IGF 2019 Reports

There was broad support for the view that legislation is an efficient way to enforce the online protection for personal information. Speakers from Germany and China introduced legislation and shared experience about the online protection of personal information.

Some participates introduced the draft of the Personality Rights Section of the Civil Code of China, suggesting to distinguish between privacy and personal information and maintain the openness of personality right system, including the openness of privacy and personal information. Some compared the legal definition of data in different countries. Some proposed that there are three general principles of commercial use of data：principle of user consent and transparency, principle of data security, principle of creating commercial interests and values.

Participators agreed that GDPR is an important step forward in protecting privacy rights not only in Europe but also around the world, and GDPR compliance matters. Some participators emphasized the importance of managing user’s data in accordance with the law of the land. Some discussed the Data Subject Rights according to GDPR, including the right to know what data is being collected, the right to correct the data, the right to delete the data and the right to take it somewhere else. Some believed that the key requirement of GDPR for companies includes three aspects: the duty to inform data subject, the duty to remove data and the duty of data breach notification. Some argued that it is necessary to extend the rights that are at the heart of GDPR to all of customers worldwide.

Many indicated that there should be more efforts and more thoughts on how to develop better transparency and accountability mechanism for AI policy. It was noted that it is not new that policy runs behind technology and that a human rights-based approach and an ethical framework was needed. It was a consensus that there is a gap between technology and policy, with surveillance being a key concern. The global digital divide was also highlighted, particularly with concerns on data sovereignty and network sovereignty which is especially important for African economies where there is no national capacity to hold data or to regulate. Many raised the issue of the concerns for the relationship between technology and elections and the urgency to develop policy to protect democratic elections.

There was broad support for inclusive and multistakeholder approaches to cybersecurity strategies. Cybersecurity challenges are broad and interrelated but there is still scarce examples of implementing the model maturity model of cybersecurity.

Many indicated that there is need for clear programmes and approaches to assist with practical implementation of cyber security. There was alot of support for cybersecurity collaboration and  capacity building and capacity sharing.

In the Latin America there is a wide engagements of public safety through public and internet actors through technical cooperation and CSIRT building. There is need to work more cohesive with law enforcement and support police investigation and prosecution of cyber crime.

There was broad support for the idea that we need capacity-building efforts to make individuals more secure and able to protect and demand right to privacy and freedom of expression. This is especially the case as more states see cybersecurity as a national-level goal, and often neglect or even violate individuals' rights in the name of national security.

Many supported the idea that when it comes to cybersecurity trainings and NGO activity on the ground in the Global South, there needs to be better priority-matching while carrying out initiatives, in other words, making sure that what the organization on the ground (who may be benefitting from cybersecurity trainings) actually needs what the organization trying to build capacity is offering to do.

Many also supported the need for a better handshake between the technology found as a solution with the characteristics that are trying to be solved within the organization on the ground. This means understanding exactly what problems an organization may be faced with and finding technologies that offer those exact problems well, rather than just always adopting new technologies and new "solutions" that may, actually, not be the needed or wanted solutions.

The Internet is changing the production and life of human beings, and driving social and economic development.With the increased access to the internet, social media platforms and online games children are encountering new forms of risks from violence and abuse.

There was broad support for the view that legislation is an efficient way to enforce the online protection for the underage users. Speakers from Germany and China introduced their domestic legislation and practical achievements of the online protection of underage users. Some proposed that online protection of underage users should include two sides, one is to control the negative impacts, and the other is to promote positive guidance. Some hold the opinion that there are some common problems in children's information protection, such as reducing the experience of children’s online services, constituting reverse discrimination against children's users and so on. Some raised up that purely online solutions won’t be effective to keep children save from online violence. We also have to pay attention to offline causes of violence and develop measures that address children's life circumstances, context, availability of support networks and broader family and child support. Both the presenters and participates agreed that an integrated child protection system can be achieved only through the cooperation of all stakeholders. 

There was broad agreement that the UNGGE Norm 8/H is important - [...states should respond to requests for assistance…]. However, there were several interventions that raised questions about who exactly would issue and respond to such a request. In many instances, the technical community pointed out, these requests would not naturally loop in the national CERT or other governmental actors. Indeed, doing so could potentially introduce a level of latency that would undermine rather than support cyber security practitioners to resolve an incident.

There was also broad agreement that the UNGGE norms are somewhat abstract. They lack the specificity that the technical community feels would be required to guide their actions, but the governmental policy representative pointed out that they were not written with this operational level in mind. 

Discussion was rich, with many suggestions for continued work.

Details on the web site, the wiki and taxonomy document were explored.

There was consensus that inclusion and (in)equality is a major issue and challenge for multistakeholder governance of the Internet through ICANN and other institutions.

Some diversity of perspective emerged regarding the relative priority between inclusion and other concerns (e.g. market development and efficient decision-making). Most participants emphasised that inclusion contributed to other objectives, but several speakers also noted possible trade-offs.

It was repeatedly stressed that 'openness' in multistakeholder governance is not the same thing as 'inclusivity' and 'meaningful participation'. One needs carefully to identify structural inhibitors within 'open' participation.

The discussion considered how people in more excluded positions tend to perceive larger and more problematic inequalities than people with more access and influence. Those in power can therefore underestimate the degree to which marginalised people feel constrained from participating. A particular observation was that the ICANN board generally saw less problems of inequality by age, geography, language, and race/ethnicity than the ICANN community and ICANN staff.

During this session the YCIG Steering Committee presented their activities of the past two years and its progress to increase engaged youth participation at the Internet Governance Forum before opening the floor to speakers from the different regions to address the three policy questions and then taking comments from the room.

The speakers addressed their concerns regarding the concept of “Internet Governance” and how this can be explained to audiences. This is important as an outreach exercise both to foster interest in youth in schools and raising awareness on policies that affect them but also to investors to explain why they should be sponsoring youth to organise or participate internet governance events and projects.

Many agreed that participation at the IGF is limited due to visa and funding restrictions, but also raised their concerns that navigating and integrating in the IGF ecosystem is difficult. Although remote participation provides access, there is difficulty with accessing the platform. There were many YCIG members trying to connect from countries such as the Maldives, Burundi, and Kurdistan who were unable to participate because remote participation on mobile devices didn’t function.

Furthermore, there was a large request for YouthIGF processes to be more transparent so that there is better support available.

One of the speakers raised the issue that there is an “absence of inspiration platform for youth so that they can have aspirations to become stakeholders” and that youth should not be considered as a symbol.

The panellists discussed a range of issues related to attribution of responsibility for adverse human rights effects stemming from application of AI technologies. The debate, in particular, touched upon the potential of regulation and of self-regulation for effectively addressing the issue. There was broad consensus that only clear regulatory frameworks are capable of serving as a firm ground for the rule of law-based approach which is key for the protection of human rights. There was further agreement that such clear regulatory frameworks are of interest for businesses as much as for the users as they privide concrete instructions on what needs to be done for human rights protection.

It was emphasised that a lack of understanding of what AI is and how it functions creates a lot of mystification around the technology. Concrete information is needed to  inform regulation - e.g., false positives/negatives need to be evaluated in real numbers.

The concepts of informed trust and of responsible AI were introduced. The panellists outlined in very clear terms what the technical community and the business community can do to ensure effective and enforceable accountability.