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 13^th, 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/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)

- 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.

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.

IGF 2018 Report

Implementation of WSIS Action Lines for SDGs towards WSIS Forum 2019

1^st Physical Meeting of the Open Consultation Process

- Session Type: 1^st 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.

- 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>

-    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

- 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.

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.

 - 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.

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/content/igf-2018-day-3-salle-ix-of20-techno…

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 5^th 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.

Session type: Open Forum

Title: What future for the Internet?

Date & Time: Tuesday 13th November, 12.20-13.20

Organiser(s): European Commission

Chair-Moderator: Dr. Monique Calisti (Martel Innovate)

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Valentina Scialpi (European Commission)

List of Speakers:

Olivier Bringer (European Commission, M)

Michiel Leenars (NLNet, M)

Maryant Fernandez Perez (EDRi, F)

Dr. Monique Calisti (Martel Innovate, F)

Closing remarks: Pearse O'Donohue (European Commission, M)

Theme: Trust and Accountability Measures

Subtheme: Data Privacy and Protection

The Internet of the next decade will be built around the users. It will have to be a human centric Internet, an Internet of values, that ensure privacy and data control and a more inclusive, transparent and democratic digital environment for all.

Europe has developed what is probably the most advanced regulatory framework for the internet, with the General Data Protection Regulation, the eIDAS framework, rules on the open internet, and the new measures under the Digital Single Market Strategy in the areas of cybersecurity, platforms, online content, or the free flow of non-personal data. In this context, the Next Generation Internet initiative aims to build the key technology building blocks for the internet of tomorrow through ground-breaking research and innovation that is aligned with our regulatory framework. It will shape new technology developments in support of an internet of humans that responds to our fundamental needs, including trust, security and inclusion, and in general reflecting the values and the norms that we enjoy in our societies.

The European Commission has launched the Next-Generation Internet initiative, aiming at designing this internet of values. To this end we have engaged all different stakeholders that will help us build the internet of the future: top innovators, startup and civil society.

The session provided a state of play of the initiative, what will be the way forward and information on how to get involved.

The participants appreciated the effort of reaching out to new stakeholders that could contribute in building the next disruptive, breakthrough technologies.

Number of participants: 60 (of which 20 Women)

Other relevant links (URL):

https://www.ngi.eu/

- 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.

- 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

IGF 2018 Report 

ICANN Open Forum

- Session Type:  Open Forum

- Title:    ICANN Open Forum

- Date & Time:  Monday; 12^th 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.

Session Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 10:10 to 11:10

Room: Salle IX

Online moderator: mr. Arnold van Rhijn, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Netherlands. 

1. Mrs. Sandra van der Weiden: Introductory presentation on the Roadmap for Digital hard and Software Security of the Netherlands

With the example of a smart washing machine some important issues of IoT-security are demonstrated. Vulnerabilities can occur in all components and the connections between those and e.g. the app to control them, or the router to distribute their signals to the internet. A second aspect is that the risks and potential impacts of security problems are largely context dependent, as demonstrated by comparing a washing machine in a home setting with the same in a hospital or powerplant.

From this example several principles for the digital security of IoT are developed:

1: Follow a product life cycle approach to establish IoT-security: from the design and development stage, via distribution, installation and usage to the disposal stage of the IoT-product.

2: IoT-security requires joint responsibility: there is no exclusive responsibility for e.g. the producer or vendor. All have to play a role. Given the limited rationality and acting capacity of users also government parties and civil society organizations have a role to play.

3: The balance of public interests needs to be taken into account. One-sided focus on safety and security may not go at the cost of freedom or economic growth.

4: A portfolio approach is needed: not ‘just’ legislation, but a broad range of policy instruments must be applied, from legislation to awareness raising, and from certification to security testing.

5: Room must be left for a complementary digital security approach e.g. for specific sectors or domains.

As relevant policy instruments are highlighted: awareness campaigns and user empowerment; national government procurement policies; liability/accountability based measures, e.g. standards and certification; product monitoring; testing and cybersecurity research; and the cleansing or removal of contaminated products. 

Disclaimer: the Netherlands’ Roadmap for Digital Hard and Software Security offers an approach, in the end we will need a program.

 

2. Panel discussion: What could IGF do to help promote security of the IoT?

moderated by Joost van der Vleuten

Panel members in alphabetical order:

1. Maarten Botterman, Netherlands: Director of ICANN / Global Future Internet Authority / Independent Strategic Advisor for GNKS (Global Networked Knowledge Society); Chair of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on IoT security.
2. Byron Holland, Canada: President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA); responsible for the legal and policy environment for the domain name space in Canada and one of the voices advocating Canada’s interests in the global Internet environment.
3. Mr. Jasper Pandza, United Kingdom: Assistant Director Culture, Media and Sports - DCMS) and driving force behind the Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security.
4. Mrs. Sandra van der Weide, senior policy advisor of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Netherlands / Project Manager Roadmap Digital Hardware and Software Security.

Byron Holland:  

• In 2016 we saw the first large scale attack abusing IoT devices. Since the exponential increase in IoT devices connected to the internet, that sort of attack has the potential to be more influential. Good security of IoT devices is therefore critical. Canada has started a multi stakeholder community with participants from civil society, academia, government and private sector, that came together in Spring 2018 and divided itself into 3 working groups: one on consumer education (how to ensure that the consumer without skills is also safe), a second one on labeling standards (how to do effective labeling) and a third one on network resilience (technical group) what can network managers do to reduce their risks?
  
  Manufacture usage description (MUD profile).
  
  
  
  Discussion: Challenge the idea we don't have ways to protect websites.

Maarten Botterman

• Technical innovation is moving fast, complications for innovation increase and good practice are needed. You may e.g. have your tools being certified, labeled or even regulated within one country, but tools will also come from abroad. Also a pragmatic approach is required regarding transparency. I suggest meaningful transparency. That does not mean providing all data out there, but above all ensuring the user understands what he or she needs to understand. basic security, privacy. Let’s make sure we do it in a responsible way.

Jasper Pandza:

• Overall message: we need to focus on the basics, get the basics right and move forwards swiftly. You need to know what it looks like in order to develop regulatory options. Do this in a multi stakeholder process with industry, society, academia. That’s what we did in UK. We will be developing them into a global standard through ETSI, hoping to finish by February 2019. We have asked companies to implement the code.
  
  We should take Lifecycle into account. Software updates the important thing is transparency.
• Discussion: we need to factor in much more complex scenarios. For instance when smart washing machine is being bought 2^nd hand or when someone is hiring a house (and thus not the owner of the washing machine etc.).
  • Jasper: Communicating the outcome of the insurance to the consumer. This is setting the baselines and developing the certification scheme.
  • Walter: if something goes wrong, people will knock on the door of the government. So many fixes already have been developed, but not implemented for some reason. Incentives for industry are not sufficient, but if it would be obligatory then the industry would have to. Government should have a role in this. Autos are when used moved to other countries and then to other countries. So is this a sustainable model...
    
    Comment government Canada: incentives some manufacturers not aligned. But we do bring them in our initiative. The beauty is in engagement. Key is having this conversation about what works.
  • Comment: we don’t have the potential to build the internet of secure things, but we can build a secure cloud of things. You don’t want to securitise avery single pacemaker, fitbit or smart light switch. But you can secure routers and thus anything ‘behind’ that router. Much cheaper, much more flexible.
  • Question: are there any ideas on how a change of culture would be possible? Especially small companies are not going to invest in these 13 points. Is there an active role for IGF in making the suggestions on what to do and what not to do work?
• Maarten: we cannot secure the devices, but we need standards and informed choice (labeling, certification). The aim is to get consumers to make smarter choices. You cannot rely on the safety of the devices alone. Role of IGF: do not wait for the IGF, continue doing your thing.
  
  
  
  Comment from audience: continue to work on these issues. We got good examples and points from the IGF. Focus on their implementation within your different jurisdictions. Then exchange good practices, share successes and lessons learned, as all IoT-issues are cross technology and cross country. That is the biggest challenge.
• Jasper: We have to move forward. While doing so keep all informed about relevant initiatives.

---

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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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

- 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.

Session Title: EU Delegation to the IGF & Youth IGF Movement

Date:   November 12, 2018      Time:13:30 – 14:30

Session Organizer: EU Delegation to the IGF & Youth IGF Movement

Moderator : Mrs Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Member of the EU Parliament & Mrs Yuliya MORENETS, Youth IGF Movement

Speakers : 

Göran Marby, ICANN President and CEO

Delegation of the European Parliament 

·      Gunnar HÖKMARK– Member of the EU Parliament 

·     Julie WARD - Member of the EU Parliament 

·     Yana TOOM - Member of the EU Parliament 

·      Julia REDA - Member of the EU Parliament 

·     Jonathan BULLOCK - Member of the EU Parliament 

Members of the Youth IGF Movement (physical presence): 

Youth IGF Chad, Youth IGF Indonesia, Youth IGF Haiti, Youth IGF Lebanon, Youth IGF Portugal, Youth IGF Ukraine

Discussions points

Mrs Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Head of the EU Parliament Delegation to the IGF and Member of the EU Parliament, opened the discussion by introducing the delegation and the priorities of the delegation at the IGF 2018. The importance of the exchange with the Youth IGF has been underlined from the beginning of the Open Forum, as well as the importance of the main subjects that have been announced for discussion. The discussion also focused on possible steps by the EU Parliament on implementing internet governance activities and policies in the EU and the developing world. 

Mr Göran Marby, ICANN President and CEO, underlined that in the Internet ecosystem all voices are equal, stressed the importance of the views of the young on internet governance and the fact that #EveryVoiceCounts. A long exchange focused on Internet security and the need for the young to act on cybersecurity awareness, so as to ensure other young people are informed on issues such as cookie management, among others.  

The Youth IGF Movement Representative underlined the objective of the movement and described its scope and development as well as the results achieved in 2018 (around 35 countries are part of the movement at present). 

The Youth IGF Movement Ambassadors described the movement in their countries, together with national achievements. They mentioned four important aspects that have emerged from national meetings (of which 30 took place in 2018) as concerns to be communicated to the expert community and made issues for discussion, namely:

*The importance of capacity-building programs on Internet Governance for the young (such as ICANN NextGen)

*The role of the young in cybersecurity awareness

*The responsibility of the young in the fight against fake medicines online

*The role of the young in the promotion of Digital4Her activities  

Suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways: 

1. It was strongly suggested to continue the annual and if possible bi-annual meetings and exchanges between the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and the Youth IGF Ambassadors so as to better understand the current concerns at national levels as seen by the young 
2. It was suggested to find ways to support the projects and products initiated by the Youth IGF, such as tools developed by the young to raise awareness of Internet safety (e.g. the CyberDetective game). The role of the EU Commission and the Parliament is essential in this support. 
3. The need for structured assistance from the EU to victims of cybercrimes has been brought to the table, as mentioned in a majority of the Youth IGF national meetings. The EU Parliament Delegation to the IGF has been asked to assist in the work on this element from a policy and legal perspective in the EU countries.

Total number of participants (estimated): +50

Total number of women: half

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

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

- Title: Future of IGF: “The world is much better with the IGF than without it!”

- Date & Time: Monday 12 November 2018, 9:20-10:20

- Organizer(s): Internet Society (ISOC)

- Chair/Moderator: Frederic Donck, Regional Bureau Director, Europe

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paula Real

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

Thomas Schneider, representing the past IGF host-country, Switzerland

David Martineau, representing the current IGF host-country, France

Gunther Grathwohl, representing the next IGF host-country, Germany

Lynn St. Amour

Raul Echeberría 

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

- Subtheme (as listed here):IGF ORGANIZATION & ROLE

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

• Since the Tunis mandate, in 2005, a lot of things have changed, a lot of new challenges have emerged and a concern that the IGF community is showing signs of fatigue is also rising. 
• There is a need to maintain the IGF as a space for dialogue in a multistakeholder fashion, with stronger participation of different stakeholders.  The IGF needs to continue to be attractive for all the stakeholders to come together to discuss facing challenges. The world is much better with IGF than without it. 

•  In order to strengthen the IGF, there was a suggested solution for creating more tangible outputs and outcomes. There is a movement in this direction which started with Geneva Messages that came out of IGF 2017 held in Switzerland, this continued with Paris key messages that outlined specific outputs from the discussions held at the 2018 meeting. 

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

There was broad support for the view that the IGF is an important Forum which does not need to be reinvented or replaced, although there is a need to reform and improve it in order to keep it relevant.

Many indicated that the IGF can be improved and strengthened by guaranteeing more tangible or accessible outcomes. 

Some supported more High-Level Panels and a more relevant and focused agenda, while others noted that the IGF became a space to discuss not only Internet Governance, but also “digital issues”.

There was also an advice to keep the IGF in its existing role, as a space for dialogue rather than negotiation, highlighting that the IGF cannot be turned into a top-down arena. Nevertheless, is was noted that the Forum needs to improve its political visibility with high‑level representatives of all stakeholders.

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

It was suggested to continue discussing the “future of the IGF”, in particular regarding the upcoming IGF 2019, in a continued way, a work that the MAG has already started. 

There was a suggestion to increase High Level Participation, to improve IGF’s political visibility attracting representatives of all stakeholders.It was also mentioned that perhaps there is a need for more tangible outcomes, including a suggestion to hold High-level Panels in order to discuss those possible outcomes. Furthermore, there was also a recommendation to think about IGF’s outreach and how the discussions at the Forum can haven real impact after the meeting. 

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

IGF Community have to actively participate not only at the Annual meeting but also in a sustained way, making sure the IGF is built to improve more interaction between stakeholders, enhancing cooperation in digital and Internet governance related issues.  The IGF needs a more cohesive agenda, with less competing sessions. There is also a need to improve intersessional work, to continue the discussions in between meetings.  IGF Ecosystem needs to keep improving and evolving.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

50-60 px

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

25-30 women

- 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 discussion.