FINISHED COPY
NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2014
ISTANBUL, TURKEY
"CONNECTING CONTINENTS FOR ENHANCED MULTI‑STAKEHOLDER INTERNET GOVERNANCE"
04 SEPTEMBER 2014
14:30
OPEN FORUM
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE ICT AND FUTURE PLANNING
“KOREA'S EFFORT TO ADVANCE INTERNET ENVIRONMENT
INCLUDING IPv6 DEPLOYMENT”
***
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Ladies and gentlemen, we are just about to start this Forum. Be seated, please.
Would you come up here? Excuse me, no. Why don't you come up here and take the front seat, yeah.
It is 2:30 and now I start this Forum. Is it too loud?
Too much echo, I guess. Okay. This is better. This is better, okay
Thank you for your participating in this Open Forum. The contents we are going to deliver today is about Korea's effort to advance the Internet environment including IPv6. I'm Seonghoon Park, Professor at the University in Korea. As you are all aware of, Korea has been maintaining the leading position in terms of Internet infrastructure. However, the Internet governs is a policy issue. A little bit strange to Korea's traditional legal institution. Now we all are aware that we have to adjust ourselves to the new paradigm of Internet Governance.
As a moderator today, I am very pleased to offer an opportunity for you to have some glimpses of how we proceed with Internet infrastructure development and Internet Governance. What we are prepared for today's presentation, we believe, is worthwhile for you to share with us. I have five speakers from Korea who are waiting on the podium panel. They are representing various stakeholder groups: Government, academia, research, civil society and business. I hope the audience will capture some glimpses into Korea Internet experiences when they discuss the status about Internet government and Internet Governance.
As for the remote participation, we have a remote moderator. Once we finish our presentation, I will call on Abdullah if there is any from remote places.
Okay. Let me give the floor to the first speaker. The first speaker will be Deputy Director Hwayoung Cheon. He will deliver how the Korea government is putting effort on maintaining the openness of the Internet and on protection of users from complications of Internet usage in Korea.
>> HWAYOUNG CHEON: Good afternoon. My name is Hwayoung Cheon from Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning of Korea. It is my pleasure to have this opportunity to share Korea government's ongoing effort to improve the Internet environment here in IGF. I appreciate your participation. As the first speaker I would like to introduce Korea's efforts to improve and develop the rapidly changing Internet environment in the perspective of government. Here is the agenda for my presentation. To start up I will briefly introduce Korea's creative economy strategy and role of the Internet. The major policy agenda for Korea government is creative economy, by which the creation of a new industry and new market could be facilitated with the creative ideas combined with the science technologies and ICT.
Under this vision, the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning aims to add new industries by combining ICT and science capabilities and realize this economy through extensive technology convergence with other sectors.
The Internet is the engine for the creative economy. The size of the Korean economy accounts for $21 billion in 2010 and the Internet economy is the highest following the United Kingdom. The Internet is leading the creation of new mobile and platform markets as well as innovative reform of distribution system. As a result, it contributes to the growth of the Internet industries and increases employment.
The next, I would like to introduce Korea's Internet environment. As you probably know, Korea has used the Internet as an engine for economic development in the process. Korea has built highly competitive ecosystem in the core areas of content, platform, network, and device.
You can see the platform where the overall economic activities and consumption is quickly transitioning from PC to mobile in this graph.
So it is expected that the wired network will increase twofold and wireless network traffic will increase 16 times from 2014 to 2017.
In this first developing Internet environment the problem also arises, I categorized the source of the problems in four types. The addressing of the network infrastructure, effectiveness of regulation, Internet usage environment and the sound information cards.
Finally, I would like to introduce the current direction of Korea's Internet policy. First, we are promoting several policies to expand and enhance the network infrastructure. The Korean government is pushing through the first gigabet ethernet through the cooperation with telecommunication and public facilitators. We also provide education for mobile advertisement specialists to further promote mobile service.
Additionally, we strengthened the institutional basis and human capacity development for Internet of things, big data and cloud computing as three innovative Internet markets
Secondly, we are trying to improve the Internet regulations by being sure of the opinion from the general public. We are deploying our regulations in three key areas: Electronic commercial, new commerce market and living economy.
So they are more active with global standards and technological progress. For better online commerce environment we are in the process of abolishing unnecessary regulations and limited distribution products which would complicate the payment procedure. To create new added values and future drivers for growth we are making efforts to reduce overarching regulations between the ministry as well. Also we are trying to minimize the inconvenience of citizens and the cost of people by replacing outdated regulations to enhance the national economy.
We are trying to reduce the number of nonstandard plugins and increase the use of multi‑browsing and the next generation Web standards to enhance the environment regardless of users' device or platform.
Lastly, we have set four objectives to promote the sound Internet environment. First, information. Second, industry. Second, enhance the protection of mobile Internet users. Improve Internet service and last, reducing the negative consequences
The industry market, the Korean government strengthened cyber security, and expanded the establishment of information security, safety, in the networks. We have also enhanced service and enhanced the free mobile applications.
Additionally, the Korean government keeps trying to enhance transparency and the Internet service by introducing the guideline to improve Internet search engine last year.
Finally, we have expanded the education to prevent adverse effects of security risks, and to rise people's awareness on the Internet space. Also we are supporting to enhance the Internet accessibility for those who are under represented in our society.
So far I introduced Korea's dynamic efforts in developing the Internet environment. I hope you
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Thank you, Hwayoung Cheon. He talked about Korea's Internet usage.
The second speaker is a senior researcher, JungMin Lee, from the Korean Internet & Security Agency. What she will talk about is IPv6, deploying status and seeking a way forward. JungMin Lee, you have the floor.
>> JUNGMIN LEE: Good afternoon, thank you for coming to the Korean workshop. I'm JungMin Lee from the Korean security layer. I would like to present the IPv6 expansion roadmap of Korea.
This is table of contents.
First, I would like to give you an update about our IPv6 readiness. As of August 2014 Korea was ranked number nine in the world in terms of obtaining IPv6 following the USA, China, Germany, Japan and the other countries.
The preparation rate for the backbone network was 92 percent. 65 percent for the subscriber network and 60 percent for the public network. In August 2013, Korean mobile operator launched its IPv6 deploys Voiceover IP service. The actual service is for contents, beta and websites are not yet to be provided. About 70 percent of the domestic companies network equipment, such as routers, support IPv6, but only 15 percent of the information security product supports IPv6, which is very low. And about 68 percent of Korean smart phones support IPv6.
The Korean government established its first IPv6 transition plan in 2004. The plan was modified in 2007. Then modified again in 2010. However, the commercialization of IPv6‑based services has been very poor. And Koreans are not yet using IPv6 very much. We think that we will be unable to expand existing services and handle newly created demand without switching to IPv6. So we established a strategy roadmap to expand the IPv6 to encompass the entirety of the network, including old fixed and mobile entities.
What are the trouble factors? We analyzed the trouble factors. According to the existing IPv6 transition plan, the rate of network preparation is increasing consistently, but there are some delays in promoting IPv6 support related to various network equipment availability and service transition. In case of private sector, different participants such as network and service providers and device manufacturers are trying to avoid taking responsibility for introducing IPv6. As there exists the existence of replacement of costs and related updates, they are reluctant to introduce IPv6. In case of public sector, for network equipment IPv6 service has been mandatorily required since 2008.
But websites have not been mandated to the date. So there has been a delay in the IPv6 service. Many companies concerned over security vulnerability of IPv6, and the essence of service models. And there is a league of specialists and a some cases of transition.
This is our IPv6 expansion roadmap which was established in 2014. For this roadmap we organized and operated IPv6 transition strategy discussion board to discuss the political tasks and issues surrounding introduction of IPv6.
In 2013, KISA and the Korean government have established an IPv6 task force which was comprised of 30 experts from various fields and held more than 30 meetings for this IPv6 roadmap.
We conducted domestic IPv6 preparation survey in 2013. At the same time we attended the IPv6‑related international meetings such as APNIC and EITF to share the current state of the country and grasp the international trend. Let me give you a brief explanation of the roadmap. Our goals are 100 percent implementation of main IPv6 infrastructure. For example, 100 implementation of backbone network by 2014 and 100 implementation of subscriber network by 2017, and launch of the first commercial service for wireless and wired Internet and websites in 2014.
The key tasks are: Expanding the IPv6 infrastructure and services, IPv6 equipment and service development, IPv6 transition promotion and user environment creation.
The transition schedule is as follows: From 2014 to 2017 is the expansion period. From 2018 to 2022 is the maturation period. This is the existing system. To discuss the political tasks and issues surrounding introduction of IPv6, the government and industry, academic research experts are invited to the IPv6 transition strategic discussion board. This is the recent activities. First, we revised the special tax treatment for tax deduction on IPv6 equipment in March 2014. A certain portion of the cost of purchasing IPv6 equipment should be tax deductible. To reduce the burden of any company introducing IPv6.
Second, we are processing mandatory introduction of IPv6 by the government and public organisations. According to the national implementation framework act to be newly revised in 2015, the government and public organisations network and website must introduce and use IPv6 so as to spur its use among the private sector.
Third, implementing comprehensive support systems to provide customized professional training, technical consulting and guidelines for small and medium companies lacking manpower and technological expertise. For your reference, the KIPO, Korean Intellectual Property Office, has outlined the IPv6 transition to KISA recently. This was triggered by the U.S. patent trademark office's plan to implement IPv6 system by September 2014.
Which was based on U.S. federal government's IPv6 transition policy. This case shows that the IPv6 diffusion of government policies of individual countries is also affecting IPv6 diffusion of other countries. It indicates that the role of government and the cooperation among governments is important for the IPv6 transition and expansion. On the other hand, KISA and the Korean government are encouraging major companies to lead et IPv6 transition of domestic businesses. As a result, before the end of this year SK Telecom in Korea is planning to launch LT commercial service. Also a major contents provider is planning to launch commercial IPv6‑based supporter website service. By publishing the IPv6 roadmap and launching the IPv6 commercial service in 2014, we expect to accelerate the IPv6 transition in Korea. Korean government and KISA will continuously cooperate and exchange with other countries for the development of IPv6. Thank you for listening.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Thank you, JungMin Lee. I believe you have some kind of idea about how the situation of IPv6 in Korea, how do we proceed with IPv6 deploying status and seeking the way forward and a roadmap, whatever.
Okay. The next speaker is a professor from Korea, KAIST. Professor Dongman Lee is going to discuss about the system and institutional efforts to deal with Internet Governance in Korea. Dongman Lee, you have the floor.
>> DONGMAN LEE: Thank you for the kind introduction, Chairperson. Well, let me let me clarify what the Chairman just said. I am not going to give the systematic solution for our nation's Internet Governance structure because we are in the middle of the restructuring of our Internet Governance infrastructure. Even though we have over 30 years of Internet Governance experience. But still, we learning. So today I would like to share our experience, how we actually have evolved our local Internet Governance infrastructure in the last 30 years. Fortunately, I was involved in the first part way back in 1982 when the Internet was first introduced in Korea with Professor Kilnam Chon, who actually introduced the Internet not only in Korea but in the Asian region.
After that I came back to Korea in 1998 and that actually I actively participated in the Internet Governance build‑up in Korea. So most of my slides will be allocated since 1998 and to today. I will talk about the recent landscape change and also the questions or tasks that we need to resolve for the future.
Those questions, that's my personal venue. So before 1998, mostly our Internet‑related discussions were driven by academic and the technical community. Because as you know, the real explosion of the Internet and commercialization was driven by the Worldwide Web. That was sometime around that time. So in Korea around 1998 the commercialization of the Internet was really exploded. So 1998, as you may remember, that was the time, ICANN was formed. So in Korea, Professor Kilnam Chon and many people actually gathered together and tried to accommodate the similar Internet Governance infrastructure into Korea.
So we had a two‑level structure, a high level committee and a technical committee. We called the name and number committee, and name committee. So the name committee mostly focused on the domain name, the third level domain name, the structure. And IP addressing scheme. And at that time we first actually tried to build the community driven multi‑stakeholder participation. So as you can see, it doesn't work.
The academia, technical, business, civil society, and the government. The government agency at that time, that time it was called KALIC, but now called KISA. It was not perfect but we tried to elect the members from the community based on consensus. Every meeting was very open and public, even though at that time still we had difficulty to publicize through the Web page. But still every single topic and issue we discussed among the members. So truly bottom‑up policy development.
Yet unlike today, the majority of discussions were focused on the domain names and IPv6 deployment. After that, 2004, if I remember correctly, the 2004 is right, right? Regulation, Internet address, 2004 or 2006? 2004, right?
Right. At that time it was kind of the second phase. The Korean government decided to regulate the Internet, address the policy. Because I believe that the Korean government thought the Internet at that time became a public resource. So the government had some right to coordinate between users and the industry in a fair manner. But at that time, while I think in some sense it was a good issue, but at the same time our Internet Governance structure has changed completely. As I showed in the previous slide, it was community‑driven. Now it became the government‑driven multi‑stakeholder model. At that time the high level committee was called the Internet Policy Review Community. Currently I'm Chair of that committee. But a number of members of that committee still is elected by, even though it was some suggestion from the community, selected by the government. This is simply based on the government regulation.
We formed the 2009, the Internet governance alliance, now it is called a different name.
But anyway, the main key difference was, as I said just before, members were selected not fully bottom‑up process. And that period we continuously struggled with that thing. Today I don't know how many of you actually attended this morning's Internet Governance evolution session. One of the mostly mentioned words was "openness." We tried to make our meetings and all documents as open as possible, but it was quite difficult because some, the sensitive documents or the wordings, the government was really concerned. So we had to have some compromise between our side and the government side.
And as you may easily imagine, the decisions sometimes were very top‑down, sometimes bottom‑up. But it is a good point over there. Issues, we discuss not only at the meetings but also expanded to businesses and relations, but the activity is relatively low. As many of you already know, this April we had some seminal movements called NETmundial. I was a member of the multi‑stakeholder Executive Committee.
One of the things I learned which I think is the most important is that Internet Governance capacity building is not coming from nowhere. It is actually, it builds based on the national and regional level, Internet Governance capacity building. So the national level Internet Governance now gets broader than before. I think the Korean government also realized that. It is trying to strengthen the Korean Internet Governance infrastructure.
So through the last 15 years we learned two different models, community‑driven versus government‑driven. We need to have some compromise. Also Internet Governance issues are not limited within the technical issues such as domain names and the IP addresses allocation. So I have already mentioned that.
So now since June, we started along with the government, we initiated the community‑driven multi‑stakeholder‑based Internet Governance infrastructure. And as many people mentioned throughout the IGF meetings, Brazil's IDL experience, we also tried to reference because they harmonise the multi‑stakeholder collaboration with the government regulations. So I think and I believe we can learn many things from the Brazilian experience.
Now based on the new movement, I think there are four important tasks that we need to resolve. First one is capacity building. I have already mentioned that more than one time. How we actually balance the government involvement and pure multi‑stakeholderism. I don't think the pure multi‑stakeholderism is really working in an environment like Korea. It is probably the same in the other Asian governments. Very government‑driven policy development environment. We always need to have the involvement of the government. Yet how we actually build the community with very open and democratic manner instead of the government picking up the people.
Also transparency, open and transparent. How we make the development process and information sharing as open as possible so that many people, everyone who is interested in this Internet Governance structure and development can access all the information. Another one is accountability. Many times when we actually develop certain popsies, the government is concerned about the final responsibility. Yet now the Internet policy itself is not just for the specific sector. It is across many stakeholders. So the responsibility should be shared across the community. But how? And what responsibility is required? That is yet to be identified.
The last one I would like to emphasize is the continuity of this Internet Governance discussion and collaboration. From time to time based on the last 15 years' experience we had some good trust time and sometimes it is complete distrust. So like capacity building, the trust building across all the stakeholders is very important thing that we need to build. Thank you very much.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Thank you, Professor Lee. His chronological explanation of the institutional process which is being done in Korea has been very compact and very informative, I guess.
The fourth speaker is a civil activist. Byungil Oh from Jinbo Net. Jinbo Net is a civil NGO which is very active in fighting for consumers in Korea.
And he is going to discuss how Korea's citizens understand the Internet Governance and multi‑stakeholderism. Okay, Byungil Oh, you have the floor.
>> BYUNGIL OH: Thank you. My name is Byungil Oh. I'm an active is in Korea civil society. I would like to thank the Korean government and KISA for inviting me. I am a person who has criticized a long time as a civil activist. I would like to share my views on Internet Governance of Korea. In general I agree on the point of view of Dongman Lee, our previous speaker, and I would like to add a few words about general Internet Governance and general IST issues.
I am working for Jinbo Net, a civil society organisation, advocating civil rights in Korean society, freedom of speech in the Internet, right to privacy, and right to access, and net neutrality. In doing our advocacy we often criticise the IST policy of the government. To criticize the government is not the aim of our activity. What is important is to make a good policy based on the public interest and human rights. For that, we often submit our opinions to the government or national assembly and organize public workshops, Forums and conduct advocacy campaigns and carry out demonstrations as other civil society organisations do. But there is not much chance for our voice to be heard or for us to communicate with policymakers. As most governments do, Korean government also tries to hear various opinions in the policy making process. It has public hearings and sometimes makes an advisory committee which includes experts and relevant stakeholders. Yet in my view, present policy making process has many limitations.
First, public hearings are often very superficial. There are so many panels and very limited time, I feel often it has been used only to justify certain policies.
Second, no feedback. Government officials say that they will hear as many opinions as possible. Seldom share their opinions. In the end we can't know which opinion would be adopted and why.
Third, the advisory Committees are often very closed. Participants of the advisory Committee are usually chosen selectively by the government. In many cases, meetings and materials of the advisory Committee are not open to the public. I don't mean the Korean government officials have a bad intention. It is just a matter of practice in the policy making. With that, I suspect the NETmundial conference held in Brazil in April will give us the opportunity to make changes to the policies in Korea. The NETmundial public statement said there is a need to develop multi‑stakeholderism at the national level. Korean government also expressed the support for multi‑stakeholderism Internet Governance in the opinions submitted to NETmundial.
In line with that, it is an important step for us ‑‑ it is an important step forward for us to hold Korean Internet Forum in last July which involved all stakeholders, including the government. I am very happy to say that now Korea, various stakeholders get together and discuss how to build national multi‑stakeholder Internet Governance body in Korea called Korea Internet Governance Alliance. I'm not sure yet if this experiment will succeed. I think there are several challenges we have to address together. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning is involved in setting up the body, but the Korean government in general, for example other ministries, lack the recognition of multi‑stakeholder model. Many other ministries are also dealing with Internet‑related public policy.
So Internet policy department has to make an effort to persuade other government officials to recognize the meaning and importance of the multi‑stakeholder Internet Governance. Sometimes the agendas which are very uncomfortable to the government could be discussed in the body. We have to see that the Korean government accepts such agendas as well as those proposed by the government. Korean multi‑stakeholder body, we are setting up now, has not yet legal ground like CIGR of Brazil. We have to address many questions, whether it is necessary to have legal ground, how to make more stakeholders to be involved actively in the body. How to ensure financial stability, and so on. Lastly, I would like to emphasize that KIGA should not be a mere discussion Forum, but a body which produces concrete outcomes which can be reflected in the IST policy. I hope I can share more advancement on national multi‑stakeholder governance model in the next IGF. Thank you.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Thank you, Mr. Byungil Oh. And the fifth speaker, the last speaker is general manager from Daum Communication. Daum Communication is one of the leading Internet companies in Korea. And Mr. Hyunjae Lee is discussing the Korean business experiences in offering Internet services in terms of user protection and new service provisioning. Mr. Hyunjae Lee, please, you have the floor.
>> HYUNJAE LEE: Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for being with us. I am Hyunjae. I work for Daum Communication. It is a great honor for me to deliver this presentation today.
The object of this presentation will be to give you an overview on market dynamics of the Korean Internet industry and our efforts. This slide is showing the history of Korean Internet service, which began in 1994. By 2000 online community service became widely use. And almost all Koreans used Internet service. This was the first two of the e‑mail services, online community service and online use service, mobile map service. We have 38 million users in Korea.
In Korea there are two big local players, Daum and Neighbor. The market share is 97 percent in Korea. Why the local players are stronger? We think there are a very Korea allegiance, unique and localized service. Proprietary content and highly sophisticated Internet service for Korean users. Next I will introduce you through some characteristics of Korean Internet and portal service.
As you know, we have the swiftest average broad broadband speed and we will upgrade the wireless network to 3G by 2020 year. The downloads are 1,000 percent speedier than now. The Internet penetration is among the highest in the world. In spite of high‑speed Internet service, the Internet could be used in better ways. There is personal attacks, defamation and slander. I will show you the efforts to make better use of Internet in Korea.
Accessibility. The value of Internet value is openness. We believe that the more people share, the better this world will be. Changing perception of all people, not many, must have to increase Internet openness over time and space. Web standards, was open on March 11, sharing money and Web accessibility guide.
Openness. Daum and Neighbor started provided open interface. User of Internet AIPPI has increased more than 300 percentage annually. It handles 230 million customers monthly. We started to share the service through building partnerships with small and medium sized enterprises.
The concept of Internet for all is an idea that can exist in harmony. We provide a wider spectrum of information through, widening the windows of communication between people and organisations. In order to allow individuality and uniqueness, our service must be fair and neutral. This is a core element in earning our users' trust.
Internet portal media has become one of the most frequently user platforms which people use for news Articles and information. Therefore, we are devoted to creating a service which the users can exist many broadcasters and newspapers articles and information at a glance. Providing free and fair space for press releases and promoting users right to know and choice diversity. There are no safer areas in cyber space anymore. Financial companies were disrupted by cyber attacks. There are efforts to steal private information that are becoming more diverse. We will concentrate our effort to provide a safer service to our customers based on trust by minimizing the possibility of information leakage as well as by calculating any appropriately responding to cyber attacks.
We are committed to creating a safe environment operating environment for everyone. This includes guarding young people from illegal and harmful information and protecting the copyright of sound source videos, pages and our fields that require such protection. We have also put protective measures in place for the users who have fallen victims to harmful or hurtful posts and defamation. On the other hand we do everything in our power to allow freedom of expression to go unhindered. Maintain between enforcing regulation and assure creative freedom is one of our most important efforts.
The Internet is the most democratic and decentralized communication tomorrow. There is no other long‑term option to facilitate communications in the Internet. It is obvious that the Internet Governance should not undermine this global control over the Internet and should regard diversity as one of the characteristics of the Internet. Korea has erected itself on an island of outdated regulations that isolates the IT industry from other markets. Korea has been called an island in the Internet world. The intervention of a regulatory body should be minimized and made only as part of complementary efforts such as introduction of the law, enforcement systems designed to hold people accountable for their actions on the Internet.
Thank you for listening.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Thank you, Hyunjae Lee. He has been raising some regulating issues that we are experiencing in Korea. Anyway, the five speakers from Korea have finished their presentations. So now I would like to take questions from the floor. Initially I would like to take three questions from the floor, if there is any question. Please raise your hand and I'll take it.
Over there.
Okay. You start. Yes. Turn it on and speak.
>> AUDIENCE: My name is Patrick Curry. I'm from two organisations, BBFA and MACCSA. And I have colleagues from KISA and other Korean organisations.
I would like to say thank you for your presentations. They were very helpful.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: You're welcome, you're welcome.
>> AUDIENCE: It would be very helpful if it's possible to have a copy of those because there was a lot of information.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Is that the question? Okay. I'm sure you have questions, copies of these reports.
>> AUDIENCE: I have several questions, but if I can ask one and allow someone else.
My first question: Your government passed a law that requires Internet service providers to give controls to parents to help protect children's access.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Yes.
>> AUDIENCE: Please, could you say a little more about the progress for this?
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Okay. Who should I solicit to explain that?
>> Okay, Soonjoung Byun from KISA. This issue is not related to the department she is from. She is going to explain now.
(Speaker off microphone.)
>> AUDIENCE: Oh, okay.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Why don't you have a face‑to‑face meeting with her after this Forum.
>> DONGMAN LEE: Let me answer a little bit. If I understand you correctly, you are asking whether the Korean government has regulated the Internet access of, under the certain age, right? By the government.
>> AUDIENCE: So Professor Oh, I am involved in ISO, International Standards Organisation. There is currently a study period on age verification which was initiated by Korea. And the basis for that was described as a change in Korean law.
So I'm sorry, I'm not trying to create trouble. That's not my point. But whether it was a law, whether it was a regulation, it doesn't matter. What I'm interested to know is as your Internet Governance moves forward and you are doing child protection, what changes you are seeing here to help give parents the ability to protect their children.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Yes, Byungil Oh has something to answer to your question.
>> BYUNGIL OH: You are interested in the age verification system. Initially you may have heard about the Internet real name system. It is kind of an Internet authentication, identity authentication system. So there are many kinds of identity authentication systems regulated by law. There was a general law to force the IST to adopt the authentication system, but that was decided unconstitutional by the constitutional court. But there are several other regulations to demand the identity authentication. For example, in the election period, election law regulates that in the nonuse sites they have to adopt the identity authentication system.
Another is the regulation by the game, as you say the game law regulates that first they have to authenticate the users' age. That means authenticate users' identity. And prohibit to use the game in midnight. So how can ou authenticate users' identity? In the past there was a simple method to match the name and resident registration number, but it caused the mass leakage of personal information and including the national register number, national identification number in Korea. So that method is prohibited, but other methods are used. One is the most popular method is to use the mobile phone verification. So most of Korean users have their mobile phone number. And when we apply the service to the mobile company, we have to identify, authenticate our identity. So mobile company has our identity information. So in if another Internet service provider used identity verification service provided by the mobile phone copy.
>> DONGMAN LEE: We need to clarify your question because you asked whether, as I asked you earlier, you asked whether the Korean government has any plan to regulate or help the parents prohibit their children accessing the Internet in certain control, right? Certain space, right? I asked our government member. He said never heard of it. I never heard of it.
As Mr. Oh just mentioned, the only thing, the parents or the government has presided ever into such a space is game law. Right? After midnight underage 16, they cannot log into. If they actually frankly correctly put in their Social Security number. You can guess there are many work‑arounds. I don't think the Korean government has ever tried to control every family's personal, the childcare policy. I think whoever that Professor is, I think he gave you wrong information.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: This is a very controversial issue. There are pros and cons. There are groups who are in favor of this law and other groups who are against this law.
>> AUDIENCE: (Speaker away from microphone.)
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Oh, I see.
That's it? Okay. Then can I take the next question from the floor then?
And let me check the remote first and then I will turn to you again. Abdullah, are there any questions from remote?
>> REMOTE MODERATOR: Yes. We have a participant from India. We are in the process of creating a network of statewide fiber to every home. This was announced by our government. We want Korea, also to partnership with us. I came to know about your new broad plan. Our plan is to connect 40 million people. 400 million still left. We are creating three electronic clusters and AP digital and create half million ICT to attach people to serve global and Indian markets. So we can collaborate with Korea Internet & Security Agency to create Korea and digital AP partnership and sharing.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Okay. So anybody to answer that question?
It is kind of a development issue.
Hwayoung Cheon?
>> HWAYOUNG CHEON: Sorry, I speak in Korean.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Okay, you speak in Korean and we will interpret. Okay.
(Awaiting translation.)
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Would you interpret this?
>> HWAYOUNG CHEON: I apologize for not giving you more details about the question, but I will respond to you through e‑mail about our broadband plan after this Forum. Thank you.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Okay. Let me take the next question from here. You said you have a question? Why don't you raise your question now.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My question now is about business use of the Internet. The use by companies. My understanding, and please correct me, is that you have five certificate authorities and companies have to have certificates from one of those certificate authorities to be able to do business, legal business with other companies in Korea.
When I was in Inchon I asked what happens when you want to work with companies that are not Korean in collaborative projects? Is there either some way that they get certificates from Korea? Or can they have certificates from another country ‑‑ this is a foreign company ‑‑ that could federate with Korea with one of your certificate authorities?
So this is about how can I work certificates across a border in an international programme?
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Okay. Professor Lee, can you answer the question on certificate authority? Actually, this certificate issue is about the financial institution, related with the financial issue.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: We don't have any speaker from financial department or financial agencies. So anybody who can answer that?
Okay, Byungil Oh.
>> BYUNGIL OH: For the IST industry, the IST company? The certificate for the IST company, do you mean?
>> AUDIENCE: It would be for any company.
>> BYUNGIL OH: Any company.
>> AUDIENCE: Legal transactions. So signing contracts, to support encryption or Intellectual Property, those kind of properties.
>> BYUNGIL OH: I'm sorry.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm just giving you an example for any space to be advanced. Internationally we use certificates in big suppliers. I know that Korea is involved in the ... (Speaker away from microphone.)
So the use of credentials, we would be interested to know how that federation would work with a Korean authority issuing the legal credentials in Korea. I'm wondering if this is something being considered for the business use of Internet in Korea.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: I am not very knowledgeable about this issue but we have a law called Digital Signature Law. That is made by the Ministry of Information Technology long before, about ten years ago. He is from that department. But each transition related to this Digital Signature Law is controlled and managed by the Ministry of Commerce and Trade. So we don't have any speaker from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Why don't you raise the question and leave the memo to him and maybe he will give you the right answer via mail or whatever. Okay? Is that okay?
Yeah.
Okay. Any questions, next questions from the floor? And remote, Abdullah?
>> REMOTE MODERATOR: No, we don't have any questions right now.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Okay. Any questions from the floor? Okay, over there, folks.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. My name is Akinori. I'm working for JAPANIC, Japan Information Center. I thank you very much for your presentation. I'm really interested in the earlier part of the Forum, for the Internet Governance issue in Korea.
If I understood correctly, you are now forming multi‑stakeholder body for discussion of the issues and then will make some consensus position which may influence the national Internet policies.
Actually, we at JAPANIC are doing some efforts to take some efforts to establish such a Forum where Internet Governance issues are discussed in the wider stakeholders. But my problem in this effort is to gain a lot of interest or awareness to the Internet policies.
If you have any say programme and really difficult point to gather such an awareness or interest, I would like to hear. Thank you.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: So this maybe goes to ‑‑ Professor Dongman Lee is going to answer.
>> DONGMAN LEE: Thank you for a very important question. The first answer is we are still learning, right? As you said, probably similar to Japan's situation, Korea's people are interested in technical issues, IPv6, domain names, address allocation. Recently civil society people and also the business people now realize the Internet governance as a whole is very important for their own interest domain. So the last several years government also conducted some public hearing.
Also civil society and business people, they formed the study group and also have some open meeting. And so we don't have any complete system, but as a matter of fact the reason both of us actually participated in the NETmundial event was quite promoting people's interest. So the nationality so‑called capacity building became very much important to local people.
So similarly you may want to actually publicize an translate the result of the NETmundial outcome into your local language and invite people, have the workshop or public hearings and then you may be able to increase the people's interest and participation. Thank you.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Thank you. When it comes to Internet Governance, I think there are many things for us to share between Japan and Korea. The multi‑stakeholder is more bottom‑up decision making. That is something strange in the legal system and institutional system. For us who are living in the Oriental system, and each government has been taking a kind of leadership in all kind of decision making. So as he said, we are kind of in a learning stage, a learning process. So why don't you get together and discuss this kind of issue between Japan and Korea. We have many things to share.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I'm happy to share the experience and the strategy and possible solution. Although we have maybe the different circumstances, but that is really good for us. Thank you.
>> SEONGHOON PARK: Okay. Thank you and any questions from the floor? You have another question? No? Okay.
Any questions? If there is no questions, let me wrap up now. Thank you for your participating and spending time with us. So if you have any questions, let us know. And we will get in touch with you via e‑mail or whatever.
Okay? Thank you very much, audience.
(Applause.)
(The session concluded.)
***
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***