, not reaching crucial stratus like the one approached by this workshop.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was broad support for the view that measurement tools are more than necessary and can help to monitor net neutrality and to enforce laws worldwide. Some of the speakers indicated that measurement for net neutrality is a challenging issue, especially due to further new technologies that could complicate the scenario. One of the speakers brought a different point of view stating that the technical measurements are not the only way of doing the monitoring of net neutrality, given that regulators can also work in collaboration with the industry so as to have access to the proper data in the case of specific complaints by users. Other speaker presented a different point of view talking about IETF standards that could help to develop tools for Internet measurement. The complexity that new technologies like 5G and mobile edge computing bring to the measurement issue was also a well debated topic.

The discussions started with an explanation about the work of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) on related topics, where they follow an approach of creating building blocks, and anything like a top to bottom measurement system has not been created; they design pieces that permit others to deploy complete systems and architectures on that. Some of the key building blocks for Internet measurement are created on the scope of the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) working group, which has specifications composed by a set of standards to allow for the measurement of broadband devices, including the RFCs 7594, 8193, 8194, and 7398. There was also a brief explanation of a new transport protocol that IETF is working on, called QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections), which was designed to improve performance of certain types of applications and also to avoid congestion by implementing some different network parameters, among other tools and modes of operation.

The speakers recognised that measurement is a concern, since it is necessary to see whether companies are compliant to the regulations. In terms of deployment, it is difficult to know what was exactly measured because it is not possible to control all parameters at the same time. A speaker said that another difficulty is to interpret the collected data and know why they are meaningful, to whom they are meaningful, and for what purpose they are meaningful. The participants also argued that it is not possible to know the real landscape of net neutrality and if network operators have been compliant to the laws if network neutrality cannot be properly measured. Regulators worldwide have not gotten together to measure traffic speed increases, and it is necessary to use measures from different companies to understand what it is happening on this issue. Participants recalled the importance of mobilising people to demand not only strong net neutrality protections, but accurate measurement and oversight. It is necessary to build a reliable environment where people can trust broadband companies and regulatory agencies, and the provision of those sorts of measurements are a way for this. Participants also talked about the European Open Internet Regulation, which has enabled a legal background for decisions and law enforcement. Cooperation with industry, end users, ISP and manufacturers was also a topic covered by discussions, putting on the argument that technical measurements are not the only way of doing the monitoring, without prejudice of having net neutrality measurement tools, like BEREC’s net neutrality regulatory assessment methodology that describes a way for taking some of these measurements and a tool that is under development.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Despites the session presented in depth discussions on the topic, there were only a few explicit policy recommendations for the issue. One of the speakers suggested that a good cooperation with the industry, end users, ISP and manufacturers can help to monitor net neutrality violations and one possible solution is to request information from industry stakeholders whenever it is needed or when some users specific complaints. A much broader recommendation that could be inferred from the set of discussions and statements would be the indication for regulators to start looking more deeply to what have been done under the standardization tracks and studied by Academia and Technical Community in general, so as to be able to build on those experiences and foster collaboration with relevant stakeholders.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

This topic was not directly and explicitly covered by discussions that took place during the session. However, drawing upon the discussions held, it is possible to infer that the IGF ecosystem could help and set the way forward for the discussions by fostering multistakeholder collaboration within the IGF community, and especially within the intersessional work held under IGF main tracks. For example, the Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality held a session discussing the subject of measuring network discriminatory practices.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants: 70 on site participants + 2 remote participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 23 women on site

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

Gender issues were not covered by the discussions held.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):


Updated: 23/11/2018 - 10:02
Report:

IGF 2018 Long Report

23 November 2018 

Big Data Governance for Paris Agreement & SDGs   

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Workshop

 

- Title: Big Data Governance for Paris Agreement & SDGs     

 

- Date:  November 14th, 2018

 

- Time: 11:20am-12:20pm

 

- Organizer(s): 

China Association for Science and Technology

International Commercial Law of the Universidad Humannas, Mexico 

Department for the Information Society, Portugal

 

- Chair/Moderator:

Liu Chuang, China Association for Science and Technology (Chair/ Onsite Moderator)

  Ma Jing, China Association for Science and Technology(Online Moderator)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

   Liu Chang, China Association for Science and Technology

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  Liu Chuang, China Association for Science and Technology  (Technical Community)

 Ana Cristina Amoroso das Neves, Department for the Information Society, Portugal  (Government)

Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo, International Commercial Law of the Univer-sidad Humannas, Mexico (Civil Society)

 

- Theme (as listed here): Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Big Data

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

Big data, as a new emerging technology, is providing an unprecedented opportunities for information society and communities to address more complex tasks. In order to enable people to advance environmental-friendly and economically, as well as to reach the Paris Agreement and achieve part of the SDGs, big data has become a new tool to govern the modern information society. The new challenges to the big data governance are not only local, but regional and global; not only issues from data sharing, but data quality, security, networking etc. 

The panel provided an overview of the practices on data policies, technology solution and information sharing for data governance and the implementation of big data in achieving SDGs.  

1. Data Sharing

Data sharing is the practice of making data used for scholarly research available to other investigators. Data sharing may also be restricted to protect institutions and scientists from use of data. Internet governance relies on a wide variety of data onto the structure, and usage patterns of operational Internet infrastructure must bring with deeper consideration of privacy and data sharing models. In order to encourage data sharing and prevent the loss or corruption of data, the policies on data sharing are urgent.

2. Policy and Legal framework for big data implementation in achieving SDGs

The intellectual property management and personal privacy protection under the data sharing require new regulation and policies, which go toward a revolution of big data governance. New laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will no doubt frame a new big data environment. Therefore, it is important to promote the development of strategy and institutional guidelines of open data, especially in developing countries. The work on data policies and legal framework will benefit the improvement of developing countries to have the good practice of open data in achieving SDGs. 

3. Multi-stakeholder engagement

The implementation of internet and big data governance require the collaboration of civil society, government, technical communities, and individuals. The countries may collect the best practice and the good example of application and the communities can share the support of internet and big data. 

 

- 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…

A main topic of discussion is to share bad and/or good experiences that stakeholder groups have had reported data governance of Paris Agreement and SDGs. In this discussion, it is identified that a critical component of sharing involves the need for any organization to participate and to have a contact. Big data strongly response to data resources and technology solution. The outcome and practices on data sharing, data policies and technology solution are good examples for implementation of big data in achieving SDGs. 

Prof. Liu Chuang gave a report, Open Data of Trust – A Honeycomb Solution: Publishing-Repository-Sharing-Citation-Impact from Global Change Research Data Publishing & Repository, and explained the concept of data sharing. Prof Liu pointed out that around 200,000-280,000 research datasets created each year in China in most recent years, but only no more than 5% can be accessed and shared. Most developing countries are facing the similar challenges. Open data as a strong support to data sharing, the outcome and practices on data policies, technology solution and information sharing are good examples for implementation of big data in achieving SDGs.

Ana Cristina Amoroso das Neves provided the insight from the Government stakeholder group's perspective, and introduced big data openness relate to SDGs. Ana gave an interpretation of the article 3, 4, 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which directly relate to the personal data protection. According to article 4, personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person - data subject (e.g. name, ID/passport number, online identifier) . In article 5 points out several principles to processing of (non-sensitive) personal data. New regulation, like GDPR, will go towards a revolution of big data governance.

Prof. Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo, from the International Commercial Law of the Universidad Humannas, Mexico, addressed the importance of the legal regulation of big data and the protection for personal information about Mexico, from the recognition of human rights in the Mexican Constitution, as a way to guarantee the human right to privacy. This has led to the effort of the Mexican government to protect the increase in the traffic of personal data onto the creation of national laws, as well as the implementation of international legal instruments.

The outcome and practices on data policies need the integration and deep analysis on data collected at different levels, and the results will benefit different stakeholders, both to individuals and to communities. Open debate spread out from two aspects. One was data sharing among developing countries and the other one was the public understanding of GDPR. GDPR might face obstacles in implementation because of misunderstanding, so is necessary to educate and guide the public. The new challenges to big data governance are not only local, but regional and global, therefore, multi-stakeholder participation is also a key point in better sharing data. 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words] 

- All the important issues that have been mentioned through data sharing need to be tackled about different perspectives.

- A convergent model of regulation may contribute to the development of a dynamic and innovative Internet-enabled ecosystem. It’s necessary to educate and guide the public to have a right understanding of data sharing.

- To better governance the Internet, it is important to promote the development of strategy and institutional guidelines of big data and data policies for open data in developing countries. It’s very helpful for developing countries to have the good practice of open data in achieving SDGs. 

- There may also be valued in more regional and local cooperation that help build communities of knowledge, where specific problems are likely to be most understood. 

- A need for more people to become well trained and have a similar understanding of the basic problems.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

The implementation of big data governance of Paris Agreement and SDGs require the collaboration of all multi-stakeholders. IGF has a meaningful participation, and it is good to promote collaboration between different multi-stakeholders. 

The IGF ecosystem may be an appropriate forum to deal with data sharing and the internet governance, provided that this ecosystem is able to take up the task. Action plans can be formulated and conducted through cross-region cooperation under IGF framework. The countries may also collect the best practice and the good example of application and the communities can share the support of internet and big data, especially in developing countries. 

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

   There are approximately 50 total participants.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

  Approximately 20 participants were women. The panel itself was gender balanced.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words] 

The session was talked as a whole, in relation to any citizen, user or producer, did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women's empowerment.

However, it did consider challenges in how technical community, government and public sector security teams can successfully cooperate with civil society organizations.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):


Updated: 03/12/2018 - 17:20
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop - Title: Protecting Children Online: Risks and Public-Private Responses - Date & Time: Tuesday 13 November, 10:40-12:10 - Organizer(s): 1. Laura Turner: UK Home Office – WePROTECT Global Alliance 2. Aicha Jeridi, Africa Civil Society for the Information Society 3. Arda Gerkens- Dutch Hotline - Chair/Moderator: Jutta Croll - Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paris Huxley - List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Anjan Bose (M) – UNICEF Susie Hargreaves – (F) CEO, Internet Watch Foundation Samantha Woolfe – (F) InHOPE Fredrik Hansen- (M) Security Expert-Futurity Cisse Kane – (F) ACSIS Geneva - Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender and Youth - Subtheme (as listed here): Child online safety - Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less] 1. The emergence of the internet and developments in technology has made it easier than ever for people to connect and learn in ways previously unimagined, but with new possibilities come new risks. It has never been easier for those who would seek to do our children harm, the potential to do so online. Countries around the world are now grappling with the online threats, and we will hear from representatives from the African region to outline some of the risks children face online today. 2. One of the most insidious online threats children face today is online child sexual exploitation. Those with a sexual interest in children can now access the means through which they can produce, distribute and possess child sexual abuse material, and to make contact with potential child victims anywhere in the world. The WePROTECT Global Alliance will explore how countries and organisations working together can combat the threat of online child sexual exploitation (CSE) at the national level. 3. Key to addressing the threat of online CSE is industry engagement and willingness to act. The session will also therefore, cover public-private sector models for addressing the issue of online CSE.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

  • Agreement reached on the need to take seriously the threats posed to children online today – and the need to address the existing and emerging risks to their safety and prosperity online.
  • There was broad support on the need for a multi-stakeholder response, and that the WePROTECT Global Alliance is uniquely positioned to provide that response to online child sexual exploitation.
  • The WePROTECT Global Alliance’s Model National Response was endorsed as a holistic, non-proscriptive model that allows countries to take ownership of their response to online CSEA and that more effective sharing of information is important to help countries and stakeholders to build their response capabilities.
  • In all aspects of child protection online, agreement was reached on the need to factor and build responses around local contexts and cultures.
  • Agreement was reached on the need to deliver a quality education to children that included guidance on navigating the digital arena and understanding healthy sexual behaviours and relationships.
  • Agreement was also reached on the need to address supply and demand in combating online threats to children, and the need to draw on industry and the private sector expertise to deliver digital solutions that are safer by design.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

  • A participant advocated the idea to address the phenomenon based on administrative law. This is currently being reviewed by the Netherlands for an independent authority on online child sexual exploitation (at the national level) to assess industry responses to remove, block or takedown online CSE content and their efficacy.
  • A participant advocated for additional resources to be diverted to the WePROTECT Global Alliance and EVAC Fund to build their impact and expand on the evidence available via the ‘booklet of working examples’ launched at the IGF
  • A participant from the private sector advocated for consistency in terms of language and definitions of the online threat types children face (e.g. some countries make child pornography illegal whereas others do not use the term ‘child pornography’ but still make it illegal.) The Luxemburg Guidelines were mentioned as a useful resource in this regard that should be applied globally: http://luxembourgguidelines.org)
  • A panel member from the Netherlands advocated on the need for national and international legal frameworks to enable the effective sharing of information to stop the production and distribution of online child sexual exploitation and abuse material
  • A panel member advocated the need for greater importance to be placed on child safety online, and greater investment to mobilise a global response to match the scale of the borderless threats children face via the reach of the internet.
  • A zero tolerance strategy towards child sexual abuse was demanded based on the UN-Convention on the rights of the child, Art. 34 - Please estimate the total number of participants.

There were approximately 90 attendees present, gender equally balanced.


Updated: 02/11/2018 - 14:04
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): workshop

 

- Title: The challenges of capacity development: practical approach

 

- Date & Time: 12 November, 10.10 – 11.10

 

- Organizer(s): DiploFoundation

 

- Chair/Moderator: Tereza Horejsova

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Katharina Hoene

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

·      Jorge Cancio, OFCOM, male

·      Alberto Cerda, Ford Foundation, male

·      Anju Mangal, SPC, female

·      Grace Mutung‘u, Kenya ICT Support Network, female

·      Hannah Slavik, DiploFoundation, female

·      Susan Teltscher, ITU, female

 

- Theme (as listed here):

Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): digital capacity building

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

·      The need for capacity development in Internet governance and digital policy is voiced substantively and regularly in official speeches and documents. Experienced facilitators and consultants are active in this area. However, supply and demand do not always match. The multistakeholder nature of Internet governance does not always match involvement of all stakeholder groups in capacity development programmes.

·      The current discourse lacks opening some very practical and concrete questions such as: What does capacity development need to look like? What is the learning of activities on capacity development that could be useful to newcomers? Are there particular opportunities, risks, and benefits associated to capacity development in coming years?

·       Quality capacity development requires resources, and very often those most qualified in delivering training cannot devote the time and effort required for fundraising. This brings the question of financial responsibility to implement capacity development programmes.

 

 

 

- 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…

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 


Updated: 25/11/2018 - 15:35
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis 

Session Type: Round Table - 60 Min

Title: Do(not) touch: selfregulatory safe harbor of social platforms

Date & Time: 14 November 2018 (Wednesday), 09:00 - 10:00

Organizer 1: Olga Kyryliuk, PhD, CEO & Founder,The Influencer Platform, Ukraine, female
Organizer 2: Lucena Claudio, Researcher, FCT Portugal, Professor, UEPB, Brazil, male

Chair/Moderator: Olga Kyryliuk, PhD, CEO & Founder,The Influencer Platform, Ukraine, Civil Society, female

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Olga Kyryliuk, PhD, CEO & Founder,The Influencer Platform, Ukraine, Civil Society, female

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Lucena Claudio, Researcher, FCT Portugal, Professor, UEPB, Brazil, Civil Society, male

Speaker 2: Garcia Van Hoogstraten Catherine , Lecturer & Researcher in Data Governance, Public Sector Innovation, Tech, Cybersecurity Law & Policy, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Academia/Technical Community, female

Speaker 3: Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Co-Founder and CEO of Kalpa Protección.Digital, Mexico, Private Sector, male

Speaker 4: Nicolás Diaz Ferreyra, Research Fellow at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Member of the PDP4E project for “Methods and Tools for GDPR compliance”, Civil Society, male

Speaker 5: Natalia Filina, member of EURALO Individuals Association (ICANN), and ISOC, Private Sector, female

Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

Subtheme (as listed here): LEGAL & REGULATORY ISSUES

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  1. Over the past years, interactions based, involving or absolutely connected to digital platforms have started to interfere directly with democracies, which raised concerns as to the regulation of those online spaces. The governments have regulated other businesses and economic activities of global reach before. But social platforms have characteristics that have never been seen before. They are comprehensive, transforming, inclusive and extremely rapidly developing. Moreover, the distribution of resources and regulatory powers is not uniform anymore. Both social platforms giants and governments increasingly recognize the need for regulation. Though, what we need to learn is how to regulate together. It is time to acknowledge the shift to stronger oversight that is called for by the governments and supported by some of the platforms, and find ways to share regulatory hurdles with all other respective stakeholders.
  2. Boundaries between offline and online life are getting blurred. Need in raising awareness as to behavior in digital world. Domain names could serve as an act of independence from social media. At the same time, there is a need in increased risk awareness for making better and more informed decisions. Users have the right to be informed about the risks of using a platform/service by analogy with the real world.
  3. Private-public partnerships (PPPs) in cybersecurity should allow the government and major ISPs to pool their resources and know-how to tackle key aspects of cybersecurity, including protection of critical infrastructure and fight against cybercrime. PPPs are a notoriously complex phenomenon in terms of roles, responsibilities, and governance. Current challenges for effective cooperation between public and private actors countering cybercrimes include obligations regarding disclosure and exposure; evolving liability and regulatory landscape; cross-border data transfer restrictions and investigation of cybercrime.

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…

Coming from different backgrounds (technical, private sector, civil society, and academia) the speakers not only presented a comprehensive vision of who and how should regulate the social platforms, but also touched upon the subsidiary issues, like risk awareness for informed choices and domain names as an alternative to social media profile, that potentially could ease the regulatory burden. It was unanimously agreed that the information shared and the effect of externalities were not that sensitive at the onset of the social platforms, as they are now. The speakers also agreed that we are more attached to our private information when we are in an offline context. It was also indicated that often social platforms introduce themselves like spheres that are free of any risk, which actually modulates user’s perception and attitude towards using the platform.  Basically, if you think that there's no risk, you will disclose more information. The need for some kind of oversight was broadly recognized, with the question of how such oversight should look like being left open for further experiments. Speakers were unanimous in recognizing that the time for classical means of regulation has ended, giving a rise for various modalities of co-regulation. The regulatory public-private partnerships were presented as an example when few stakeholders can actually agree on the rules of behaviour to be obliged by. Though, the roles, investments and responsibilities in such partnerships have to be carefully defined. Some suggested that users must be paid for usage of their data.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Next regulatory steps must include some extent of multistakeholder participation in order to be efficient and enforceable. More risk awareness is needed for making better and more informed decisions. Awareness raising campaigns should be conducted to increase the understanding among users that logging to Facebook or any other social platform is not equal to using the Internet, which in this case becomes narrowed to having social media account.  Users have the right to be informed about the risks of using a platform/service like in the real world. The introduction of preventative technologies in the social media platforms could potentially make people more aware about what can happen with their data. The risk should be embedded in the regulations when we are talking about the social platforms. Regulatory public-private partnerships could become a solution for securing political predictability for the states and economic profitability for the tech companies. The democracy is at stake, and we need to learn how to regulate together. “Take it or leave it” approach is not taking us anywhere, and we should put more resources into investigating efficient modalities of joint regulation that would allow us to make some progress.

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

IGF creates a perfect environment for various stakeholders to come together, hear the concerns of each other and work together on possible solutions. The speech and the very presence of President Macron at the opening ceremony was recognized as a positive move towards finding balanced regulatory solutions by joining the efforts, expertise, and resources. The follow-up targeted discussions are needed with all respective stakeholders. The fact that France and Facebook started negotiations on the hate speech regulation could be considered as one of the steps on the way for various stakeholders to try to find common ground for future regulation.

Please estimate the total number of participants.

50

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

20

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The gender issue didn’t fall into the scope of the session theme.


Updated: 04/12/2018 - 04:56
Report:

 

IGF 2018 /Report

Session Title

Before You Know It, Internet Governance Will be Irrelevant 

Date

Tuesday 13 November 2018

Time

16.40– 18.10

Session Organizer

Farzaneh Badii 

Chair/Moderator

Farzaneh Badii

Rapporteur/Notetaker

Ilona Stadnik 

List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations

 

Christian Kaufmann, RIPE NCC/AKAMAI 

Ted Hardie, IETF 

Geoff Huston and Pablo Hinojosa, APNIC

Michael Kende, Visiting Professor, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

 

Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):

Traffic consolidation is being observed on the Internet. Would this have Internet governance and policy implications? 

Important to be clear about the kind of traffic and the nuances and differences between various causes of traffic consolidation

Consolidation might be because of the evolution of the Internet, but it is important to follow its progress 

Holding actors and operators accountable to Internet norms might be the answer to preserve the distributed and public nature of the Internet 

 

 

Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session: (3 paragraphs)

There is a trend emerging that might affect Internet governance: there are fewer and fewer players on the Internet that deal with Internet traffic and content. The trend does not mean that the whole Internet ecosystem is not growing but as Christian Kaufmann puts it: 

" in the last one or two years, the whole traffic which is flowing via transit and even via the Internet exchanges is not growing to the same degree as the rest of the ecosystem.  So the Internet still grows. You have broadband penetration, you have more content, but the players or delivery method as in transit or Internet exchanges is not growing to the same degree."

 

What are the Internet governance implications of traffic being transited through only a few players? 

 

To answer that question we first tried to define Internet governance: What we mean by Internet Governance are the policies, the best practices, and the standards that shape cyberspace. But also the operational implications, the tasks that the might be affected in the management of the Internet. Would this trend affect the tasks of keeping the Internet open, interconnected and interoperable? 

 

Geoff Huston explained that the role of the Internet as a public carriage system is shrinking in the face of the significant expansion of the privately operated Content Data Networks (CDNs). If the definition of internet Governance embraces some form of oversight of this public communications system, then its effectiveness is also shrinking. We have been accustomed to using the network as the means of monitoring and even controlling users' interactions with content and services, and thereby apply public policies to online services and content. If this form of regulatory leverage is being removed through the privatization of large amounts of the carriage volume of Internet traffic into privately operated CDNs, then this governance model is quickly becoming ineffective and irrelevant. If this entire Internet Governance conversation is indeed about the governance issues relating to the provision of online goods and services then using the public carriage system as a proxy for this governance conversation is a pointless distraction. We need to focus more directly on the far harder issues of defining a tenable and sustainable relationship with these private sector operators and clearly understand exactly why such a public sector governance function is in the interests of both the consumers of such services and these private sector providers.

 

Some other participants in the workshop did not see it that way. They believe that there might be a trend in Internet traffic consolidation but the issue should be looked at in a more nuanced way. Content delivery networks are different from social media providers. As Mike Nelson of Cloudflare explained " It is useful to differentiate between the social media companies, the top of the stack, the security companies that are providing certs and the domain name companies and at the very bottom companies like ours, content distribution network and below that even the networks themselves.

     There is a valid concern regarding cloud providers. Nelson from Cloudflare puts it as: "So we are very worried that one or two cloud companies will control the cloud.  Our answer is to make sure that everybody can connect to any cloud they want Some of us are fighting very hard to constrain ugly monopolist and to have a multi-cloud environment and connect everybody to everybody and not be a gatekeeper no matter how many governments want us to be."

 

Ted Hardie from the IETF saw the changing traffic patterns and reduction in transit as a natural evolution [connected to latency reduction] that might not really affect Internet governance or standards making but which is nonetheless a topic to pay attention to. He made the point that"[to keep the Internet] interoperable and globally interconnected.[we can focus] on making sure that that is a core value of people who participate in the routing system.  The ISOC Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security might be a vehicle for that.  There are methods for doing that by reaching out to the operator communities." But Christian Kaufmann argued that adopting MANRs might face collective action problems. Moreover, joining the private networks that do not even connect to the public Internet might bypass standardization processes. Ted Hardie argued that private networks still require interoperability for Internet traffic and that maintaining different systems for local and global traffic may not be common in the long run.

 

As Michael Kende and others said during the session, there is a difference between consolidation that is a result of economies of scale and consolidation that is a result of the network effect. When we are discussing the issue of traffic consolidation, we need to consider this differentiation into account.

 

Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways: (3 paragraphs)

 

This issue was identified by the participants as a trend that was worth monitoring, but there was not much support for the premise that Internet governance will be irrelevant. Holding Internet operators accountable to Internet values and in specific, the value of interoperability was flagged as a solution that might deserve attention.

Our message: The evolution of Internet operators and service providers might affect Internet governance and its principles. Mechanisms should be in place to monitor such trends and preserve the public, distributed nature of the Internet.

 


Updated: 22/11/2018 - 16:17
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  

Workshop

 

- Title:

5G, IoT and AI - Addressing Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

- Date & Time:

14 November 2018 – 10:40 – 12:10

 

- Organizer(s):

Organizer 1: EduardoMagrani, ITS RIO (GRULAC)

Organiser 2: Carlos Affonso Pereira, ITS RIO (GRULAC)

Organizer 3: Marie-Noemie Marques, Orange (WEOG)                                      
Organizer 4: Pedraza-Barrios Ricardo, CRC (GRULAC)
Organizer 5: Xiaoqi Qin, BUPT (Asia Pacific)

Organizer 6: Maarit Palovirta, Internet Society

 

- Chair/Moderator:

Marta Capelo, ETNO (WEOG)

Carlos Affonso Pereira, ITS RIO (GRULAC)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Marie-Noémie Marques

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Alexia Gonzalez Fanfalone, OECD, F

Speaker 2: Mongi Marzoug, Orange, M
Speaker 3: Juan Manuel Wilches Duran, CRC in Colombia, M
Speaker 4: Smitha Krisna, National Law University, F

Speaker 5: Christian Djeffal, A. von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), M

Speaker 6: EduardoMagrani, ITS RIO, M

 

- Theme (as listed here):

Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Access and Connectivity

 

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words or less]

 

  • Mobile Connectivity,  IoTs and AI  are essential to address efficiently basic needs (electricity, water, education, healthcare and transport) and, for mobile centric countries in developing countries, 5G, starting with cost-effective features, is a cornerstone infrastructure for digital economy and inclusion.
  • Governments have a key role in facilitating the adoption of new technologies like 5G, IoTs, AI for the improvement of its population´s accessibility and connectivity. One way that has been explored in some countries to achieve this objective, is the introduction nationally of a convergent model of regulatory organisation for the development of a dynamic and innovative Internet-enabled ecosystem.
  • In many developing countries, renewable energy (solar PV) and energy efficiency are essential for cost-effective and clean power for mobile networks and devices.

 

- 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 OECD intervention on 5G focused on what the next generation of wireless networks could mean for communication markets in terms of investment, spectrum management, competition, coverage and the increasing requirements of a digital economy. The development of 5G raises a wide range of questions derived from “network densification” and these issues will have to be considered in the context of the traditional telecom issues (rights of way, interoperability, infrastructure sharing, deployment of fibre backhaul and backbone, etc.).

 

Commissioner Juan Manuel Wilches, from the CRC, addressed a regulator viewpoint of the expectations towards new technologies like 5G, IoT or AI in terms of population / geographical coverage, and new innovative services, to address the needs of the population in the developing economies. It is essential to have the right incentive to promote investment, simplify regulation and value commercial agreements, while maintaining a pro-competitive environment. Regulators have to understand how the digital ecosystem works and intervene only where really necessary not to limit its development. The role of governments is to try to reduce the risks associated to AI and IoTs such as security, privacy, and in a longer scope, jobs.

 

For the private sector, connectivity needs to be promoted through the five main dimensions and policy options already identified by the IGF community: Deploying infrastructure; Increasing usability; Enabling users; Ensuring affordability; Creating an enabling environment. For many developing countries, digital advanced technologies, such as 5G and IoTs, will play a critical role to address the basic needs of the population (access to electricity, water, education, healthcare and transports); network costs and energy costs will need to be addressed efficiently and with priority.  5G and IoT applications will be even more important for the developing countries; digital financial inclusion is also expected to help boost poverty eradication, job creation, and citizen empowerment.

The relationship between discrimination and inclusion at macro level was highlighted by the Speaker from HIIG, in particular through the analysis of the national strategy plans for AI. AI systems can be used differently, applying discriminatory practices or combatting discrimination. As AI can also become a tool for inclusion for the future, it is important to look at specific AI applications, as well as organisational and strategic developments of AI at macro level.

In addition, the Speaker from ITS RIO focused on the need to understand the concepts of IoT and AI, to be able to discuss them on a common ground. As “things” are indeed becoming more intelligent, unpredictable and autonomous, social and ethical issues such as inclusion and discrimination need to considered, differentiating between narrow and strong AI. To promote inclusion and reduce discrimination, there will be a need to ensure: (i) inclusive engineering (including gender and race balance, and minorities in the design phase), and (ii) explainable AI (transparency, openness and capability of delivering an explanation for automated decisions).

The issues of liability in case of accident and identification of responsibilities, when the tasks will be ensured by machines, was shared by the ITS RIO speaker, as well as raised by a Speaker from the BUPT.

Finally, there is also, among the young people (Jenna Fung, NetMission Asia) a concern about the ability for the existing labor force to seize the opportunities deriving from these new technologies and how to eliminate the gap between the labor force and the rate of the rapidly changing technological world, in particular in relation to emerging countries and the youth.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

 

  • As we evolve in 5G and next technologies, there is a need to go to the basic of traditional telecoms: efficient spectrum management, rights of way, interoperability, market driven infrastructure sharing, deployment of fibre backhaul and backbone, etc.

 

  • 5G and IoTs are expected to expand and improve connectivity and inclusivity, through the enrichment of mobile connectivity, for the benefit of consumers, innovators and business. Governments should release the necessary spectrum for mobile connectivity and especially low bands and allowing network and spectrum sharing in rural areas.

 

  • There is a need to simplify regulation and regulate as little as possible. There is an urgent need to define the frequency bands; to promote connection to the cell sites in the remote areas of the countries ;  no obligation or restrictions on sharing agreements and on the way operators are collaborating to deploy networks.

 

  • AI can also become a tool for inclusion for the future, therefore organisational and strategic developments of AI shall also be looked at macro level.

 

  • All the important issues that have been mentioned need to be tackled through different perspectives. We need to have a holistic view of the challenges.

 

  • As “things” are indeed becoming more intelligent, unpredictable and autonomous, social and ethical issues such as inclusion and discrimination need to be considered.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

 

In general and for 5G in particular, the stakeholders shall continue sharing experiences and knowledge to apply locally solutions adapted to the needs of people and businesses.

 

In relation to AI, we need to look at what we want to achieve and decide what is the relevant institution. The IGF  ecosystem may be an appropriate forum to deal with AI, provided that this ecosystem is able to take up the task. IGF is good, because it is good at inclusion and has a meaningful participation, but there is a need to broaden participation and find new ways of discussion. For example, there is in Germany a proposal to ask the population at random to decide and discuss on issues in order to find new ways of governance for AI.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

40 + (22 women ; 19 men in the room).

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

22 women; gender variant impossible to know / identify.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 

The issue of Digital Inclusion and Accessibility was tackled as a whole, in relation to any citizen, user or producer, without any distinction of gender. One Speaker insisted on the fact that the promotion of inclusion and reduction of discrimination will have to ensure, in relation to inclusive engineering, that there is a balance to reach in terms of gender and race, and that minorities are included on the design phase.


Updated: 29/11/2018 - 14:39
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Workshop

- Title:  Scaling community networks: exploring blockchain and efficient investment strategies

- Date & Time:  14 November 2018, 9:00 am to 10:30 am at Salle VI

- Organizer(s):

Organizer 1: Carolina Caeiro (F), LACNIC
Organizer 2: Stavroula Maglavera (F), University of Thessaly
Organizer 3: Luca Belli (M), Center for Technology & Society at FGV
Organizer 4: Laura Kaplan (F), LACNIC
Organizer 5: Kevon Swift (M), LACNIC​
Organizer 6: Duncan Macintosh (M), APNIC Foundation
Organizer 7: Olatunde Awobuluyi (M), AFRINIC

- Chair/Moderator:

Paul Wilson (M), Director General, APNIC Foundation

Kevon Swift (M), Strategic Relations Lead for LACNIC, (remote moderator of the session)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: 

Olatunde Awobuluyi (M), coordinator of FIRE AFRICA

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Speaker 1: Phet Sayo (M), IDRC
Speaker 2: Jane Coffin (F), Director of Development Strategy at the Internet Society

Speaker 3: Alberto Cerda (M), Global Program Officer for Internet Rights and Access at Ford Foundation

Speaker 4: Carlos Rey Moreno (M), Association for Progressive Communications

Speaker 5: Nicolas Echaniz (M), AlterMundi Association Civil

Speaker 6: Silvia Díaz Molina (F), Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Speaker 7: Carl Elmstam (M), SIDA
Speaker 8: Panayotis Antoniadis (M), NETHOOD

Speaker 9: Carolina Caeiro (F), LACNIC
Speaker 10: Stavroula Maglavera (F), University of Thessaly

- Theme (as listed here):

Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Community Networks

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

Key Message 1

The establishment of Community Networks (CNs) has emerged as a concrete alternative to address the challenge of connecting the unconnected. To scale this solution, CNs, donors and investors must have a closer conversation  to map priority areas for investment. As such, the primarily goal of the round table was to bring multiple stakeholders from the Community Networks movement, including collaborators from academia and funding agencies, to discuss the  future of community networks through the integration of new technologies -- with special attention to the possible use of Blockchain—and  the development of effective investment strategies for scaling-up.

Key Message 2

One key aspect of the workshop was to debate how to effectively invest in scaling up community networks. To that end, the roundtable brought together representatives from Internet Society, IDRC, Ford Foundation, USAID, SIDA, FRIDA Program, APC, the Internet Society’s Special Interest Group on Community Networks, academia working on related technologies. The session built upon previous debates on technical and non-technical innovation around community networks and strategies for connecting the unconnected.

Key Message 3

In addition, the workshop sought to explore how Blockchain solutions could be utilised by CNs to create added value and build trust among relevant stakeholders.

- 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…

Donors explained their respective funding strategies and priorities based on specific characteristics and goals of their organizations.  There was a common agreement that it is important for donor agencies supporting connectivity efforts to work with community networks to know what it is they need vs what donors think they need. Internet Society pointed out that small grant-making has worked well when supporting Community Networks, even if it is intensive.

There was broad support for the view that there are sustainable value chains within the community network ecosystem that trigger social innovation, technical innovation and generate economic opportunities where the profits generated will stay and be reinvested in that community. APC member and former CN director, Carlos Rey Moreno, explained that when working with CNs, we may need to move away classic profit-driven models, as these are failing to connect certain populations. He asked donors to “trust the process” as “the problem of connecting the unconnected is a tough one, businesses have not been able to solve it.”

Representatives from CNs provided some specific recommendations such providing funding for collective Community network-based projects rather than supporting individual networks, and the importance of supporting networks to make a case before States to become legally viable and develop comprehensive connectivity policies that consider CNs.

Finally, regarding blockchain for CNs there were two divergent views, those who believe it can represent a means for community governance, and those who believe blockchain seeks to replace trust-building which is crucial to CNs successful performance.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

A couple of suggestions  regarding the way forward were given mainly by the technologists present. These include:

  • The management and effective use of idle bandwidth
  • Access to manage public access points by members of the community and/or  allow the extension of public access points set up by government into community mesh networks by private individuals
  • Ease of access to infrastructures (Towers, etc)  by smaller community network initiatives
  • The enactment of comprehensive connectivity policies that create enabling conditions for CNs to proliferate.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The importance of making Universal Service Funds available to community networks was discussed and  the role and influence international organizations, cooperation agencies could have on how to help community networks make a credible case for their governments to actually design lines through which they can assign Universal Service Funds was raised.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.  42

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 15

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

There was very minimal discussion on topics centered on gender related issues. There was a single mention of how a  network of community libraries with free internet access across Myanmar had been used to empower girls.


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 07:01
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round Table

- Title: Public-Private-Civil Partnerships in Cyber Capacity Building

- Date & Time: 14 November, 2018 - 11:00 to 12:00

  • Organizer(s): Enrico Calandro, Research ICT Africa and Patryk Pawlak, EU Institute for Security Studies

- Chair/Moderator: Patryk Pawlak, EU Institute for Security Studies

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Enrico Calandro, Research ICT Africa

  • List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Daniela Schnidrig, Global Partners Digital

Speaker 2: Kerry-Ann Barrett, Intergovernmental Organization, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

Speaker 3: Lucie Krahulcova, Policy Analyst, Access Now, Brussels Office

Speaker 4: Catherine Garcia-van Hoogstraten, Lecturer & Researcher in Data Governance, Public Sector Innovation, e-Governance, Cybersecurity, Faculty of Public Management, Law and Security - The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS)

Speaker 5: Manon van Tienhoven, Advisor, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise

Speaker 6: Robert Collett, Head of Capacity Building, Prosperity and Cyber Crime, UK Foreign Office

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, trust, and privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Cybersecurity best practices

  • Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
  1. Public-private partnerships in cyber capacity building are one of the key conditions for successful initiatives. However, the roles of respective actors and their potential contributions to the process still need to be clearly defined. What mechanisms exist to ensure effective and efficient distribution of tasks and responsibilities?
  2. Initiatives based on multistakeholder engagement should be at the centre of any potential engagement. This, however, is not always the case.How can we ensure that legitimate interests of the civil society organisations are adequately addressed in such partnerships?
  • Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The session provided a good opportunity for sharing experiences of different actors with the process of the cyber capacity building. The session has reaffirmed the strong need for a more organised and explicit recognition of the civil society organisations in the cyber capacity building efforts. Several speakers stressed the growing importance of the CSOs – not only as the target of the capacity building efforts but also as a real partner in the process. Their increasing role in providing legitimacy to the whole process was also underlined with some speakers suggesting governments and private sector becoming surprisingly dependent on the civil society organisations. Yet, some of the speakers expressed doubts whether the existing set up is a partnership of the equals. Differences in how different groups define cyber security and approach capacity building in this domain were listed as potential reasons for a variety in types of the emerging partnerships.

  • Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

The challenge of bringing to the conversation organisations from the Global South was mentioned. It would, therefore, be useful to consider ways and mechanisms how to engage more with the organisations based in the Global South.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

The role of the IGF was a platform for multistakeholder engagement was clearly stressed. As such, it provides one of the avenues for building better partnerships between various actors.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

We estimate the total number of participants at 50-60 people.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

We estimate that the majority of participants was female.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

Gender issues were not mentioned during the session.


Updated: 30/11/2018 - 13:38
Report:

Long Report
 

- Session Type:

Round Table - 90 Min

 

- Title:

Game Over IPv4: The need of IPv6 for the future of games

 

- Date & Time:

Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 15:00 to 16:30

 

- Organizer(s):

Organizer 1: Eduardo Barasal Morales, NIC.br

Organizer 2: Tiago Jun Nakamura Nakamura, NIC.br

Organizer 3: Antonio Marcos Moreiras, Brazilian Network Information Center - NIC.br

Organizer 4: Hartmut Glaser, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br)

Organizer 5: Nathalia Patrício, NIC.br

 

- Chair/Moderator:

On site Moderator: Mr Eduardo Barasal Morales, NIC.br

Online moderator: Mr Tiago Jun Nakamura Nakamura, NIC.br

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Rapporteur: Mr Eduardo Barasal Morales, NIC.br

Rapporteur: Ms Nathalia Patrício, NIC.br

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Speaker 1: Mr Lee Howard, male, CEO, Retevia (Private Sector)

Speaker 2: Mr Klaus Nieminen, male, Development Manager, Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (Government)

Speaker 3: Mr Antonio Marcos Moreiras, male, Projects and development manager, NIC.br (Technical Community)

Speaker 4: Mr Darrin Veit, male, Principal Software Engineer, Microsoft - XBOX (Private Sector)

Speaker 5: Ms Bárbara Prado Simão, female, Digital rights researcher, IDEC (Civil Society)

 

- Theme:

Technical & Operational Topics

 

- Subtheme :

INTERNET PROTOCOLS

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

This workshop discussed the problems caused by not deploying IPv6, focusing on the interactions between Internet Services Providers (ISPs) and Online Games companies. When online users don’t use IPv6 to connect to the Internet, they have to use the legacy protocol known as IPv4. However, all of the Internet is suffering from IPv4 public address exhaustion and  soon there will be no more addresses available to connect users on the Internet. Because of this, many ISPs are using techniques to extend the life of IPv4, such as carrier grade network address translator (CGNAT) and other transition techniques, instead of using IPv6. This causes many connectivity problems for all Internet users, especially for  game players, who need good connectivity for a more satisfying gaming experience. 

On the other hand, game companies are far behind in the IPv6 deployment. Many games still don’t use IPv6 and some game companies haven’t even started to plan the migration. This situation forces the player to use IPv4 to connect to the game. However, many players are ISP customers, and those providers are running out of IPv4 addresses. Because of this, many players are having difficulties in playing and some can’t even access the game online. In other words, this technical problem is infringing one of basic Internet Governance principles by not allowing online users to have the right to access the entire Internet.

This workshop aimed to publicize this problem between ISPs, online games companies and IPv6 for all of the Internet community. Although this problem is very specific, it deserves to be studied because the solution can be expanded to other areas. In order to solve this issue, a roundtable was organized in a multi stakeholder approach, involving the private sector, governments, the technical community and the civil society to discuss different points of view. It was a very important landmark because the solution can only be achieved if all stakeholders share information and collaborate with each other.
 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The idea behind this session was to establish a collaboration rather than debate. In this way, it is pointless to talk about agreement or disagreement. Still, there was broad support for the view that we need to improve IPv6 deployment especially by game companies. 
Initially, the audience didn’t seem to understand the complexity of the issue. However, as the panelist discussed some graphs and case studies that showed that the world is suffering from IPv4 address exhaustion, the audience seem to change its perception of the problem. It became clear to the participants that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 and that the total potential of the Internet can not be achieved if the IPv6 is not implemented in the near future. This presentation also heightened public awareness of possible unfair advantage among the players thus contributing to the increased the relevance of the topic discussed. 

Besides, the panelists and the audience agreed that the migration to IPv6 should be encouraged rather than imposed by regulatory agencies. One panelist even stated that the countries that had regulated around IPv6 tended to be the countries with the lowest IPv6 deployment. Therefore, a consensus was reached that an important first step in this process was to gather different stakeholders in a roundtable meeting to discuss the best ways to deploy IPv6 and solve the connectivity problems with IPv4 and CGNAT. 

This roundtable was important because it served the purpose of broadening the participants’ points of view, thus educating everyone in the discussion.
 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

As the panelists presented in the session, it is crucial that the Internet migrates to IPv6. However, in some areas, such as in the online games’ area, this migration is taking longer than expected. Due to discussion of this delay, workshop participants reached a consensus that it is very important to encourage the IPv6 deployment in order to accelerate this transition, especially in a multistakeholder approach. One way to do this is to do more discussion like this IGF workshop to build an environment for sharing information and solving the problem of non-use of IPv6 in a collaborative way.

When the session was over, the organizers also received suggestions to continue this work with the aim of improving the IPv6 deployment and to present their studies in other forums, such as LACNOG (Latin American and the Caribbean Network Operators Group).

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

It was a consensus during the session that the topic of the workshop is a problem that can only be solved with a multistakeholder approach. Each panelist represented a different perspective involved in the problem. Each of them presented their distinct point of views and this helped the participants to understand the current scenario and how this situation can infringe some of the basic Internet Governance principles. Because of this, the IGF was fundamental to progress on this IPv6 issue. The overall idea that consolidates all the work  done at this workshop is the necessity of having more discussions like this in other to achieve a collaborative solution to accelerate IPv6 deployment.
 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

In the session there were 85 participants in situ and 7 remote participants through webex.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

We estimate that at least 30 women were present in the audience. The presence of any gender-variant was not identified.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?
 

The gender diversity both among the panelist and in the audience demonstrates that this theme is relevant to all genders. The session didn’t specifically discuss gender issues because the roundtable focused on a technical discussion of Internet protocols.

 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

These links represent all the work that has been done on this topic in Brazil

Portuguese links:

Survey we did in IPv6.br Project
http://ipv6.br/post/IPv6Games/

Article in the RTI Magazine
http://www.arandanet.com.br/assets/revistas/rti/2018/novembro/index.php
Presentation in the “10 anos de IPv6.br” conference

https://10anos.ipv6.br/

https://youtu.be/MbC1ZWTuMfI?t=398


Updated: 12/11/2018 - 22:22
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Round Table, 60min

- Title:

Has it become a luxury to disconnect?

- Date & Time:

12 November 2018, 12:30-13:30

- Organizer(s):

Cathleen Berger, Mozilla

- Chair/Moderator:

Cathleen Berger, Mozilla

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Solana Larsen, Mozilla

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Ephraim Kenyanito, Article 19, male

Shashank Mohan, SFLC, male

Solana Larsem, Internet Health Report, Mozilla, female

- Theme (as listed here):

Cybersecurity, Trust, and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Data Privacy and Protection

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

The continued push for meaningful access comes against the background of a new digital divide: the one where protecting your privacy comes at significant economic cost.

While privacy is a fundamental human right, technological developments such as smart cities, smart homes and other connected devices, or digital ID initiatives all seem to raise the bar of being able to disconnect and assume one's agency.

Agency is a precondition to reinstate trust in technological change and the ongoing digitisation of our lives, protecting privacy is therefore of paramount importance.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

We discussed the paradox of wanting to connect everyone, while understanding that ubiquitous technology carries a risk of permanent loss of choice, the inability to opt out of digital technology and tracking by corporate or public entities.

We agreed that privacy is important, but acknowledged that convenience and social norms hold high currency in human society. We are only beginning to push back as civil society on excessive use of technology in the family realm as well as in public and civic spaces.

Disconnecting is a luxury that is increasingly unattainable at all levels of society, but disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable worldwide. We touched on national digital ID systems, such as Aadhaar, children’s rights, mobile finance, LGTBTQ+ rights, free speech, and we lamented public and private expectations that all movements and interactions must be recorded in the name of commerce, national security or efficiency.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

- Encourage the changing of social norms around sharing information, for instance parents sharing images of children.

- Hold governments accountable to continuously revise and improve digital services and policies with the input of civil society and technical community.

- Without privacy there is no human dignity, which is an absolute right. On that basis policies should challenged in courts on necessary and proportionate principles.

- Support arts, culture, and storytelling that challenges norms and helps envision a positive future with technology and the internet.

- Empower public libraries as educational centers to support digital security and web literacy, and help disseminate curriculums.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

- IGF can contribute to international solidarity by reaching out to governments in support of the work of civil society allies who face closing of civic spaces.

- Safer Internet Day should be strengthened and promoted to continue raising awareness worldwide and create a window for local civil society allies to engage with government actors.

- To resist fear-mongering in communications, and focus on empowerment and responsibility.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

50

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

24

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Gender was not a primary focus of the conversation, but it surfaced as part of a conversation around who is vulnerable in society when it comes to excessive tracking or inability to disconnect, as well as in education and family dynamics surrounding childcare.


Updated: 12/11/2018 - 17:24
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

[sample report here]

 

 

 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Workshop Panel 90 min - WS #319

 

- Title: Regulations for a neutral and open Internet at the age of online platforms

 

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 15:00 to 16:30

- Organizer(s): Paula Forteza, Assemblée Nationale / Lucien M. CASTEX, Internet Society France / Salwa Toko, Conseil national du Numérique

 

- Chair/Moderator: Lucien M. CASTEX, Internet Society France

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Mauricio Mejia , Assemblée Nationale

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Speaker 1: Paula Forteza, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), French Member of Parliament, Female

Speaker 2: Sebastien Soriano, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), French Telecom regulator ARCEP, Male

Speaker 3: Carolyn Nguyen, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Microsoft, Female

Speaker 4: Luca Belli, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School, Rio de Janeiro, Male

Speaker 5: Chérif Diallo, Government, African Group, Ministère des Postes et Télécommunications, Male

Speaker 6 : Salwa Toko , French Digital Council - Conseil national du Numérique Female

 

 

- Theme (as listed here): Evolution of Internet Governance

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): legal & regulatory issues

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. We need to improve our regulatory frameworks to hold online platforms more accountable.

2. As of today, we have different regulatory methods applied to the Internet: a traditional state-centred legislation, a technological regulation through data, a private self-regulatory vision and a bottom-up approach by civil society and the technical community.

3. We need a more flexible, adapted regulatory mix that fosters innovation whilst holding online platforms accountable, allowing users to control the use of their data, and keeping the internet safe and open for everyone.  That is why we need to consider the principles of loyalty and transparency in order to reach a fair and open digital environment, deploy a bottom-up approach and a data-driven real-time regulation, develop new tools, as well as build channels of cooperation for regulators.

 

- 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…

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

 


Updated: 05/12/2018 - 22:10
Report:

- Session Type Workshop

 

- Title:  Data Governance in SMART CITIES: From Open Data to My Data (IGF 2018 WS #320)

 

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 09:00 to 10:30

 

- Organizer(s): Organizer 1: Luca Belli, Fundação Getuio Vargas (FGV) Law School

Organizer 2: Jhessica Reia, Fundação Getuio Vargas (FGV)

Organizer 3: Luã Fergus Oliveira da Cruz, Youth Observatory

Organizer 4: Raoul Plommer, Electronic Frontier Finland

 

- Chair/Moderator:  Luca Belli, FGV & Jhessica Reia, FGV

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Luã Fergus Oliveira da Cruz, Youth Observatory

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Olga Cavalli, (female) co founder of the South School of Internet Governance and Argentina's GAC representative at ICANN

Jhessica Reia, (female), Fundaçao Getulio Vargas (FGV)

Nicholas Bramble, (male) Google  

Robert Mathews, University of Hawaii (male)

Jean-Philbert Nsengimana, (male) Smart Africa

Antti Poikola (male), MyData.org 

 

 

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

- Subtheme (as listed here):  DATA PRIVACY & PROTECTION

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  1.       Given the role that such systems are likely to play in shaping urban governance and public policies and the impact that “Smart City” services will have - and are already having - on an incredible number of city dwellers, there is a pressing need to understand how public managers and private companies are defining data governance in the context of smart cities policies.
  2.       It seems important to scrutinise the nature and production of urban big data, the composition and functioning of urban analytics and control centres related to smart cities, and the privacy and security implications of the adopted forms of governance for citizens on a global scale.
  3.        It is urgent to understand the regulatory and governance dimensions of Smart Cities, especially the ones related to personal data protection and cybersecurity, and identify legal gaps that may allow social and economic discrimination, with particular regard to access to public services.

- 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…

 

One of the points of agreement among the participants were the need for greater public participation in the elaboration of policies focused on the Smart Cities theme, and with all mentioning the city of Barcelona as a great example.

Reia and Cavalli focused their presentations on regional and local cases, presenting what practices are being carried out, with a special focus on Latin America (Rio, São Paulo, Mexico City, Santiago, Buenos Aires) and their historical problems of inequality (infrastructure and wealth). Reia deepened this debate by raising questions about the need to critically discuss the issue, as well as share and cooperate with other global forums such as UN-Habitat.

Belli and Poikola turned the focus of the debate on personal data protection, attempting to address the issue in a different way, by focusing on user control over their data through a human-centric perspective and rejecting the concept of data ownership.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

Make data publicly available without making it exclusive, and make sure anybody who wants to use this information to build within the city has the ability to do so.

Privacy Impact Assessment in Smart Cities

Real need for advocacy and serious research behind the hype of smart cities, in order to make sure that smart city initiatives are not used as mechanisms to reproduce exclusion and discrimination.

Ownership is not the way to start the discussion around smart cities because it puts up barriers from the start. The real question is: Who should have the right to learn about the data when we move to AI thinking?

Not being the owner but being the one that controls data.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

Co-operate with urban policy agenda (Habitat III) and discuss the challenges that smart cities might face over the coming years.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

 

Around 60 participants.  (Regrettably, at least 20 more participants have been expelled by UN staffclaiming the room was too full)

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 

Approximately 30 women (Some people in the room have been expelled by staff, so we do not have an exact count)

 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

None

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

 

https://mydata.org/

https://internet-governance.fgv.br/sites/internet-governance.fgv.br/file...

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Discrimination-vs-Data-Control-in-Brazilian-Smart-Cities

https://www.sidewalklabs.com/

http://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda/


Updated: 23/11/2018 - 00:01
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Interactive Expert Session

 

- Title: “Freedom of the Internet” is for EVERY stakeholder

 

- Date & Time: 9:00-10:30, November 12(Day1)

 

- Organizer(s): Mariko Kobayashi, Hirotaka Nakajima

 

• Chair/Moderator:Mariko Kobayashi(on-site), Hirotaka Nakajima(online)

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Mariko Kobayashi

 

• List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Sanja Kelly(F), Freedom House

• Thomas Grob(M), Deutsche Telekom AG

• Lillian Nalwoga(F), ISOC Uganda

• Guy Berger(M), UNESCO

• Olivier Bringer(M), European Commission

 

• 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 Open, Free Internet” encourages the digital economy, the evolution of technology, express and share ideas and accomplishing SDGs.

• Appealing benefits of "The Open, Free Internet" is an effective way to build a “multi-stakeholder” dialogue between policymakers and several stakeholders rather than only criticizing about issues, such as blocking, filtering and Internet Shutdown. 

 

- 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…

 

  • According to the latest “Freedom on the Net” report, growing number of restrictions on the Internet in election or protests, and Website registration is even needed in Cambodia.
  • An expert from UNESCO mentioned that the Internet should be based on the human right according to “INTERNET UNIVERSALITY”  and “ROAM model” which is an important concept to understand UNESCO thoughts. He also mentioned an Open Internet means open markets, open software, open educational resources and it enables “Free Flow of the idea(audio, music, art…).”
  • According to an expert from the African Tech community, although AFNIC and ISOC have published statements against the Internet Shutdown, governments argue “the national security” and tech communities fears to speak out.
  • An expert from the business sector(ISP) mentioned that they have a responsibility for customers and competitive market to sell access to the Internet, and do not want to do any censorship. According to the recent case study in Europe.
  • An expert from European Commission told us that EC asks network operators(ISPs) to remove illegal content via take-down notice, but has safeguards in case content removed by mistake.

 

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

- SDGs can be a common purpose for both governments and business sectors.

  • Open membership is needed for some forums to realize the multi-stakeholder participation in the discussion.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion concerning how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

We realized that there is the structure of “The Open, Free Internet v.s. National security” from a dialogue between policymakers and other stakeholders in our workshop. An expert from Intergovernmental organization said “If you want to have rights, accessibility, and open Internet, you need multi-stakeholder process“ and IGF should be the place for it.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

approximately 40-50

 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Participants: 3:7 

The panel was also gender balanced with three out of five speakers

 

  • To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]
  • Women speaker actively speaks on the open mic from both participants and speakers. We have diverse participants from each stakeholder,  including several people from governments and one regulator attend our workshop. After organizing the workshop, there is a contact from several governments. 

Updated: 05/12/2018 - 10:16
Report:

- Session Type –Workshop

- Title: WS #346 REFUGEE RIGHTS AND THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: Building Digital Futures for all?

- Date & Time: 14th November, 9am

- Organizer(s): Minda Moreira and Marianne Franklin

- Chair/Moderator: Marianne Franklin

- Rapporteur: Minda Moreira

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Astri Kimball​ (Google), private sector

[absent] Andrew Toft (Department for International Development, UK), government

Eimear Farrell (Amnesty International), civil society

Jean Guo (Konexio), civil society

Valentina Pellizzer (APC Women), civil society

 

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Refugees

Session Type – Workshop

 

Title: WS #346 REFUGEE RIGHTS AND THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: Building Digital Futures for all?

 

Date & Time: 14th November, 9am

Organizer(s): Minda Moreira and Marianne Franklin

Chair/Moderator: Marianne Franklin

Rapporteur: Minda Moreira

 

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

  • It is estimated that today over "65 million people are refugees or internally displaced people" (United Nations High Commission for Refugees) and internet access and mobile phones play a pivotal role in providing vital information, helping families to stay connected and giving newcomers the necessary tools to being able to start a new life in another part of the world. However, despite the fact that everyone should have their human rights protected as per international HR law, reports from the ground are showing that basic rights such as the access to information have been withdrawn from refugees and displaced people in certain parts of the world, including in Europe. Stripping refugees and migrants from their rights comes hand and hand with the rise of negative narratives that dehumanise. 
  • The “Refugee crisis” highlighted connectivity and accountability issues. Over the last few years and as a result of the drive for using innovation in humanitarian context and for providing “legal identity to all” (SDGoal 16.9) refugee camps are becoming testing grounds for new technologies that collect, store and manage personal data. These tools, which may lead to positive outcomes on the life of refugees also impose new challenges and risks as the digital storage of private information brings the responsibility of ensuring the rights to privacy and data protection. However, the lack of transparency, accountability and the inexistence of clear and concerted policies that protect the data and privacy may be putting at risk very vulnerable populations. 
  • In order to find solutions and to ensure that the human rights of refugees and displaced people are protected online and offline the voices of this community need to be brought to the table making sure that refugees and displaced people are involved in the design process and are setting the agenda on the discussion, together with advocacy groups that represent them. Governments, private sector, technical communities and civil society need to work collaboratively, bring positive narratives, apply a human rights-based approach to the development and use of emerging technologies.

Panel presentations:

Moderator Marianne Franklin, IRPC introduced the session with he UNHCR report stating that there are over 65 million refugees and displaced people and the importance of a mobile phone and connectivity in improving refugees’ well-being. Taking into account that many reports from the field show how refuges and displaced persons are been stripped out of their basic rights in many parts of the world, including Europe she asked whether human rights online - which have been recognised by the UN, work or do not work for refugees and displaced people. She also brought to discussion the double-edged sword of emerging technologies which can be empowering and provide contact with the loved ones, but are also being used to track and label people who do not fall easily under the citizenship rubric. 

Valentina Pellizzer, APC Women brought in her experience of working with refugees in the Balkans to highlight the dehumanisation of refugees. Valentina also referred to her work at Tacit Futures to point out the existence of an infrastructure of data surveillance paid with public money that tracks mass migration and refugees. She stressed the importance of reflection on the polarity between the fragility of infrastructure of care - based on civil society organisation taking steps to connect people on the move with their friends and family and the public-private partnerships in refugee camps, urging for  a third party composed by civil society and the refugees themselves to monitor this partnership.

Jean Guo, Konexio, explained the work with refugees and newcomers developed at her organisation to ensure that those who are the most vulnerable, including refugees have the opportunity to access digital skills and rights. She highlighted the importance of connectivity, and  stressed that it is important to make the distinction between the different levels of usage and to understand how technologies and smart devices are used, as older and younger generations, may use these devices in different ways. On protection of digital data Jean highlighted the importance of creating solutions that take into account  the possible dangers and risks associated with connectivity and how developers need to be made aware, through education and information, that devices and apps that they are developing can bring out solutions but can also collect information that can put lives in danger.

Astri Kimball, Google, highlighted the work of her organisation has been done to provide solutions and help support 800 000 refugees and displaced people, in terms of access (maps, people finder, google translate), educational resources through online education and positive narratives about immigration  - Youtube Creators for Change, lifting up voices to counter the negative ones. Referring to Artificial Intelligence solutions, Astri mentioned that technology can provide solutions adding that  the  protection of rights and privacy is global challenges, but that power of the data to find patterns and provide solutions is a great opportunity for society and therefore the right balance needs to be found  not to put privacy and rights at risk. 

Eimear Farrell,  Amnesty Tech, Amnesty International (AI), pointed out that while examples of tech for good and how it is used to bring good and to improve lives of refugees and migrants are all around, it is also very important to ensure that they do not cause harm. She highlighted the fact refugee camps have been the ground for testing and trialling of technologies in very vulnerable populations and that this can bring serious  and sometimes unpredictable consequences.

Talking about the work that AI has been doing to address these issues she mentioned UN’s Global Compact on Migration an Global Compact on Refugees which included language around data, biometrics and how AI together with other organisations and NGO’s advocated for improved language on privacy and data protection in these areas, especially in the case of biometrics. AI advocates a HR based approach to the use of emerging technologies by looking at questions such as participation of the people affected, equality, non discrimination, also transparency, right to remedy and accountability. The AI is also starting to organise a coalition of groups interested to acting in these issues to look at the gaps in knowledge, provide practical information and documentation and to propose alternative solutions.

She addressed the political  securitization of immigration and the drive to use technology  towards innovation in humanitarian contexts and she stressed the fact refugee camps are becoming testing grounds for new technologies and that this needs to be highlighted in everyone’s interest.  Digital Identity she added can be empowering but it need to be under the control of the people owning this identity.  As for the partnerships between governments private sector organisations in refugee camps she stressed the need  to tackle the  lack of transparency on contracts  that are in place and data sharing agreements and the importance of private companies to ensure that HR are respected and that any means of surveillance on very vulnerable populations often fleeing on the basis of they identity is an issue that governments need to be addressed as identity is critical to their protection.

  • 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 dehumanisation of refugees was an issue covered by the panel. Valentina Pellizer stressed this can be tackled by addressing the issue of whiteness - at the core of the existence of refugees, which involves acknowledging the responsibility of colonialism, imperialism and capitalism. Astri Kimball explained their work on positive narratives about immigration  - Youtube Creators for Change, to lift up voices and to counter the negative narratives online while Jean Guo urged governments to stop stereotyping and to share more positive examples.

There was broad support for importance of connectivity, which allows refuges and displaced people the access to basic rights, but as Jean noted, it is also important to make the distinction between the different levels of usage and to understand how technologies and smart devices are being used by these populations.

The protection of rights and data in the digital era was widely discussed. Valentina mentioned the infrastructure of data surveillance paid with public money, stressed the importance of reflecting on the polarity between the the fragility of the infrastructure of care - based on civil society organisations, and the public-private partnerships in refugee camps and called the monitorisation of these partnerships by a third party composed by civil society and the refugees themselves. Also focusing on refugee camps Eimear Farrell highlighted the fact that as a result political securitization of immigration and the drive to use technology towards innovation in humanitarian contexts these have been testing grounds for new technologies in very vulnerable populations often fleeing on the basis of their identity and that this can bring serious and sometimes unpredictable consequences. She added that digital identity can be empowering but it needs to be under the control of the people owning this identity. Addressing the partnerships between governments and private sector organisations in refugee camps she stressed the importance of tackling the lack of transparency on contracts and data sharing agreements, and the need of private companies to ensure that human rights are respected. Awareness through education and information, so that developers can create solutions that take into account the possible dangers and risks associated with connectivity was Jean contribution to the topic and Astri pointed out that the power of the data to find patterns and provide solutions is a great opportunity for society and therefore the right balance needs to be found not to put privacy and rights at risk.

Questions from the floor included:

  • Are companies (such as Google) applying HR standards at the design level of new digital tools
  • What measures are going to implemented in collaboration with governments to ensure that the rights and digital of refugees are protected?

Other comments from the audience addressed the negative aspects from some of the tools created to develop the positive narratives (such as Google’s Creators for Change), as they are sometimes being used to lure people to the countries where they are then trafficked and the limitations of some other tools (e.g Google Translator and Kurdish Sonali) in addressing the needs of refugees and displaced people.

 

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

List of concrete solutions and recommendations included:

  • The introduction of group privacy as best practice.
  • The need of testing new tools before they are launched at full capacity to ensure that they are actually useful and safe.
  • Working towards a reflective and responsive tech .
  • Involving refugees and displaced people in the design process of new solutions. 
  • The need of a disrupting technology bending towards justice.
  • Using technologies on HR work or solutions that help further the rights of refugees and migrants  and working collaboratively.
  • The need of a human rights-based approach to the development and use of emerging technologies.
  • The need to ensure  that refugees themselves and migrants and the advocacy groups that represent them are setting the agenda on discussions around global standards on these issues.
  • Ensuring that data protection and innovation are mutually reinforcing.
  • The responsible use of data, and the need to reflect about how data is collected and working towards a standard policy. Audit has to be done by refugees themselves and the civil society. 

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

There were around 21 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

There were 19 women and gender-variant individuals present.  

  • To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words] N/A

Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):


Updated: 26/11/2018 - 15:04
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round table (60 minutes)

- Title: A Multistakeholder Approach to HRIAs: Lessons from ICANN
http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-ws-349-a-multistakeholder-approach-to-hrias-lessons-from-icann

- Date & Time: Wednesday 14 November at 12:30pm

- Organizer(s): Collin Kurre, Bruna Martins dos Santos, Louise Marie Hurel

- Chair/Moderator: Bruna Martins dos Santos

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Louise Marie Hurel

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Speaker 1: Jorge Cancio, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
  • Speaker 2: Michele Neylon, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
  • Speaker 3: Collin Kurre, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
  • Speaker 4: Tulika Bansal, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender, and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Other - Human Rights Impact Assessments

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

This panel explored the intersection of business, human rights and multistakeholder internet governance. Conversations centred on the topic of multistakeholder Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs), which are currently being trialed for the first time ever within the ICANN community. Key messages:

  • It’s more difficult for companies operating in the digital space to assess how their operations will impact people than, say, mining or textile companies because it’s harder to define communities, pinpoint rights-holders, and predict how technology will evolve.
  • Nevertheless, tech companies and standard-setting bodies should have built-in processes to ensure accountability and human rights due diligence.
  • Multistakeholder impact assessments are an iterative, collaborative, and practical way to frame conversations, inform policy, and mitigate negative impacts.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

 
The challenge of defining rights-holders amongst internet users was highlighted by many, yet yet there was broad support for companies and standard-setting bodies to introduce and act upon human rights commitments. One area of divergence related to which subset of rights should be prioritized, e.g. children’s, cultural, or LGBTQI rights. Examples were given to demonstrate that impact assessment methodologies can be tailored to address specific, or various, categories of rights. As a result, participants suggested that such tools can make the subject of human rights more practical and tangible, or allow people with divergent positions to engage in a constructive way.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Several individuals offered to contribute to ongoing efforts to carry out impact assessments on DNS policy in the ICANN community. A few DNS companies also expressed interest in incorporating human rights due diligence into their internal processes. There was widespread, multistakeholder support for organizing a High-interest Cross-community Session on the subject of human rights during ICANN64 in March 2019. Potential co-coordinators suggested were the GAC Public Safety and International Human Rights Law Working Groups, the NCSG Cross-Community Working Party on Human Rights, and the NCUC.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

A recurring theme throughout the session was the benefit of bridging the Internet Governance community with the Business and Human Rights field. The IGF ecosystem provided a unique and efficient platform for generating actionable project ideas on this subject. As conversations progress, the IGF community could continue serving as connective tissue between these fields and assist with prioritizing which types of assessments could be applied to internet companies and policy — gender impact, regulatory impact, human rights, etc.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

45

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present?

22

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

Specific impacts of DNS policy on LGBTQI and children’s rights were briefly touched on as elements that can and should be assessed. However, the session was primarily focused on the introduction and operationalization of human rights considerations more broadly.


Updated: 30/11/2018 - 12:47
Report:

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Roundtable

Title: WS #355 Empowering Change with Data:Measuring Youth Digital Mobility

Date & Time: 13 November 2018, 16:10 - 17:10 

Organizer(s):
Organizer 1: Yannis Li, DotAsia Organisation (Technical)
Organizer 2: Jenna Fung, NetMission.Asia (Civil Society/Youth)
Organizer 3: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO 
Organizer 4: Guy Berger, UNESCO

Chair/Moderator:
Edmon Chung, DotAsia Organisation (Technical) - In Person Moderator

Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Yannis Li, DotAsia Organisation (Technical)

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Edmon Chung, Male, DotAsia Organisation, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 2: Chitat Chan, Male, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Academia, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 3: Sherry Shek, Female, Coordinator of Internet Society Hong Kong, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 4: Angel Ng, Female Youth Representative, HKYIGF, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 5: Faith Lee, Female Youth Representative, HKYIGF, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 6: Wathagi Joy Ndungu, Female, Co-Founder of Digital Grassroots/Google Policy Fellow, Civil Society, African Group

Theme (as listed here):
Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

Subtheme (as listed here):
INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Key issues raised (1-sentence per issue):

  • The overall YMI rankings are closely correlated to traditional simple metrics that shows competitiveness, such as GDP per capita. This correlation reinforces that the YMI methodology is built on a sound basis; greatly deviating results would be a cause for concern.
  • Open data and capacity building effort are important to stimulate more data-driven advocacy.
  • A well-defined objective and goals of data collection is key to success in advocacy.
  • While data-driven advocacy is an effective way to call for changes, the privacy and security of the data collected shall be handled with caution.
  • Many YMI indicators stem from the socioeconomic environments and policies of a locality. It follows that policy makers and governments should use YMI indicators to advise policy change in making their locality more competitive for youth.
  • Youth shall not be underestimated just because of their experience and it is believed that a group of like-minded passionate and determined youth together can bring a very significant change.
  • There is a call for paradigm shift from concerning only Internet connectivity and access to how the Internet and digital mobility is actually supporting or not supporting young people and their development in terms of the competitiveness.

If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

The organizer, Mr. Edmon Chung, has presented an overview of the Youth Mobility Index (YMI.asia) which takes into account the geographical, social and digital mobility across employment, education and entrepreneurship pillars. The index measures how easy it is for young people to move across the region physically and upwardly in social context as well as to mobilise resources and people online. Secondary data was mainly used for calucations such as the public data sets from local governments, UNESCO, World Bank, UNICEF, etc combining in total a 216 different social and econimic indicators as well as technical indicators. Weighing of each data point is also adjusted based on youth-driven mindsets considering that youth might have different priorites than senior professionals. Some interesting highlights of the results are:

  • The overall YMI ranking correlates well with the GDP per capita
  • Japan and Korea actually shows a lower GDP per capita because of their high digital mobility for young people in those regions. How that actually translates into the future competitiveness of those areas versus simply looking at the GDP and the GDP development would be an interesting area to look at.
  • Hong Kong and Singapore have a huge migrant force yet only a small trunk is youth while Japan is the opposite with a large proportion of youth among the small migrants population
  • Japan ranked high overall yet their outbound mobility is indeed relatively low and more investigation on the effect of future competitiveness is to be revealed.
  • Taiwan faces similar situation of low youth outbound rate and raised the question on its influence on social tolerance and diversity.
  • Vietnam has a very high start-up momentum yet low in general mobility indicating that the regulatory framework for allowing young people to move about may need to be opened up further
  • Singapore and Hong Kong are usually very high on happiness index overall in Asia; however, when you divide it by the cost of living, i.e. cost of happiness, they fall to the bottom of the scale

Dr. Chitat Chan introduced the youth-mindsets comparative study as a stem of the YMI project which involves a survey to measure some psychological constructs, including close minded necessary, curiosity, self-esteem, ethnocentric tendency. The study will provide further evidence to policy makers on how socio-cultural conditions correlates and affect young people on their mobility and vice versa.

Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

Two youth representatives from HKYIGF Angel and Faith of age 18 and 16 years-old respectively shared why mobility is important from their youth perspectives. Angel commented that digital mobility is especially important for education to help eliminate disparity and the anti-globalization movement with the increase access to information and learning materials via the Internet. People in developing countries will have more opportunities to quality education without travelling abroad. Faith agreed that youth nowadays are being brought up in a more international and global context where they are inclined to go abroad for life experience instead of owning tangible goods. Overall, youth mobility helps develop global citizenship and connect people of different parts of the world and help solve global problems.

The importance of data-driven advocacy was raised by Wathagi Ndungu where she had extensive experience with her work at Amnesty International and Digital Grassroots Program. She noted that a nice visualization of data can help to boost interests and tell better stories. She shared a successful case in Kenya which they asked citizens whether they will vote yes for the newly proposed data protection bill and presented the data collected to the government. The government was moved by the data and called for a collaboration with the civil society to improve the bill. It was echoed by another youth representative Faith Lee which she shared about her student-led advocacy work on refugee rights with the data gathered by an NGO showing the astonishingly low refugee acceptance rate of 0.6% in Hong Kong compare to the highest 75% elsewhere. She added that data provides a kind of background and knowledge to public on the need for change.

External factors such as open data availability; capacity building effort; data relevance will affect the ability to empower change with data as suggested by various speakers. For instance, Wathagi reminded that trainings for advocates are required to build their capacity in dealing with a vast number of data as well as handling the privacy and security aspects of the data. It is also noted that the relevance of data and the objectives or goals in collecting such data shall be well defined in the first place to ensure the effectiveness of any indices to inform policy makers’ decisions. However, Sherry indicated that there is room for improvement on open data and the data format from local governments to assist research or studies. She observed a general reluctance of government departments in Hong Kong to open up data or only release them in pdf format which poses difficulties for researchers to extract and analyze them.  

 

Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways (3 paragraphs):

The Youth Mobility Index has planned improvements on incorporating gender and freedom of the internet factors more into the calculations as well as taking the Internet Universality Indicators adopted framework and the ROAM principles.

Other suggestions made by participants are to take into consideration the backgrounds, like cultures and upbringings of the individuals that are being investigated, including their education. It is because the education system differs depending on the country and also depending school by school. Another question raised is whether the quality of the exchange experience has been taken into account.

There is a call for paradigm shift from concerning only Internet connectivity and access to how the Internet and digital mobility is actually supporting or not supporting young people and their development in terms of the competitiveness.

 

Gender Reporting

- Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

There were around 25 participants

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

Approximately 12 participants were female including 4 on the panel out of the 6 speakers.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?

- If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

The session did not address gender issues in specific while there is a mention to include gender aspects into the index calculation.

 

 


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 08:49
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template
Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018
Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

[sample report here]

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Panel – 90min

- Title: Proliferation, Cyber Stability and State Responsibility

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 2018 - 09:00 to 10:30

- Organizer(s): Organizer 1: Frederick Douzet, University Paris 8
Organizer 2: Stéphane Taillat, Ecoles de St Cyr Coëtquidan
Organizer 3: Alix Desforges, University Paris 8

- Chair/Moderator: Frederick Douzet, University Paris 8

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: François Delerue

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
Speaker 1: Chris Painter, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG) (male)
Speaker 2: Anriette Esterhuysen, Civil Society, African Regional Group (female)
Speaker 3: Kulesza Joanna, Civil Society, Eastern European Group (female)
Speaker 4: Bill Woodcock, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG) (male)
Speaker 5: Bruce McConnell, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG) (male)

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust & Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Cyber diplomacy

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
1. First Key Message : Cyber stability is at risk. Assess the risk of cyber instability in the wake of state - and non state - sponsored offensive activities and address the role and responsibility of States in ensuring cyber stability
2. Second Key Message: The Public Core of the Internet ought to be protected in order to ensure cyber stability. Exposing and discussing the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace Call to Protect the Public Core of the Internet
3. Third Key Message: Further action needs to be taken to protect cyber stability. Exploring further ideas and norms proposals to protect the general availability and integrity of the Internet

- 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…

The successive panelists presented the work and norms of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC), focusing mainly on the first norm on the protection of the public core and showing how it relates to the further adopted norms.

Part of the discussion dealt with the status of the norms and State practice. It was underlined that there are 6 States that are not abiding by the norms, but the 190 other States have actually no problem with them and it will incentivize the formers to abide. The panel also emphasized the central role of non-state, notably companies and civil society, and the necessity to have an inclusive approach

A debate developed on the two projects of resolution (A/C.1/73/L.37 and A/C.1/73/L.27/Rev.1) adopted by the first committee of the UN General Assembly last week and how the work of the GCSC will articulate with them in the future

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

- focusing on users’ security rather than States’ security, when dealing with cybersecurity. This includes, notably, the necessity to integrate the human rights perspective.
- thinking about the articulation of the to-be-created open-ended working group (UN doc. A/C.1/73/L.27/Rev.1) and UNGGE (UN Doc. A/C.1/73/L.37), as well as the role and collaboration of the GCSC in this perspective.
- Working on the enforcement of the norms, notably on the accountability dimension.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

- Please estimate the total number of participants.
Circa 110

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
Circa 50

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The discussion did not address gender issues.


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 13:43
Report:

General Data

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

- Title: A BRIC hit the Web: Finding patterns in digital policymaking

- Date & Time: 11:20 to 12:20

- Organizer(s): Mark Datysgeld; Ilona Stadnik

- Chair/Moderator: Mark Datysgeld

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Agustina Callegari

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Mark Datysgeld, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 2: Luca Belli, Academia, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: Ilona Stadnik, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
Speaker 4: Yik Chan, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group

- Theme (as listed here): Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here): INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion: 1) There are similarities in digital matters between BRIC countries that need to be further explored; 2) Policies that better inform the digital education of BRIC youths could improve outcomes; 3) Multistakeholder cooperation in-bloc is very low and could be improved to basic levels.

 

Session pre-report

Moderator: Mark Datysheld

 

Speakers:

Luca Belli, Center for Technology and Society of Fundação Getulio Vargas Law School
Dr. Govind, ISOC Delhi Chapter President
Yik Chan, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
Ilona Stadnik, Civil Society, Eastern European Group

 

Report from GIP: https://dig.watch/sessions/bric-web-finding-patterns-digital-policy-making

 

Summary

The BRIC countries show some similar patterns but also different approaches to digital technology. The session brought together speakers from four of the five BRIC countries (Brazil, China, Russia, and India) to share their views as regards cybersecurity and data protection and it was moderated by Mark Datysheld.

 

Luca Beli started by sharing the CyberBRIC project which has opened a call of applications for researchers of BRIC countries to focus in data protection, as it’s a key topic in all five countries as it has an impact on e-commerce. After that, the introduced the Brazilian political system and he mentioned key events related to the Internet such as Snowden revelations that target the Brazilian and also Russia and NetMundial and he focused on the data protection law that was approved in August in Brazil after more than nine years of debates. He highlighted that some law aspects were vetoed by the President like the elimination of the data protection authority which could make difficult to implement the law and make it efficient. As regards cybersecurity, he mentioned some practices that could be negative, like that cybersecurity is coordinated by the military.

 

Ilona Stadnik talked about the situation in Russia in relation to the digital economy that is not covered by the media. She gave an overview of the involvement of the Russian government in the digital ecosystem from 2010 to now as she mentioned that there was not interested in the topic until 2010. She mentioned that in 2011 the data protection law was approved and that the interested of the government in the digital economy started in 2016 where there was a conference about the Internet where the president attended. The outcome of that and other conferences on the matter was the creation of the national programme entitled: “Digital economy” that started in 2017. The programme, that included different topics, begun as a multi-stakeholder initiative, however, as Ilona mentioned, this year the government wanted to give back the power to the government, and other stakeholders don’t have a clear role within the programme.

 

Dr. Govind started by sharing some numbers that showed the size of the digital economy in India (1.5 billion mobile, .2 billion unique identification numbers, thousand billion transactions, etc) and he mentioned the Digital India programme that aims to prepare the country for the digital transformation (for example, digital skills for start-ups). The programme also includes cybersecurity as a cross-cutting theme: security in the digital space is ket for e-commerce and also for social media channels. With regards to data protection, Dr. Govind referred to the bill that is currently being discussed in the Parliament and will continue in the following months. He mentioned that the discussions use the multistakeholder approach (government consulting civil society and business). At the end of his intervention, he highlighted the importance of strengthening the cooperation between BRIC countries.

 

Yik Chan believed that cybersecurity had a negative impact on Internet connectivity especially in humans rights and freedom of expression and framed the discussing in relation to country sovereignty in terms of defining which areas belong to the government and which do not. She mentioned three topics that are important for the discussion: infrastrucrure (both in terms of hardware and software), online applications (most of the countries developing apps do not have access to the international market), and the importance of security, political systems, social order, and cultural diversity.

 

During the interventions from the audience, Ambassador Benedicto da Fonseca from Brazil, mentioned that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil had requested the government to create a national authority for the data protection law. He said that, like GDPR, Brazil had given 18 months to implement the law and that will give time to create the implementation body. He also commented that one of the most important CERT in Brazil is hosted by held by the CGI which is a multistakeholder body.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 16:53
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

            Workshop

- Title:

             Innovative Approaches to Connecting Underserved Areas

- Date & Time:

            Wednesday, 14 November, 2018, 09:00 to 10:30

- Organizer(s):

            Sebastian Bellagamba, Internet Society

Loreto Bravo, Rhizomatica

- Chair/Moderator:

            Sebastian Bellagamba (onsite)

            Katie Watson (online)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

            Katie Watson

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Ritu Srivastava, Digital Empowerment Foundation (female)

Karla Valesco, Redas (female)

Loreto Bravo, Rhizomatica (female)

Gonzalo Lopez-Barajas, Telefónica (male)

John Dada, Fantsuam (male)

Bill Murdoch, Clear Sky Connections (male)

Matthew Rantanen, Southern California Chairman Association (male)

- Theme (as listed here):

            Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here):

            Access and Connectivity

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1. This panel will serve as an opportunity to discuss the unique challenges communities face around the world and some of the innovative projects currently being implemented to connect them, while working with key partners to amplify local sustainability and empowerment.

2. Participants will hear about convenings, such as the Indigenous Connectivity Summit, existing connectivity projects run by, for, and with underserved people, and best practices moving forward.

3. The panel will focus on how communities are creating an environment in which they can create innovative connectivity solutions, such as community networks, that lead to self-empowerment and sustainability, as well as the inclusion of women and young people for socio-economic development through connectivity and partnerships.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The key themes of this session were as follows:

  • Accessibility and affordability of spectrum and existing backhaul fiber are big barriers to connectivity
  • Community consultation and collaboration are keys to success
  • Education, digital literacy, and training for community members are an important aspect of connectivity
  • Cost of devices are an overlooked barrier to access

There was wide agreement that to connect the hardest to reach areas – from desserts, to jungles, and Arctic areas – innovative approaches must be used. Panellists noted that it is important to consider what assets communities have and to use their uniqueness as an advantage when possible. But there are many challenges to connecting these regions, including lack of access, or high cost of access, to backhaul and spectrum.

The majority of the panellists were engaged in community network deployment and discussed the unique opportunities and challenges that brings. Panellists use mesh networks, fiber, mobile vans fixed with satellite, and other technologies to help underserved communities get access to the Internet. They emphasized that while several successful models exist, every community is different and the solutions in each will be different. For that reason (and many others) consultation with communities is key.

But even “connected” communities face ongoing challenges, including equal access between genders, education about how best to use the Internet, technical training, access to affordable devices, and sufficient bandwidth.

One panellist represented a large private company, Telefonica, and discussed the ways in which the company has used innovative measures to deploy fiber (such as by hanging it from trees instead of burying it underground) in hard to reach areas. This panellist also noted that Telefonica works in parallel with community networks and believes that they are an equal part of the solution.

Panellists emphasized that Telefonica should tell these stories of success to other major providers around the world, who are often resistant to this kind of innovative, collaborative deployment to rural and remote areas.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

In order to connect the most difficult areas in the world, there needs to be wide-spread collaboration. Private companies, government agencies, and communities need to work together to share resources and expertise. Policymakers can help this collaboration by encouraging private companies to increase access to backhaul fiber at reasonable costs to communities, increasing the availability of unlicensed spectrum, and reducing the cost of spectrum for private companies, SME’s, and community network operators.

However, regulation is often a burden to connectivity. Policymakers should use their power to encourage the creation and expansion of community networks, not hinder it.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

Collaboration was a recurrent theme throughout the session. The IGF can continue to facilitate these discussions between many stakeholder groups.

However, it was noted that there were very few sessions on innovative connectivity solutions, particularly related to community networks, and two of them were scheduled at the same time. This session and a session on financing networks were concurrent, and the financing session was ultimately combined with a session on block chain. It was disappointing to split the audience for this important work, and the panellists (and organizers) hope that the IGF organizers will be more aware of scheduling conflicts like this in the future.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

50

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

 Uncertain

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

Minimally – largely in the context of access for particularly underserved groups.


Updated: 02/11/2018 - 20:24
Report:

Successful connectivity investments require coordinated efforts from multiple stakeholders. While a large portion of current investments for connectivity come from private network operators, new avenues of blended financing show potential.

Information gaps on the viability of new business models can inform targeted investments. 

Policy can play a facilitating role in new investments for connectivity. 


Updated: 13/11/2018 - 16:44
Report:

- Session Type: Round Table

- Title: Challenges & opportunities: How will technology reshape jobs

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 11:50 to 13:20

- Organizer(s): Gonzalo Navarro, ALAI

- Chair/Moderator: Adela Goberna - ALAI

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Gonzalo Navarro - ALAI

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Davide Storti UNESCO, Male

Speaker 2: Maarit Palovirta, ISOC, Female

Speaker 3: Ana Ines Basco, INTAL, Female

- Theme:

Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme:

Future of Work

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. 

  1. There is plenty of work to do as to boost the progress of economy and dynamize the labour markets, in a context where technology emerges.
  2. Automation and new technologies are a key aspects but public policy will also play a major role in fostering and helping reshape jobs.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was broad support for the view that the future of work is a topic that will have a great impact on how we approach technology. Some indicated that there are multiple ways of understanding this phenomena, as we need to focus in different areas as to make a difference. For instance, the subject of development of soft skills was addressed during the panel as well as the notions related with capacity building.

Some supported the idea of generating new educations patterns to encompass this change in jobs while others noted that also public policy should tackle these areas as to create the right incentives for new jobs opportunities to develop.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

As possible next steps, it was suggested that focusing on capacity building is a key aspect to prepare the young people for new kind of works, both in hard and soft skills. Also it was recommended that governments should take an active role over setting the right set of principles over this topics, while encompassing the recommendations of other stakeholders.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

Regarding how the IGF ecosystem might take progress on this issue it was said that this is an emerging topic and therefore the ecosystem must keep it in close observation for the future development of the issue and due to its impact in other areas.

- Please estimate the total number of participants: 30

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 15

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

Gender was addressed regarding how women take part of the existing and to come working force.


Updated: 15/11/2018 - 15:46
Report:

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018 

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

 

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Roundtable

Title: #388 Making National Laws Good for Internet Governance

Date & Time: Tuesday, November 13, 2018; 11:50 a.m. -1:20 p.m.

Organizer(s): 

Chair/Moderator: 

  • Jessica Dheere, Social Media Exchange

Rapporteur/Notetaker: 

  • Grant Baker, Social Media Exchange

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Speaker 1: Agustina Del Campo, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), female
  • Speaker 2: Lisa Vermeer, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), female
  • Speaker 3: Gayatri Khandhadai, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group, female
  • Speaker 4: 'Gbenga Sesan, Civil Society, African Group, male

Theme (as listed here): 

  • Evolution of Internet Governance

Subtheme (as listed here):

  • Emerging Legal Trends

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  1. National-level legislation to govern the internet is proliferating and often compromising multistakeholder approaches to internet governance as well as human rights online.
  2. The reasons for this are many, including in how legislation is drafted, how it travels from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the imposition of extraterritoriality of jurisdiction, etc.
  3. States must work together with other stakeholders to avoid disrupting the multistakeholder foundations of internet governance by anticipating the effects of such legislation and jurisprudence and analyzing the overall legal framework within which new laws will apply, paying particular attention to conflicts of law, in particular between national legislation and international human rights law and norms.

Salient points, conclusions, learnings and challenges

In relation to group of questions 1:

- There is less resistance at the different levels or branches of powers when the process of developing legislation have the support of different stakeholders. The chances for approval and enactment of the laws increase.

- Civil society have to literally allow someone else take credit for the work. Step back and provide the support to other stakeholders for the sake of the multistakeholder character of the processes is something that should be considered as part of the strategy.
- To be able to influence legislative processes, it is necessary to to get familiar with the legal language. It is also necessary to identify the political tensions that might exist between the different powers or different branches of government and how it impacts the legislative process.
- The work does not end with the law. The work begins when there is a law and it is necessary to create conditions for its implementation. Look at mechanisms for legal redress, for instance.
- Consultative process and collaborative lawmaking inspire and are taken as a reference for processes in other countries.
- Legislative processes are not harmonic and do not happen in an organised way. It is necessary to understand the logic and the power dynamics to be able to engage and influence the processes.

In relation to group of questions 2:

- It is necessary to move the discussion from the digital rights realm to the broader human rights. 
- Links between national and international or multilateral processes should be built.

- The online space is treated different than the offline space. The online space is being more restricted than the offline one. There is a failure of civil society to being able to make the advocacy around internet related matters relatable. How to make advocacy relatable is a key issue.
- It is important to understand the way in which offline laws are used along with ICT laws.
- A caution: while at the international level it is repeatedly affirmed that rights offline apply online, it is important to realise that is not necessary the norm that applies nationally where in some cases even constitutional guarantees are not being applied and respected.

In relation to group of questions 3:

- It is crucial to understand the intersections and dialogue between court decisions, jurisprudence and legislation. Court decisions can spark legislation or kill them.

- That dialogue between courts and legislative powers depends on the country. The legislative activity is more intense in some countries than in others.
- Specific cases have great impact in the way in which internet issues are legislated, using in some cases paradigmatic cases that set jurisprudence.
- Courts have a key role in standard setting 
- A lot of regulation is good and necessary and some of it can be harmful. Are we clear on the type and scope of regulation we want to see being developed and applied?
- Be careful to apply geographically based regulation to a medium that needs the interconnection between networks.
- Technology and technologically scenery changes a lot faster than legislative processes move along. How to ensure that legislation on specific issues do not lose relevance over time? How do we respond to the regulatory race. How we can do legislation that addresses the issue that is relevant for us but at the same time protects the infrastructure of the internet?
- Decisions are traveling across borders and there is an issue in translating circumstances, context and regulatory frameworks. Congress are having hard time doing that translation.

Some recommendations:

- Developing what we mean by a rights based approach to ICT policies - we could try to first articulate how this applies and how the RBA is to be applied to the development and assessment of policies.
- Come up with ways in which we can assess whether national laws meet their national and international guarantees. If this can be done in a cross jurisdictional manner it will facilitate analysis and advocacy. 
- Making available positive jurisprudence that is developing in different regions - especially from the global south will be good for assisting legal action in different countries, especially when there is a tradition of referring to foreign pronouncements. 
- Develop campaigns and conversations that can explain the consequence of bad laws and provisions. By doing this we might end up gaining a fresh perspective based on interaction with users, beyond experts.

Conclusions:

- Regulation is about creating standards. Governments are thinking regulation in terms of control and people will react. We need to move to talk about standards. 
- Participation is very important in whatever form it takes. 
- Instead of being reactive, be proactive 
- Explain what a human based approach to ICT policies. Pronounce the rights that the regulation will impact and how they will be impacted.
- A fundamental shift needed is recognising users as rights holders rather than subjects to control.
- Recognition of the social exclusion in terms of digital exclusion. 
- There is the need to look at the relationship between companies and governments and how that is influencing the way laws are being made.
- Legislative processes take time. Processes matters.
- Analyse speed vs quality in legislation affecting ICTs so we can use that evidence to improve legislative development in the future.

 


Updated: 26/11/2018 - 21:10
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round-table

- Title: WS #393 CLOUD Act & e-Evidence: implications for the Global South

- Date & Time: 13/11/2018, 11:50 – 13:20

- Organizer(s): CGI.br & IRIS BH

- Chair/Moderator: Thiago Tavares (CGI.br)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Diego R. Canabarro (NIC.br / CGI.br)

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

  • Ms Lani Cossette, Microsoft, Business, female;
  • Ms Fernanda Domingos, Federal Prosecution Service in Brazil, Government, female;
  • Ms Monica Rosina, Facebook, Business, female;
  • Ms Luiza Brandão, IRIS BH, Scientific Community & Academia, female;
  • Mr Bertrand de la Chapelle, Internet & Jurisdiction, Civil Society, male.

 

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here):  Legal & Regulatory Issues

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

  1. New unilateral, bilateral and multilateral solutions to balance the protection of privacy and access to data to address crime have reconcile three main objectives: fighting abuses and crime, while respecting human rights and fostering the digital economy.
  2. Participants noted that the majority of cases of international cooperation today have some sort of connection with the jurisdiction of the United States. Institutional solutions developed in the Global North - disregarding the contextual aspects inherent to the Global South -  have the potential to marginalize countries in the latter. A proper equilibrium between the needs and characteristics of every country should guide discussions about the development of institutional solutions to balance the protection of privacy and access to data to address crime.
  3. There was a recognition that the MLATs system is ill-suited for the dynamics of the Internet. However, participants also underscored the importance of procedural and substantial rights inherent to the MLATs system, which is something that should not be abandoned in future modalities of cooperation. Scalability and interoperability are the main tenets for moving forward in discussions related to the matter.

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.  

Three institutional approaches were presented by the keynote: CLOUD Act, e-Evidence Framework, Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention. The differences among them were explained. Some of the challenges inherent to each initiative were raised: challenges inherent to scalability of unilateral (e-evidence), bilateral solutions (CLOUD Act), as well as the multilateral approach (Budapest Convention). The first can be emulated (raising the risk of conflict of laws); the second can create casts of "recognized and unrecognized" states; and the third involves very different sets of interests that might complicate the achievement of consensus. A fundamental question that guided discussions was: “why (and what sort of cooperation is needed) in an international system?" There was consensus among the participants that cooperation as it stands today is more of an obstacle (talking about MLATs) instead of a sound instrument for enabling cooperation. However,  participants also underscored the importance of procedural and substantial rights inherent to the MLATs system, which is something that should not be abandoned in future modalities of cooperation. One participant contended that due process and respect of human rights are fundamental linchpins to discussions regarding the evolution of international cooperation. Another participant explained that the global north has asserted its jurisdiction over data regardless of where it is located. Countries in the Global South could follow the same path and increase the complexity of the current landscape. Panelists underlined the importance of thinking of legal interoperability when discussing all this initiatives. There was a clear recognition that it is imperative to move away from the idea that location of data is relevant to allow for access or not to it in an interconnected World. All participants seemed to agree with the notion put forward by one of the panelists that independent judicial oversight is a sine qua non requisite for Law Enforcement Agencies to use data and information. Discussion with the audience covered the following topics: the role of independent judicial oversight for access to data; the fragmentation of national and international legal orders; and the perils inherent to data localization laws.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

One participant criticized the unilateralism of some of the initiatives under discussion and called for a more cooperative approach to the topic. Another one explained that uncoordinated initiatives can increase conflict of laws. One of the big challenges to be tackled by all stakeholders according to the participants is “how to provide human rights protection across borders”. Multi-stakeholder cooperation, especially for the Global South, was recognized as a means to assure that intergovernmental solution will not marginalize relevant actors that could help craft solutions that might avoid conflict of Laws. Additionally, agreeing on fundamental principles to guide cooperation and the development of institutional solutions was perceived as a fundamental step in moving forward towards scalable and interoperable solutions. The role of the private sector in working collaboratively with governments as well as in pushing back abusive behaviour by countries was highlighted. Additionally, some participants highlighted the importance of expanding the array of people involved in discussions such as the ones enabled by the session: from Law Enforcement Agencies and private companies to International Organizations, journalists, data and privacy protection community, academia, etc.

 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

This topic was not covered by discussions that took place during the session.

 

- Please estimate the total number of participants: 63.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 32

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

Gender issues were not within the scope of the discussions. However, all panelists took note and commended the session organizers for putting together an almost-all female panel for the discussion of Internet & Jurisdiction at the 2018 IGF.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs): Not applicable.


Updated: 12/12/2018 - 15:25
Report:

                                          

Session Title

DNS enhancements and alternatives for the Future Internet                        

                                                                                                                                                           

Date

12 November 2018                            

                                                                                                                                   

Time              

9:00 - 10:30                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Session Organizer

Chiara Petrioli, University of Rome La Sapienza     

                       

Chair/Moderator

Chiara Petrioli , University of Rome La Sapienza (In-session moderator)

Jing Ma, China Association for Science and Technology (Remote moderator)

                                                                                               

Rapporteur/Notetaker

Veronica Birindelli, Agency for Digital Italy (AgID)                                                                                                                                                                                              

List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations

                                                           

Dongbing Wang, Associate Professor of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT) - (Technical Community)

Khaled Koubaa , ICANN - (Technical Community)

Ted Hardie, IETF - (Technical Community)

Jeremy Rand, Namecoin - (Private Sector)

Francesco Pirro, Agency for Digital Italy (AgID) - (Government)

                                                                                                                       

Theme

Technical & Operational Topics                                                                                                                  

Subtheme

Domain Name System           

                                   

                                                                                               

Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):                                                   

The Internet has  faced significant changes in the type and volume of traffic, geographical distribution of users, increased use of mobile access. Internet applications and protocols have significantly evolved to reflect such changes. However a fundamental strategic application such as DNS has so far basically maintained its original technical approach and the ecosystem activated for its management, still under responsibility of the 13 organization, mostly US based,  that reflect the Internet of the ‘80s. Current Internet evolution, and in particular cybersecurity risks, the fast growth of IoT, with its stresses in terms of both scale and traffic volumes and in terms of amplification of security attacks, are demanding an evolution of DNS. ICANN for instance now state that adoption of a secure version of DNS such as DNSSEC is urgent. Emerging technologies such as peer to peer systems vs. centralized, BlockChain technology, and also the agility with which we can now change Internet logic, creates the basis for a rethinking of DNS from both the technical approach, its governance and the naming system. Low cost availability of storage, even on personal mobile devices, and bandwidth at the LAN level can allow a massive distribution of DNS content, opening up novel opportunities for massive distribution of DNS. The panel has gathered experts from University of Rome La Sapienza, Beijing University of Post and Telecommunication, ICANN, IETF, Namecoin and AgiD to discuss on the current challenges of DNS and DNS governance in light of Future Internet demand, the possible alternative approaches and why such approaches (either evolutionary or revolutionary) could solve emerging challenges.

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                       

If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each Presentation (To be updated)

 

Dongbin Wang, Associate Professor of Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications,  introduced how the Domain Name System (DNS) worked and the challenges, such as  centralization, and cache poison.  The emerging Blockchain technologies has the advantages of  decentralization, distributed and public digital ledger.  Alternative mechanism with blockchain were presented.

 

Khaled Koubaa, the ICANN representative emphasized how the DNS is one of the crucial features of the internet, and how ICANN’s role is also about the Internet's system of unique identifiers, including the top of the DNS hierarchy, and that their adoption of the bottom-up, multistakeholder approach ensures that this is managed appropriately. Also, he underlined how the challenges related to the Internet unique identifier systems are at the top of the list of their objectives.  In particular, he said that their vision is to Champion the Single, Open and Globally Interoperable Internet and to be the trusted guardian of its unique identifiers. He also noted that it is important to remember that with a hierarchical namespace, the search must start at the top of the namespace: there's no avoiding it. He added that the hierarchical name space does not imply inefficiency, since the DNS is very well distributed worldwide and has proved to be robust. In particular, the DNS root zone is the most over-provisioned zone in the entire namespace, and that TLDs operating within the ICANN framework have contractual obligations to provision adequately. He acknowledged that it's true that the majority of root operator organizations are U.S.-based,  but the root server instances themselves are distributed worldwide. He said that this was last decade's technical problem, and it has been solved by having a large number of anycast root instances, spread all other the world. The root operator organizations participate in the ICANN process via RSSAC, so they are visible and engaged. He also argued that the problem of DDOS attacks exploit a market concentration issue that is not a problem inherent to the hierarchical structure of the DNS. Regarding the scaling issues, particularly when it comes to the explosion of IoT devices, he stated that DNS is adapting to the scaling, and that in fact a hierarchical structure would help the scaling of the IoT.

 

 

Ted Hardie, the IETF representative, commented that as we consider experiments for the DNS, we must consider carefully whether we are experimenting with data governance or with data distribution.  He says that since the publication of RFC 3258, the community has had ways of distributing DNS services very widely, and the results have scaled well.  Public ledger systems like blockchains ensure that there is a full record of changes to the data, but they do not scale well for actually data distribution.  Similarly, the data governance questions of who makes changes are separable from distribution.  While consensus protocols like those used in Bitcoin are one possibility, other models, like that used in HTTP's certificate transparency, offer different data governance methods.  Lastly, it is critically important that these experiments do not fragment the Internet namespace.  One of way of maintaining it is using the same cryptographic assurances of the data's integrity,  no matter what the distribution method.  Since DNSSEC is an object security method, it can be adapted to those new distribution methods, and it may help us maintain that integrity.

 

Jeremy Rand, the representative for Namecoin, argued that "Trust" is actually an undesirable attribute, because trusted 3rd parties are security holes.  Namecoin is an experiment to try to produce something superficially similar to the DNS while reducing the amount of trust required.  Namecoin is Bitcoin's codebase, with minor modifications to make the "coins" represent domain names rather than fungible currency units.  Among some of Namecoin's more interesting use cases are TLS public key infrastructure and naming for dark web sites. Some of Namecoin's security features include atomic buying/selling of names, and a scripting-language-based approach for setting up security policies for how names can be updated and transferred.

 

Francesco Pirro of Agency for Digital Italy (AgID) brought up the issue of the effects on the market of the current DNS structure. In particular, he underlined how the hierarchical structure enables the creation of monopolies that benefit those who control their specific level of the hierarchy. Another issue raised was about the growth of DNS names and the storage capacity of SD cards: while the former is almost logarithmic, the latter is almost exponential. It is not absurd then to think that perhaps the DNS mechanism could be changed, with smartphones of the future holding the maps for translation of domain names into IP addresses in their memory or in cloud, with regular updates. He also talked about their intent of sending a IETF proposal on an alternative DNS that is based on blockchain and torrent-like system to be used for IoT devices, and to explore different approach to the current hierarchical                      

                                                           

           

                                                           

Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session: (3 paragraphs)

There a first round of discussion amongst panelist. A number of technical questions were raised by IETF and ICANN representative regarding details on the namecoin solution, highlighting also the role of registries and current DNS in combination with emerging technologies such as blockchain. Regarding this technology, questions were asked by both panelists and members of the audience on common perceived problem such as scalability, security and accountability with and without the utilization of novel technologies such as blockchain. With this latter technology, the issue of governance was arised, meaning who should be held accountable when using a distributed peer-to-peer approach. The discussion clarified no solution of the relevant issues, but on the other hand a combination of technologies is possible with the possibility to blend DNS evolutions with solutions such as namecoin.
 

ICANN clarified that amongst its priorities there is the revision and the update regarding DNS functionality and its governance, and IETF explained that there is space for experimentations on novel approaches around the topics on a new approach to the registries system, novel naming systems and the evolution of the DNS technical approach as well as exploring of alternative market models. It is however key to first research and experiment before thinking to change the current DNS. AGiD representative announced that a description of the proposed technical solution that they presented in the panel will be submitted as an IETF draft in the next few weeks.     

           

There was a general agreement that it is needed to think and experiment about new solutions and alternatives to the current structure and implementation of the DNS,  for example to facilitate real-world experimentation with systems like Namecoin, and perhaps achieve in a scenario in which different approaches could coexist, and hopes that the multistakeholder community will work together towards the evolution of the DNS or its eventual successor.                                                               

                                                           

                                                                       

Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways: (3 paragraphs)

                                                           

Agid representative highlights the importance to experiment new solutions and approach to the DNS, and in particular suggested to activate a pilot to experiment with an hybrid solution where a Thing Name System (TNS) and DNS work together.

 

There was a general agreement that further research and experiments are needed in the multistakeholder community to explore new approaches and possible alternatives to the DNS.                                                           

                                                                                                           

Gender Reporting Questions

                                                                       

Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

50                                                       

                                                                       

Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

12                                                                                                                                                                                           

To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?

The session was about technical topics so the topic about gender equality wasn’t strictly relevant to the session.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

Not applicable.

           


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 00:14
Report:

IGF 2018

Short Repport

“Preventing Youth Violence Through ICTs”


- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Pannel

 

Title: Preventing Youth Violence Through ICTs

Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 11:50 to 13:20

 Organizer(s): UNESCO

Chair/Moderator: Andres Morales, UNESCO

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Guilherme Canela, UNESCO

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 Speaker 1: Juliana Nolasco, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), Female
Speaker 2: Divina FRAU-MEIGS, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Female
Speaker 3: Yeimy Munoz, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), Female
Speaker 4: Fratti Sara, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), Female
Speaker 5: Kaaby Nour, Civil Society, African Group, Female                                                      Speaker 6: Adriana Erthal Abdenur, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), Female

Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

Subtheme (as listed here):  YOUTH INCLUSION

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  • Violent groups are using ICTs in Latin America, specially in North Triangle of Central America, to impact negatively the youth and it is important to take actions to prevent it.
  • Governments are not including ICTs in youth violence prevention policies. It is important to include them as a prevention tool than can be helpful to obtain better results: data analysis, participation mechanism, creative industries, Apps to fight violence are some of the ways.  
  • Other regions around the world are using ICTs to prevent violence. It is important to know good practices in other areas of the world with similar violence problematic.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

Key agreements: 1) policies towards preventing violence, with the use of ICTs, targeting youth population must be multistakeholder; 2) drivers for the current violent context in LAC region differ significantly from other regions; 3) ICTs offer opportunities and risks when it comes to the issue of violence among young population; 4) media and information literacy policies should be fostered and strengthened; 5) digital gaps, particularly affecting specific groups (young women, young indigenous population) must be addressed; 6) more research is needed; 7) ICTs aren’t the only element that should be considered; 8) more evaluation is required.

Key disagreements: role of the private sector (for some members of the panel, there is a potential conflict of interest imbedded in their activities in this area).

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

1) listen young people and empowering than are key considerations for decision makers; 2) media and information literacy policies should be taken more seriously, particularly regarding ethical issues, critical thinking and, their inclusion in standardized exams; 3) ICTs must be incorporate as component regarding preventing violence policies, both fostering its potentialities and mitigating the risks. 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

All panellists agreed that a mutistakeholder approach should be also considered in this policy area. However, they alerted that the seriousness of the discussion involving violence, youth and ICTs, in LAC region, should gain more presence and attention within the IGF ecosystem.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.                                                                                    50

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.               50% women / 50% men

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Many panellists underlined the importance of discussing digital inequalities among men and women and how violence in the digital world affects differently men and women.


Updated: 20/11/2018 - 21:52
Report:

IGF 2018 Synthesis Report

Workshop # 414 “Tackling Internet Disruptions via Multi-stakeholder Advocacy”

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Roundtable, 60 Minutes

- Title: Tackling Internet Disruptions via Multi-stakeholder Advocacy

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November 2018 - 17:20 to 18:20

- Organizer(s):

Morgan Frost, Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), Civil Society

David Sullivan, Global Network Initiative (GNI), Civil Society

Usama Khilji, Bolo Bhi, Civil Society

Sarah Moulton, National Democratic Institute (NDI), Civil Society

- Chair/Moderator:

Daniel O’Maley, Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), Onsite Moderator

Morgan Frost, Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), Online Moderator

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Sarah Moulton, National Democratic Institute (NDI)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

1.  Usama Khilji, Bolo Bhi, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific, Male  

2. Patrik Hiselius, Telia Company, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Male

3. Kathleen Ndongmo, Entrepreneur, Civil Society, Africa, Female

4.  Xianhong Hu, UNESCO, Intergovernmental Organization, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Female

5. Ashnah Kalemera, The Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), Civil Society, Africa, Female  

- Theme (as listed here): Technical & Operational Topics

- Subtheme (as listed here): Internet Shutdowns

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

As there has been an increasing trend by governments around the world to restrict access to services and disrupt networks, this roundtable discussion will seek to address the following questions:

  • What steps can technology companies take, consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the Global Network Initiative (GNI) Principles, to examine and limit the potential human rights impact of government demands to disrupt networks?
  • How can existing mechanisms be strengthened for connecting local private sector and internet governance stakeholders to grassroots digital rights advocacy initiatives around internet disruptions, and identify new channels for cooperation?
  • How can multistakeholder communities, such as those at IGF, help set, promote, and enforce norms around preventing internet disruptions?

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

  • Overall, the speakers broadly agreed that internet disruptions undermine human rights, and pushback against them is most effective when a wide network of stakeholders collaborate together to conduct advocacy (e.g. private sector, technology companies, civil society, media groups, academia). Multi-stakeholder collaboration brings increased participation and enhanced understanding among different actors, and can provide more leverage when disruptions occur.
  • There was some discussion around whether litigation was a useful approach when disruptions occur. Some felt that there hadn’t been any results from undertaking litigation, citing an example where a government ignored high-court decisions. However, another speaker noted that despite the length of the legal process, there had been some success from filing amicus briefs, as well as from other litigation efforts in specific country contexts (i.e. Ghana and Kenya).  

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

  • Identify ways in which UN members can be held accountable to international standards that have already been established
  • In a national context, form joint action committees that include a wide variety of actors, i.e. academia, media, civil society, IT, private sector, telecom operators. These efforts may be more likely to gain visibility in front of lawmakers. Seek to create legislation instead of simply responding to it.
  • Prioritize the integration of multiple stakeholders in designing a specific advocacy tool or approach. For example, developing  a tool to calculate costs of internet shutdowns in sub-Saharan Africa (collaboration between CIPESA and NetBlocks) has helped to strengthen partnerships with private sector and technology companies.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

  • Increase the diversity of private sector companies engaged in advocacy efforts (expand beyond telecom and IT sectors).
  • Look for forms of leverage when internet disruptions occur. For example, GNI has developed a mechanism for local companies to report when they receive unconventional requests from the government, not just regarding the legality, but whether there are risks to personnel, potential violations to freedom of expression, etc.
  • Find opportunities for shared learning, e.g. convene group of geographically diverse telecom operators and internet companies to learn from each other.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 46

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 26

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

While internet disruptions have a negative impact on all members of a population, gender was not specifically discussed during the session. Rather the session ensured that a diversity of gender viewpoints were included among panelists (three women, two men).


Updated: 28/11/2018 - 12:13
Report:

IGF 2018 Report

 

Title

IGF 2018 WS #415 Countering misinformation online: policies and solutions

 

Date & Time

14 November 2018, 11:50 to 13:20

 

Organizers

Asad Baig, Media Matters for Democracy
Talal Raza, Media Matters for Democracy Pakistan

 

Chair/Moderator

Asad Baig, Media Matters for Democracy, Male

 

Rapporteur/Notetaker 

Talal Raza, Media Matters for Democracy Pakistan

 

Speakers

Ishara Danasekara, Co-Editor www.vikalpa.org/ Civic Media Team, Center For Policy Alternatives, Female  

Padraig Hughes, Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), Male 
Rosyln Moore, DW Akademie, Female  

 

Theme

Media and Content 

 

Subtheme

FakeNews  

 

Three (3) key messages of the discussion

  1. Misinformation is an important tool used by political stakeholders across the spectrum in the Global South including Pakistan and Sri lanka.  In some instances misinformation is being perpetuated and spread in dynamic ways.
  2. The fact that people are unable to identify misinformation and share it as true information is troublesome. There is a need to raise awareness among the people as well.
  3. We need new approaches for the Global South to counter misinformation. Solutions from the global north may not be as effective as they are deemed.

Discussion Synthesis

 

Different ways of spreading misinformation were identified, including spread by fake accounts of known personalities and then through public who unknowingly spread it further as they have faith in the source who originally shared the information with them. Unfortunately mainstream media is perpetuating the misinformation.  The panel also discussed possibility of rigid and regressive laws in an attempt to regulate and criminalize misinformation, thus making its prevalence a threat to freedom of expression.

 

Research, documentation of structures involved in deliberately spreading misinformation and production of high quality journalistic and information products were discussed as possible ways of countering misinformation.

 

There was general agreement that the challenge is such that a multi pronged, multi-stakeholder approach would be needed to effectively counter it.  There was detailed discussion on the need to increase the emphasis on digital media information literacy, DMIL, as an approach to counter the impact of misinformation.

 

Policy recommendations / suggestions regarding the way forward and potential next steps

 

Different approaches are being proposed to counter misinformation. These include solutions like media literacy and fact checking. Some noted that media literacy and fact checking are discussed as solutions especially in the global north, they overlook nuances of global south.

 

However, one suggestion that was repeatedly given and endorsed was the need for a more effective multi-stakeholder approach to addressing the challenges of misinformation. 

 

Participants suggested exploring the possibility of creating and operationalizing a group comprising media, civil society, government, private sector et al.

 

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?  

There was a general consensus that one-size fit all response to misinformation cannot be effective. This reflects the need for a discussion on a platform that allows north/south engagement.  

Taking lead from the best practice forum on local content in 2017, IGF secretariat might consider operationalizing a similar forum on fake news in order to create background documents and recommendations that are rooted in real examples from a range of communities and regions.   

 

Total number of participants

50-70 participants

 

Total number of women and gender-variant individuals present

50% women, 50% men

 

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

Gender specific concerns were not deconstructed in detail and the issues of gender were discussed as a part of the larger discussion on the disproportionate impact of misinformation and disinformation campaigns on traditionally marginalized communities.

Inputs to High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation 

The issue of misinformation is evolving and there hasn’t been a lot of multi stakeholder engagement on the same. As a result, the discussion on the panel was not yet nuanced enough to have developed values and principles. However, a suggestion that was repeatedly put forth by panelists and participants was was that despite that there was general understanding among all of us that misinformation had devastating implications, we did not have a concrete solution to counter it. Therefore, there should be a way to ensure that misinformation is discussed on a single battle by different stakeholders. This will enable us to come up with concrete solutions to counter misinformation.

 

Digital Cooperation should play a role in facilitating these multistakeholder consultations on these critical issues emerging in digital cyber space. At the moment, IGF is the only forum where different stakeholders come and interact. However, for countries like Pakistan, where neither national IGF has happened nor there is significant participation at the international IGF, there are practically no notable forums that could facilitate the multi-stakeholder consultation like this. Also some critical issues like misinformation are time bound and cannot wait for a year to be discussed at IGF. Therefore, digital cooperation's good offices can be fruitful in initiating timely conversation on misinformation among different stakeholders.

 

However, to be able to deconstruct the issue in a way that is conducive to responsive policy making, we still need engagement from the IGF Secretariat, ideally in the shape of a best practice forum exploring the nuances of the issue. 


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 14:37
Report:

Session Type: Breakaway Sessions

Date and Time: 12 November 11:20-12:20

Organisers: Alex Comninos & Deborah Brown

Rapporteurs: Alex Comninos, Deborah Brown & Joonas Mäkinen, as well as delegated members of the breakaway groups.

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/

transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Chinmayi Arun, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Academia

Lorena Jaume-Palasi, Ethical Tech Society, Civil Society

Joy Liddicoat, University of Otago, Academia

Malavika Jayaram, Digital Hub Asia, Civil Society

Jelena Jovanovic, Independent, Business Technical Community

Vidushi Marda, Article 19, Civil Society

Karen Reilly, Independent, Business and Technical Community

 

Theme: Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

Subtheme: Algorithms

 

Three key messages:

This session seeks to explore,

1) Unpacking and conceptualising AI and its effects of our lives

2) Investigating how systems using artificial intellgence and automated decision-making can be understood and explained

3) Investigating the effects of AI on human rights, including on the right to privacy

 

SHORT REPORT:

 
- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  The session was meant to consist of breakaway sessions, but there were too many attendees, so we had an open discussion with the audience instead.

 

- Title: Algorithmic transparency and the right to explanation

 

- Date & Time: 12th November 11:20-12:20

Theme: Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 

Subtheme: Algorithms

- Organizer(s): Alex Comninos (VOUS.AI) & Deborah Brown (APC)

 

- Chair/Moderator: Deborah Brown & Alex Comninos

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Alex Comninos & Joonas Mäkinen

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Imane Bello, Lecturer and Researcher, Sciences Po, Academia, She/Her

Lorena Jaume-Palasi, Ethical Tech Society, Civil Society, She/Her

Chinmayi Arun, Assistant Professor of Law at National Law University Delhi, Academia, She/Her

Joy Liddicoat, University of Otago, Academia, She/Her

Karen Reilly, Independent, Business and Technical Community, She/Her

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

- The terms really need to be unpacked. We mean many things by AI, there are many concepts contained within. The explainability of systems involves a lot of unpacking and addressing algorithm, codes and systems (technological and human)

– AI contains a social component, the human systems that manage AI are very important looking forward.

- Code is made by people, it might copy social bias from humans –– either training data is skewed or it was unsuccessful coding

 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was broad support for the importance of protecting personal data and of meaningfully unpacking the right to explanation. There was consensus that the right to explanation is important, there was however less consensus as to how it would be achieved in practice, and whether it is achievable. Some participants focused on the importance of transparency institutions. Some focused on the challenges posed by the explainability of automated systems, which even with open code, and without complex AI, is hard to explain without a deep understanding of the development process, and documentation of this process. It was suggested that transparency was a more achievable goal.

 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

There needs to be more incentive to make the development process open, so that automated decisions are explainable. We need to extend explainability beyond narrow technical and mathematical explanations towards meaningful explanations understandable by lay people.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

We need more stakeholder discussion on AI, and more focus next year on algorithmic transparency and the intersection of AI and data protection.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

350

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

All women panel

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Gender issues were raised by panelists and participants and were linked to bias and issues of justice in decision-making.


Updated: 14/11/2018 - 01:20
Report:

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop
 
Title: WS #423 AI and the future of diplomacy: What’s in store?
 
Date & Time: 13 November, 15:00 - 16:30
 
Organizer(s): DiploFoundation
 
Chair/Moderator: Jorge Cancio, Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM), Switzerland

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Marco Lotti, DiploFoundation, Switzerland
 
List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
- Mr Claudio Lucena, Paraiba State University in Brazil, Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal
- Mr Michael Nelso, Cloudflare, USA
- Ms Katharina Höne, DiploFoundation, Germany

 
Theme (as listed here): Emerging Technologies
 
Subtheme (as listed here): ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
 
Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
- While some countries are focusing on how to become forerunners in developing and using AI technology, others are left behind, not being able to keep up with AI developments. And this is an issue that needs to be paid more attention to.
- Transparency is needed when governments are developing and using algorithms in delivering services, alongside education and digital literacy programmes.
- Accountability mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that the government's use of machine learning is ethical. 

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…

The relation between AI and diplomacy/international relations has many dimensions. First, AI could be used as a tool for diplomacy: applications such as machine translation and data analytics could help diplomats fulfil their tasks with more efficiency. Second, AI is a topic on the international agenda, where related issues gain more and more visibility. And, third, states are increasingly focusing on national AI strategies, understanding that, as forerunners in this field, they could enhance their position in the international relations system.
Countries are trying to understand how they could make the best use of AI (in areas such as public services, content policy, cybersecurity, combating crime, etc.) and are adopting national strategies. And while there is no broad agreement on whether (more) regulation around AI (nationally or internationally) is needed, issues such as the future of work to lethal autonomous weapon systems are becoming increasingly predominant on the international agenda. 

 
Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]
- Irrespective of the type of applications of AI, we need to ensure that meaningful human control/oversight mechanisms are in place to validate (or not) decisions made by algorithms.
- Accountability mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that the government's use of machine learning is ethical. 
 
 
What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]
Participants were encouraged to contribute to the work of the BPF on AI, IoT and Big data.
 
Please estimate the total number of participants.
70 (more were interested in attending, but the room did not allow this)
 
Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
Close to half of the participants were women.
 
To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]
N/a


Updated: 02/11/2018 - 20:31
Report:

Different business models to attain last-mile connectivity sustainably use a range of technologies, revenue sources and partnerships. This session highlights the stories of a few such initiatives. 


Updated: 02/11/2018 - 20:16
Report:

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop (Micro-multistakeholder community debate)

 

- Title: AI will solve all problems. But can it?

 

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 09:00 to 10:30

 

- Organizer(s):

 

Organizer 1: Fanny Hidvegi, Access Now

Organizer 2: Jan Gerlach, Wikimedia Foundation

Organizer 3: Charlotte Altenhöner-Dion, Council of Europe

Organizer 4: Suzor Nicolas, Queensland University of Technolog

 

- Chair/Moderator: Jan Gerlach and Fanny Hidvegi

 

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Nicolas Suzor

 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

 

Grace Mutung'u, Kenya ICT Action Network Associate, female

Malavika Jayaram, Digital Asia Hub, female

Amba Kak, Mozilla, female

Prof. Karen Yeung (Birmingham School & School of Computer Science), female

 

The format is designed to enable participation from many people in the room. Small group discussions will be led by pre-assigned discussants but we won’t have speakers for panels.

 

- Theme (as listed here): Emerging technologies

 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Artificial Intelligence

 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

 

  • One key message of the session is to explore specific societal challenges related to the digital space that are impacted by artificial intelligence, either positively or negatively.
  • The goal is for AI and other emerging technologies is to be individual centric and human rights respecting. We will discuss areas where AI can be an enabler for human rights as well as use cases that demonstrates human rights risks or violations.
  • More specifically, the discussion will focus on the question of automation and AI as an alleged solution to content regulation whether the problem to solve is hate speech, terrorist content, or disinformation.  

Updated: 27/11/2018 - 17:13
Report:

GF 2018 WS #436 Gender Issues and Democratic Participation: reclaiming ICTs for a Humane World

Workshop Report

Session Type : Workshop
Title: GF 2018 WS #436 Gender Issues and Democratic Participation: reclaiming ICTs for a Humane World
Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 2018 - 10:40 to 12:10

Organizer(s): Media Matters for Democracy, Association for Progressive Communications, #JamaisSansElles
Chair/Moderator: Sheetal Kumar, Sylvain Attal
Rapporteur/Notetaker: Katja Tochtermann, Tatiana F.-Salomon & Natacha Quester-Séméon, #JamaisSansElles

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Asad Baig, Media Matters for Democracy, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group, Male.
Speaker 2: Bishaka Datta, Point of View, Civil Society, Asia Pacific Group, Female.
Speaker 3: Noha Ashraf, Dell, Technical Community, Female.
Speaker 4: Isabelle Galy, Deputy Director of Operations at the Learning Lab “Human Change”, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Female.
Speaker 4: Sophie Viger, General Manager of 42 in Paris and Silicon Valley, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Female.
Speaker 5: Sacha Quester-Séméon, Entrepreneur and Founding Member of the Movement #JamaisSansElles, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Male.

Theme: Human Rights, Gender & Youth
Subtheme: DEMOCRACY

Key messages

  1. What are the practical challenges to inclusion, diversity, equality and political participation in the digital realm and their impact and what are the main regulatory and technical challenges towards political participation by all communities?
  2. How can states, corporations, international and intergovernmental organizations drive efforts for a wider digital inclusion of girls and women in ways to have a better participation in the conception of policies, technologies? How can educational systems attract women in STEAM fields and teach how to code to have more women involved in sciences and in the conception of new technologies and digital tools and help in solving relevant issues such as biases in artificial intelligence algorithms?
  3. Do regressive regulatory practices and commercially driven tech design have a disproportionate impact on inclusion of and participation by women and politically marginalized groups and communities? And how can we remove the obstacles so that women become more involved in the development of the Internet and can more fully participate in it?

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

To achieve digital inclusion and gender diversity on the Internet, participants agree that women face similar challenges across the world, online safety being a basic need in the first place. The cyberspace needs to become more welcoming and safe—a safer Internet meaning automatically a more inclusive Internet. Political participation of women in particular is prevented by hate speech and online harassment.

Panelists discuss whose responsibility it is to prevent online harassment and backlash: Some participants point out the role of civil society to flag incidents, some others the responsibility of corporate platforms to protect women. As examples in the Asian areas show, they could implement digital literacy and safety trainings and make content available in local languages.

Improving women’s online presence and participation starts with their equal access to day to day use of Internet and extends to their equal representation on corporate boards of international tech companies. Some participants point out that it is not only a question of technical access, it is a question of uncontrolled and qualitative access (i.e. shared mobile phones in low income families). Furthermore, women must be given a feeling of belonging to this public online space, to fully participate and not only be bystanders, and be able to use Internet as a tool of empowerment to achieve better lives.

Participants agreed to the fact that to improve their visibility, women need to become content creators; they have to market and take credit for themselves. Platforms like Wikipedia and Facebook should give more room for female voices and achievements.  

Online content on extraordinary women and role models are needed to get inspired (i.e. the last Nobel Prize Winner not having a Wikipedia page before the award).

Several initiatives across the world show the importance of leaders and decision makers that actually take action against discrimination of women. The French movement #JamaisSansElles shows the efficiency of men committing themselves to gender diversity at a political or corporate level. Many prominent stakeholders in the digital world and beyond have adopted the #JamaisSansElles pledge “not to participate in any public events where there are no women present among the many participants.”

But the issue of visibility is only the tip of the iceberg: as #JamaisSansElles underlines, one has to focus on women’s access to key leading and decision-making positions in all types of environments and their equal recognition and participation in all sectors of society. Therefore, the movement created also a corporate charter. Microsoft France was the first signatory of the pledge, covering events inside and outside the company, thus confirming its commitment to a more inclusive and diverse digital technology industry.

In fine, when corporations commit themselves to gender diversity, this implies better hiring processes and better career promotions for women, leading to improve globally the participation of women and remove the barriers that still limit the influence of women in many sectors of society and deprive them of the major opportunities provided by digital technologies.

More globally, to create a more humane and inclusive world, participants acknowledge that there is a need for a change of mindset. This is a humanistic issue. We're talking about how to live and work together, men and women in a common space. In order to keep its promises, the digital revolution must also be liberating and emancipatory. It must be humanist, and there can be no humanism without gender diversity.

It is also about stressing values other than those common to a 100 % men's world: that is, where there is not only competition, but also collaboration, well-being, and creativity. There should be mentorship for young boys to learn to be more respectful with girls.

Special attention is drawn to gender biases in artificial intelligence algorithms, pointing out the risk of technologies built only by and for men. Automation is powerful and dangerous when it is not inclusive: In a non-inclusive world, discrimination is the rule and we will miss out on part of the collective intelligence. We have to put ethics in algorithms and in artificial intelligence.

#JamaisSansElles has been actively participating in the Women 20 process and was Head of Delegation for France at the W20 Summit October 2018 in Buenos Aires. In the 15 recommendations of the official Communiqué of the W20 Summit, three focus on digital inclusion and one concerns specifically gender biases in algorithms and IA.

The whole W20 preparation process showed that “multistakeholderism” is absolutely crucial when it comes to addressing issues like the inclusion of Women and Digital inclusion, in the sense that actions and commitments can indeed emerge from civil society and economical players, and generate experience that can then be shared, transplanted or adapted elsewhere (see also the IGF 2018 Open Forum here : https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-of-22-envisaging-the-pillars-of-discussions-for-g20-in-2019

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. 

Education is of course a key issue: To create a more inclusive digital world, the education system, especially in the STEAM domains, should also become more inclusive (meaning also textbooks without gender-biases).

Welcoming young girls in STEAM and Tech programmes should be a priority. To better accommodate girls and young women, one must ensure a benevolent welcome. Young girls will not like all-male environments. But in some tech and coding schools, there are 80-90% men. So, welcoming girls means reserving them a dedicated place, so that they are more willing to come: which might include quotas in some cases.

Schools that enable low-income girls and minorities to access education in the field of new technologies, coding and engineering should be encouraged. This might include innovative methods like peer-to-peer learning, self-education, and collaboration on software challenges, such as the software engineering school “42” experiences demons