Dynamic Coalitions

IGF Dynamic Coalitions (DCs) are bottom-up, issue-specific groups that have existed since the first annual IGF meeting in Athens. Their outputs and activities are incredibly varied and can take on different forms. Over the years, DCs have made significant contributions to the content as well as the organization of IGF meetings. 

Ahead of the DCs Main Session at IGF 2017, 13 participating coalitions have submitted substantive papers as inputs. These are first drafts, with all in the IGF Community invited to leave their comments on each paper in the review platform below. 

 

An Internet For #YesAllWomen? Women's rights, gender and equality in digital spaces (DC on Gender and Internet Governance)

Introduction

1. Women’s rights and gender equality are fundamental human rights, guaranteed in international treaties, standards and policy frameworks. These include, most recently, the Sustainable Development Goals which aim to achieve gender equality and empower women and girls as a fundamental human right. They also include the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Declaration on Violence Against Women. Key UN policy frameworks - such as the Vienna, Beijing and Cairo Declarations and Platforms for Action - commit States to gender equality.

2. In the 21st century, it is no longer adequate to address women's rights only offline. The 21st century differs from every other century in that digital technologies are now an integral part of our lives. Today, 95% of the world is covered by a mobile network and almost one out of two people (47%) use the Internet.[i] Globally, 3.9 billion people use the internet and 4.9 billion inidviduals use mobile technologies.[ii] Men, women and trans persons use the Internet for a wide range of activities: communication, entertainment, information, research, commerce, work and activism.

 

[i] International Telecommunications Union

[ii] We Are Social 2017 data in https://thenextweb.com/contributors/2017/04/11/current-global-state-internet/ or get We Are Social reference

3. The Feminist Principles of the Internet provide a framework to explore and dive deeper into women's rights in digital spaces. Drafted and updated by more than 100 civil society organizations from Asia, Africa and Latin America, they offer a gendered lens on critical internet-related rights. The principles are divided into five key clusters as follows:

  • Access
  • Movements and Public Participation
  • Economy
  • Expression
  • Agency

 

This paper explores some of the issues that are part of the 'agency' cluster.

Agency

Key issues: Consent; Privacy and data; Memory; Anonymity

 

4. In September 2017, a young man in India livestreamed on Facebook a video of a sexual act – without the consent of the woman in the video. In September 2016, a young woman in Italy committed suicide after her sex video continued to remain online – without her consent.[iii] The Supreme Court in India is currently hearing a case against 'rape videos' – which embody simultaneous violations of consent in physical and digital spaces. Rape videos also represent consent being violated thrice over: the rape itself, the filming, and the distribution.

5. Consent has emerged as a critical women's rights issue in the digital age. Women's agency lies in their ability to make informed decisions on what aspects of their public or private lives to share in digital spaces – as information, data, text, images or video. This is what consent means in practice.

6. Since most information online involves a two-step process – creation and distribution - digital consent must be understood as a multi-step practice, not a single-step concept. A woman may consent to participating only in the creation of an image or a video (step 1), including one that is intimate or sexual – but not consent to its distribution (step 2). This was what happened in the first two cases mentioned above. Or a woman may not consent to any of it - neither creation nor distribution - as in the rape videos. Either way, consent must be specifically sought, obtained, upheld and respected in each and every step of the digital cycle. In some countries, laws and legal judgements are separating these strands of consent – production and distribution - and separately punishing each violation.

7. While non-consensual production and distribution need to be treated as rights violations, consensual creations need to be protected. Legal distinctions between the 'consensual' and the 'non-consensual' need to be strengthened to enable freedom of expression, including sexual expression. Young women in particular negotiate freedom and censure and use online spaces to challenge cultural and social restrictions around sexuality, relationships and self-determination. Without laws that firmly distinguish the 'consensual' from the 'non-consensual',  women who publish intimate digital images of themselves can be booked under statutes related to obscenity or indecency.

 

8. While the law is critical in upholding consent, it is not a sufficient mechanism to usher in an everyday practice of consent across digital platforms. What's also needed is an ethics of consent that is built and embedded into the culture, design, policies and practices of digital platforms.

9. Consent and privacy are closely linked to one another, both in physical and digital spaces. The concept of informed consent – used in research and medicine - rests on the understanding that participants’ privacy will be respected, both offline and online, where information or data is increasingly stored. Obtaining consent is necessary for any private information to be made public. However, enough information must be provided to an individual for them to exercise 'informed' or 'meaningful' consent. Digital users typically tick the 'terms of service' of digital platforms to signal their consent to a range of conditions, including how their data is collected, stored and used. Such 'terms of service' are considered too legalistic, lengthy and jargon-laden to meet the standards of meaningful consent, or to protect the privacy of users.

10. Privacy has emerged as a critical right in digital spaces for two main reasons. One, the right to privacy is essential for individuals to freely access information and express themselves. Two, the right to privacy is essential given the vast amounts of personal data that digital platforms collect, store, and use, often for their own purposes. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights notes that “the Internet also presents new tools and mechanisms through which both State and private actors can monitor and collect information about individuals’ communications and activities on the Internet. Such practices can constitute a violation of the Internet users’ right to privacy, and, by undermining people’s confidence and security on the Internet, impede the free flow of information and ideas online.”

11. In the digital age, surveillance is one of the biggest threats to privacy – and expression. Almost any digital tool, platform or technology allows for mass surveillance, notes the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “In practice, the reach of these technologies is astonishingly broad: governments can listen in on cell phone calls, use voice recognition to scan mobile networks, read emails and text messages, censor web pages, track a citizen’s every movement using GPS, and can even change email contents while en route to a recipient...They can secretly turn on webcams built into personal laptops and microphones in cell phones not being used. And all of this information is filtered and organized on such a massive scale that it can be used to spy on every person in an entire country.”[iv]

12. Surveillance can create a chilling effect on the online expression of ordinary citizens, who may self-censor for fear of being constantly tracked. Surveillance also exerts a disproportionate impact on the freedom of expression of a wide range of vulnerable groups, including racial, religious, ethnic, gender and sexual minorities, members of certain political parties, civil society, human rights defenders, professionals such as journalists, lawyers and trade unionists, victims of violence and abuse, and children.[v]

13. Surveillance is not a new phenomenon where women are concerned; women have always been under stringent surveillance by actors ranging from partners and parents to the State.[vi]  The Internet Democracy Project notes that the digital age may have further deepened the scrutiny to which women are subjected - this has shaped and harmed, women’s lives in multiple ways. In parts of India, local village bodies have banned young women from using mobile phones. CCTV cameras surveil women who work in garment factories. And safety apps track and collect information about women users, without specifying why or how this is being collected, stored or used.[vii]

14. Surveillance is used in digital spaces much as it is used in physical spaces: to restrict women's bodies, speech and activism. In this context, it is essential to understand surveillance as an obstacle to women's rights and gender equality. This means paying attention to and addressing surveillance practices by individuals, the private sector, the state and non-state actors.

15. Strengthening the right to privacy in digital spaces also means ensuring that an individual has full control over their personal data and information online at all levels. It means ensuring that States and private companies do not use personal data to manipulate digital behaviour or for other profit-making practices.

16. Since data lives on over time in digital spaces, ensuring the right to privacy also translates into enabling individuals to exercise and retain control over their personal data, histories and memories online. Individuals must be able to access personal data and information, know who has access to it and under what conditions, control this use and access, and retain the ability to delete it forever.

17. Strengthening the right to privacy online also means ensuring that individuals have the means to express themselves without revealing their identities. “Throughout history, people’s willingness to engage in debate on controversial subjects in the public sphere has always been linked to possibilities for doing so anonymously,” notes the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “The Internet allows individuals to access information and to engage in public debate without having to reveal their real identities, for example through the use of pseudonyms on message boards and chat forums.”

18. Although the Internet offers tools and possibilities to hide one's face, voice, image, or location, such privacy is superficial in the absence of encryption. Noted the OHCHR: “The privacy afforded through such pseudonyms is superficial and easily disturbed by Governments or others with the necessary expertise; in the absence of combinations of encryption and anonymizing tools, the digital traces that users leave behind render their identities easily discoverable. Users seeking to ensure full anonymity or mask their identity (such as hiding the original IP address) against State or criminal intrusion may use tools such as virtual private networks (VPNs), proxy services, anonymizing networks and software, and peer-to-peer networks.”

19. The OHCHR notes further notes that “journalists, researchers, lawyers and civil society rely on encryption and anonymity to shield themselves (and their sources, clients and partners) from surveillance and harassment. The ability to search the web, develop ideas and communicate securely may be the only way in which many can explore basic aspects of identity, such as one’s gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin or sexuality. Artists rely on encryption and anonymity to safeguard and protect their right to expression, especially in situations where it is not only the State creating limitations but also society that does not tolerate unconventional opinions or expression.”

Children’s Dignity and Children’s Rights in the Digital World (DC on Child Online Safety)

On 6 October 2017 the attendees of the World Congress: Child Dignity in the Digital World

presented the „The Declaration of Rome“ to Pope Francis. By his statement: “A society can be

judged by the way it treats its children.” the Holy Father himself had set out the guiding

principle for the call to action as laid down in the declaration. The Declaration concludes, “In

this era of the internet the world faces unprecedented challenges if it is to preserve the rights

and dignity of children and protect them from abuse and exploitation. These challenges

require new thinking and approaches, heightened global awareness and inspired leadership.”

The Declaration of Rome urges the world’s leaders, leaders of the world’s great religions,

parliaments and leaders of technology companies, the world’s ministries of public health,

government agencies, civil society and law enforcement, and religious institutions to

undertake in their particular remit efforts to protect children form risks arising from the

Internet and empower them to benefit from the opportunities for learning and individual

development the Internet offers to them.

In accepting the Declaration Pope Francis said, “…you have pointed out a variety of different

ways to promote concrete cooperation among all concerned parties working to combat the

great challenge of defending the dignity of minors in the digital world. I firmly and

enthusiastically support the commitments you have undertaken.”

During the World Congress the attendees developed in a joint effort the following Strategic

Plan for Implementing the Declaration of Rome (published 15 October 2017)

The Mission: To create a global coalition of religions, governments, international

organisations, scholars and researchers, civil society and others, working together toward a

common goal: defending the dignity of minors and vulnerable adults in the digital world.

The Vision: To eradicate child sexual abuse and exploitation in the digital world and safeguard

minors and vulnerable adults worldwide.

The Strategy: To achieve 13 goals recognizing the urgent need for an inter-sectoral strategic

collaboration which calls upon technology leaders, political and religious leaders, health and

social care professionals and others to share responsibility for achieving them.

Goal 1: To raise awareness regarding the risks in the Digital World especially with respect

to primary prevention and safeguarding, and undertake new social research.

Goal 2: To mobilise faith leaders to support the implementation of the Declaration.

Goal 3: To change state laws to be more effective in preventing abuse.

Goal 4: To redefine the responsibilities and actions required by technology companies.

Goal 5: To improve provision of child rescue and treatment services.

Goal 6: To improve identification and interventions for children and young people at risk.

Goal 7: To improve the capabilities and collaborative efforts of international law

enforcement organisations.

Goal 8: To train clinicians to better serve the needs of victims.

Goal 9: To expand treatment resources for people harmed by abuse.

Goal 10: To research the health impacts on young people of viewing pornographic images.

Goal 11: To set safety standards, agree to a code of conduct, and mandate filtering and age

verification to protect children from inappropriate online content.

Goal 12: To improve education of children and young people.

Goal 13: To ensure all citizens are alert to the risks of abuse and know how to report it.

The Children’s Dignity and Children’s Rights conference was held under the joint auspices

of the Pontifical Gregorian University and the #We Protect Global Alliance. As such it

represents a major development in terms of the range of stakeholders who now see and

accept that the position of children in the digital world presents a series of significant

contemporary challenges which require urgent attention.

Community Networks: the Internet by the People for the People (DC on Community Connectivity)

Preview prepared by Luca Belli

This is the preview of the book “Community Networks: the Internet by the People for the People,”
which is the Official 2017 Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
(DC3). DC3 is a multistakeholder group aimed at fostering a cooperative analysis of the community
network model, exploring how such networks may be used to foster sustainable Internet connectivity
while empowering Internet users. DC3 provides a shared platform involving all interested individuals
and institutions into a multistakeholder analysis of community connectivity issues. This book should
be seen as a further step towards a better understanding of community networking and is built upon
the previous efforts of the DC3.

This volume is structured in two sections (i) exploring challenges and opportunities for community
networks in four different continents (CNs) and (ii) analysing a series of case studies and forwardlooking
proposals regarding CNs. As a conclusion, this work includes the updated version of the
Declaration on Community Connectivity, which was elaborated through a multistakeholder
participatory process, featuring an online open consultation, between July and November 2016; a
public debate and a feedback-collection process, during the IGF 2016; and a further online
consultation, between December 2016 and March 2017.

As stated by the Declaration on Community Connectivity, CNs are crowdsourced networks

“structured to be open, free, and to respect network neutrality. Such networks rely on the active
participation of local communities in the design, development, deployment, and management of
shared infrastructure as a common resource, owned by the community, and operated in a
democratic fashion. Community networks can be operationalised, wholly or partly, through
individuals and local stakeholders, NGO's, private sector entities, and/or public administrations.”

For this reason, it can be argued that CNs promote an individual-centred Internet, for the people, by
the people. Building on the previous works of the DC3, this book aims at fostering a better
understanding of what are CNs and the opportunities that these initiatives offer to develop of a
sustainable Internet environment, fostering a sustainable connectivity agenda and allowing the greatest
possible number of individuals to enjoy the benefits of information and telecommunications
technologies.

1.1. Challenges and Opportunities for Community Networks

The first part of this volume explores a variety of regulatory, technical, social and economic challenges
raised by community-networking initiatives. The five chapters included in this part do not simply
analyse the challenges faced by CNs but put forward potential solutions, suggestions and
recommendations that are based on critical observation and evidence-based analysis and should be
considered by all stakeholders.

In the opening chapter on “Network Self-determination and the Positive Externalities of
Community Networks,”
Luca Belli argues that existing examples of CNs provide a solid evidencebase
on which a right to network self-determination can be constructed. Network self-determination
should be seen as the right to freely associate in order to define, in a democratic fashion, the design,
development and management of network infrastructure as a common good, so that all individuals can
freely seek, impart and receive information and innovation. First, this chapter argues that the right to
network self-determination finds its basis in the fundamental right to self-determination of people as
well as in the right to informational self-determination that, since the 1980s, has been consecrated as
an expression of the right to free development of the personality. In this sense, the author emphasises
that, network self-determination plays a pivotal role allowing individuals to associate and join efforts
to bridge digital divides in a bottom-up fashion, freely developing common infrastructure.
Subsequently, Belli examines a selection of CNs, highlighting the positive externalities triggered by
such initiatives, with regard to the establishment of new governance structures as well as the
development of new content, applications and services that cater for the needs of the local
communities, empowering previously unconnected individuals. The chapter offers evidence that the
development of CNs can prompt several positive external-effects that considerably enhance the
standards of living of individuals, creating learning opportunities, stimulating local entrepreneurship,
fostering the creation of entirely new jobs, reviving social bounds amongst community members and
fostering multistakeholder partnerships. For these reasons, policymakers should design national and
international policy frameworks that recognise the importance of network self-determination and
facilitate the establishment of CNs rather than hindering their development.

In his chapter on “Barriers for development and scale of Community Networks in Africa,” Carlos
Rey-Moreno explains that that CNs should be seen as communications infrastructure deployed and
operated by citizens to meet their own communication needs and such initiatives are being increasingly
proposed as a solution to foster connectivity. However, Rey-Moreno emphasises that, in Africa, where
the proportion of unconnected individuals is among the highest globally, the number of initiatives
identified is relatively low considering the continent’s size and population. Hence, the chapter focuses
on the barriers that prevent more CNs from appearing or existing ones from becoming sustainable
and scaling. The barriers identified range from the lack of awareness of both the potential benefits of
accessing information, and the Internet more generally, and the possibility for communities to create
their own network, to the lack of income of the people who would like to start one. Importantly, the
author notes that most of the people within the next billion to be connected need to choose, daily,
between Internet/communication networks and other vital necessities such a food and health.
The unreliable (or the complete lack of) electricity in most of these areas, and the high cost of backhaul
connectivity, also affects the capital required to start and operate CNs. The lack of local technical
competencies, and a regulatory framework not conducive for the establishment of small, local
communication providers, are also identified as the main barriers for growth of community networks
in the region. Despite this breadth of barriers, African communities are proving that some, if not all,
of these barriers have been addressed. As stressed by Rey-Moreno, this is motivating global
organisations to contribute creating an enabling environment that removes these barriers.

In his chapter on “Community Networks as a Key Enabler of Sustainable Access,” Michael J.
Oghia defines sustainable access to the Internet, as the ability for any user to connect to the Internet
and then stay connected over time, thus contributing critically to sustainable development. The author
argues that CNs are ideal to catalyse sustainable access, but the challenge of generating reliable energy
to power infrastructure continues to pose a significant barrier to lowering costs and the ability to scale.
This chapter aims to highlight the link between community networks and the broader agenda on
sustainability, defines sustainable access, and explores the connection between infrastructure, energy,
and Internet access, while concluding by outlining the role of CNs as a pillar of enabling sustainable
access.

In her chapter on “Community Networks: Policy & regulatory issues and gaps, an experience
from India,”
Ritu Srivastava discusses the Digital Empowerment Foundation’s Wireless for
Communities model, exploring the legal and regulatory challenges frequently faced by CNs in
developing countries, with particular regard to spectrum allocation and management, licensing
regulation, and bandwidth policies in India. The author maps out the common elements of these
challenges among CNs and, subsequently, addresses policy and regulatory issues. Notably this chapter
investigates the efficacy of creating Wireless Community Networks, Rural Internet Service Providers
or community-based Internet Service Providers and explores the possibility of policies, which could
help in creating widespread information infrastructure for developing countries, with a focus on India,
in order to better connect the subcontinent. Importantly, Srivastava’s paper puts forward a number of
recommendations for policy-makers, regulatory bodies, and related stakeholders. Such
recommendations are organised into national recommendations and regional and international
recommendations. The national recommendations include suggestions regarding how to alleviate
unnecessary regulatory and fiscal hurdles on small/rural Internet Service Providers and CNs in India.
The regional and international recommendations focus on creating a more enabling policy and
regulatory environment for CNs, in general, and can be applied to any national context.

In their paper on “Can the Unconnected Connect Themselves? Towards an Action Research
Agenda for Local Access Networks,”
Carlos Rey-Moreno, Anriette Esterhuysen, Mike Jensen, Peter
Bloom, Erick Huerta and Steve Song argue that community-based solutions to building local network
infrastructure are increasingly being considered as viable alternatives to traditional large-scale national
deployment models. Use of low-cost networking equipment to provide communication infrastructure
built in a bottom-up manner is growing, especially in rural areas where connectivity is poor. While
there are instances of these solutions that stand as real-world examples of ways to improve access to
ICTs and provide affordable and equitable access, these models of Internet access provision are still
not widely known or well accepted, usually being deemed as ‘fringe’ solutions to connectivity needs
that lack widespread applicability or the potential to scale. This chapter outlines a proposed action
research agenda
and methodology for providing an evidence-based understanding of the potential
role of these types of local infrastructure solutions in meeting the needs of the unconnected, as well as
those on costly-metered broadband services.

1.2 Building Connectivity in a Bottom-up Fashion

The second part of this work analyses a selection of CNs, stressing the diversity of the social, economic
and technical backgrounds from which CNs may originate as well as highlighting that very
heterogeneous models that may be utilised to establish and maintain CNs. The cases presented in this
section witness the variety of CNs, demonstrate that these initiatives may be developed in many
different environments and suggest the interest of promoting further research on the matter.

Erik Huerta Velazquez and Karla Velasco’s chapter on “The Success of Community Mobile
Telephony in Mexico and its Plausibility as an Alternative to Connect the Next Billion”
opens the
second part of this book. The authors introduce a framework for the design and instrumentation of
Community Mobile Telephony (CMT) from a Mexican perspective but applicable to other regions.
Particularly, this chapter describes the case of Telecomunicaciones Indigenas Comunitarias A.C. and
Rhizomatica whose CMT began operating in 2013 in Talea de Castro, Oaxaca, under a private
network scheme and using a segment of spectrum, acquired for free-and-non-profit use. The case
analysed in this chapter demonstrates that, under a new technical, economic and organizational
scheme, it was possible to offer, in a sustainable manner, mobile services in commercially unfeasible
localities. After 3 years, since inception, the system covered eighteen localities of between two hundred
and three thousand habitants. As Huerta and Velasco emphasise, these data confirm not only the
viability of the model but also the possibility to expand it to communities without mobile service.
Moreover, this experience paved the way for the creation of a new framework among traditional
operators, which allowed them to connect rural locations, previously deemed inviable. Importantly,
the success of the project has given way to a new legal framework and a modification in spectrum
administration, which, for the first time in Mexican history, assigned a portion of GSM spectrum for
social purposes. The success of the Mexican case proves that Community Mobile Telephony is a
plausible option that should be embraced to connect over 2 billion people without affordable mobile
coverage and the 700 million with no coverage at all, by supporting communities to build and maintain
self-governed and owned communication infrastructure.

In their chapter on “Community-led Networks for Sustainable Rural Broadband in India: the
Case of Gram Marg,”
Sarbani Banerjee Belur, Meghna Khaturia and Nanditha P. Rao argue that, to
bridge the digital divide facing rural India, a cost-effective technology solution and a sustainable
economic model based on community-led networks is needed. Gram Marg Rural Broadband project
at IIT Bombay, India has been working on both these aspects through field trials and test-bed
deployments. The authors critically argue that, even if the connectivity reaches rural India, the network
infrastructure would not be able to sustain itself at the village level, without a sustainable economic
model.
This chapter analyses the findings of the impact studies performed by the authors, which have
exposed the need for community owned networks. Conspicuously, the study reveals that villagers have
a clear understanding that they can save time and money, when Internet connectivity reaches the
village. However, the adoption of traditional Internet access provision paradigm was not sustainable.
On the contrary, villagers suggested community-led networks would enable them to “own Internet”
and, to this end, the Public-Private-Panchayat Partnership (4-P) model was developed. In this
context, the Panchayat, which is the local self-government – which operates at the village level
according to the Indian decentralised administration system – takes ownership of the network.

The partnership enables the network to be community-led for effective decision making and
prioritising services based on the needs of the villagers. The public-private partnership enables Internet
connectivity to reach the village from where the management is taken over by the Panchayat that
supports the investment for the local network infrastructure, at the village level. Local youth known as
Village Level Entrepreneurs (VLEs) invest, maintain the network and generate revenue. The authors
stress that the model ensures a decent and sustainable return on investment for the Panchayat and
defines a nominal user subscription cost. It also considers expected future growth in demand and
related cost dynamics. This chapter offers a crucial perspective on the relevance of revenue generation
and sharing, stressing that CNs can be economically sustainable, providing incentive for connectivity
expansion and empowerment of local villagers.

In his chapter on “Comparing Two Community Network Experiences in Brazil,” Bruno Vianna
describes two installations of community networks in two different environments in the state of Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil. The first case study, completed in 2015, was established in the rural village of
Fumaça. The development of this CN was made possible thanks to a grant from Commotion Wireless
and was built by a team of volunteers together with the members of the local community. To date, the
network remains operational, providing free and open access to the Fumaça community. The second
one was established in the Maré Complex, an area concentrating a considerable number of favelas in
the city of Rio de Janeiro. It was made possible through an open call for workshops from the Rio de
Janeiro state government, and was implemented by the students who participated in the weeklong
course and were, for the main part, coming from the local favelas. The two cases provide interesting
information regarding the potential for CNs in the global south, highlighting the possibility that such
initiative can have with regard to capacity-building, empowerment and the creation of new
opportunities for youngsters.

In her chapter on “Beyond the Invisible Hand: the Need to Foster an Ecosystem Allowing for
Community Networks in Brazil,”
Nathalia Foditsch provides a useful complement to the discussion
started in the previous chapter by Bruno Vianna, arguing that the debate over CNs is not new in Brazil
but needs to gain momentum again, in order to overcome some obstacles. Notably, the author
emphasises that promoting a favourable ecosystem is a challenge that goes beyond the technical
aspects of deploying and managing such networks. Recent advancements show signs of an increasingly
encouraging environment for CNs, but a lot remains to be done. This chapter briefly discusses some
challenges and new regulatory developments in Brazil and explores how the work of the IGF
Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity might contribute to the promotion of an ecosystem
that facilitates the establishment of CNs.

In her chapter on “Diseño e Implementación de una Aplicación Web para la Visualización Mundial de
Despliegues de Redes Comunitarias”
(Design and Implementation of a Web Application for the
Global Visualization of Community Network Deployments)
, Maureen Hernandez stresses that it is
currently hard to obtain systematised information regarding the existing CN deployments around the
world. Nothing the lack of a database or repository providing basic information about CNs, such as
the name, localization, and contact person of these initiatives, the author proposes to remedy to this
lacuna though the development of technical tool. This chapter proposes to collect data on CNs to
organise them to facilitate interactions among stakeholders and take advantage of the lessons learned,
instead of letting each community starting from zero. Hernandez argues that such effort may be feasible
based on the outcomes that have been developed, to date, by initiatives like the UN IGF Dynamic
Coalition for Community Connectivity or the research group Global Access to the Internet for All
(GAIA), from the Internet Research Task Force (ITRF). The paper argues that the ability to visualise
information about CNs into a unique tool may be a crucial factor not only to promote and inspire more
deployments but also to understand how far these initiatives have come and how different their
characteristics may be. In this perspective, Hernandez proposes a “Community Connectivity Map”
with the aim to systematise and visualise data about the largest possible number of CNs.

DC Core Internet Values discussion paper 2017: Focus on Freedom from Harm (DC on Core Internet Values)

Introduction

The Internet connects a world of multiple languages, connects people dispersed across cultures, places knowledge dispersed (or concealed) across cultures accessible to every culture. The Internet is more than an invention. It is a precious gift to humanity as an opportunity to connect globally and evolve. The Internet connects people and their devices. The Internet is beyond what was foreseen at the time of the invention of its protocols. Its values were not intentionally built in, but contained within and become manifest and understood along its path of evolution.

The Internet has become increasingly a support for all kinds of human activity, constructive, destructive and ambivalent as this may be. The Internet has been used to foster never-imagined levels of communication, access to information and creativity, and given rise to businesses and social transformation that reach both those connected and many who are not. Accompanying these generally positive trends, cybercrime, verbal and non-verbal abuse, and interference with human rights have also appeared on the Internet. Some forms of abuse and some attempts to correct or modulate conduct on the Internet may impinge on the way the Internet operates, as may be the case with ways to block content from reaching certain destinations or to restrict the technological features that enable businesses and social transformation.

The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, which began its work as the Workshop on Fundamentals: Core Internet Values during IGF 2009 at Sharm El Sheikh, chaired by then Internet Society President Lynn St. Amour, progressed as a Dynamic Coalition and has deliberated since 2009 on fundamental questions such as “What is the Internet? What makes the Internet what it is?” to define the Core Values that characterize the Internet.

The Dynamic Coalition in its recent deliberations during and between the Internet Governance Forums discussed the recent socio-political developments and the specific threats to the way the Internet evolves and functions. Some of Internet’s technical principles seemed to be challenges to adhere to, in their intended form. For instance, the relevance of the end-to-end architecture became questionable in the face of real world threats of the recent past. Such challenges gave rise to the question whether the values are unalterable at all.

The Internet is global, open, end-to-end, shared and distributed without central points of control.  

“Value” and “values” are not to be used loosely. Values are what are profound, values are beyond evaluation and debate, values are as understood. Known and respected and beyond notions of utility, relevance or evaluation by any other yardstick.

The Dynamic Coalition will seek in its 2017 session to better delimit its scope. Experience from the last few years shows that as one moves from the better-defined technical principles like Interoperability to the broader-sense wordings like “Free” the ability to even discuss them is lost in a muddle of culturally-tinted points of view, and overlaps more than necessary with the subject matter of other Dynamic Coalitions.

Whilst Core Values are imprescriptible, challenges emerge and vary from time to time.

One striking feature of the Internet is its ability to evolve with little or no change in its fundamental design principles and the order in which they are prioritized. Further, it has a mechanism, mainly in the IETF, to make the adaptations that become necessary. Further layers like that coordinated within the ICANN ambit, are modelled on the same open processes and have successfully preserved interoperability, openness, etc. and propagated them to the layers above and below the internetworking layer.

Core Internet Values

 

-        Global – The Internet is a global medium open to all, regardless of geography or nationality.

-        Interoperable – Interoperability is the ability of a computer system to run application programs from different vendors, and to interact with other computers across local or wide-area networks regardless of their physical architecture and operating systems. Interoperability is feasible through hardware and software components that conform to open standards such as those used for internet.

-        Open – As a network of networks, any standards-compliant device, network, service, application, or type of data (video, audio, text, etc.) is allowed on the Internet, and the Internet’s core architecture is based on open standards.

-        Decentralized – The Internet is free of any centralized control.

-        End-to-end – Application-specific features reside in the communicating end nodes of the network rather than in intermediary nodes, such as gateways, that exist to establish the network.

-        User-centric – End users maintain full control over the type of information, application, and service they want to share and access.

-        Robust and reliable – While respecting best-effort scenarios for traffic management, the interconnected nature of the Internet and its dense mesh of networks peering with each other have made it robust and reliable.

To evolve or not to evolve

The Internet evolves around the Values that remain at its core. When there is a new
development, for instance, “wireless modems” “smartphones” or “micro-devices” the Internet
evolves along its path of evolution, without the compulsions to “remove” any of its values, or
without the need to “add” a new value around which the evolution would progress. What is
“new” is in the realm of evolution, not in the core of values.

One could say outright that Core Internet Values are unalterable and that the list of values
themselves cannot be amended nor expanded. However, this question has been discussed in
past years and when “Freedom from Harm” was introduced, it appeared to be accepted as an
additional Core Value. In fact, debate during last year’s session went further, taking evolution for
granted, but attempting to define whether there should be enforcement of this value in
particular.

A starting point was that “There should be no overarching system and industry self-certification
might be a solution moving forward”. That could be true for all Core Values.

In the history of the last four decades, Internet design principles have mapped well to some
social values which are widespread but not universally accepted, nor free from interpretation.
Societies that are against openness have difficulties with the Internet. Companies that act
against interoperability cause problems to the Internet. Regulations that make end-to-end
difficult make the Internet's life harder (witness Network Neutrality.)

So any serious modification and some possible additions to this short, compact, proven list may
make the Internet be less of what it is and can be. The proposal is therefore that the DC-CIV
work within a framework that assumes immutability over decades.

As one of the panellists on the Coalition’s session at IGF 2016 mentioned: consider “Freedom
from Harm” in the context of the general principle “do no harm”. Then this overarching principle
is applicable to all Core Internet Values. By extension, Freedom From Harm does not contradict
any Current Core Internet Values.

Freedom from Harm

What is freedom from harm?
The Internet needs to become a much safer place and the people that designed it did not
foresee misuse of devices.
Malware is a technical challenge and there is difficulty in applying software updates across the
network, especially for the Internet of Things (“IoT”).
Proposal for a new Core Value for the Internet: Freedom from Harm (“FFH”), which should drive
the technical community’s work in the coming years.

Why is this needed?
In its core design principles, security was not ignored. The team of people that designed the
Internet were using the maximum security available at the time, working with extremely sensitive
assets. The security was on the systems, it was evolving fast, and it made little or no sense to
implant security into the network itself as it would not scale and would not adapt to innovations
without needing to tear down and replace the whole network for each new advance, say, in
cryptography. However, today the threats are different, more sophisticated and the range of
devices that these threats can affect are more diverse than when the Internet was first invented.

How could it be implemented?
Without altering Core Values.

Transparency
One way to face these risks, and adding to the principle proposed, is to introduce/increase
transparency and accountability for all responsible players, such as device manufacturers,
regulators in charge of approving the sale of devices, software developers, etc.

Standards Development
Implementation issues could be mandatory for all Standards development. Would the IETF add
a section on FFH considerations to RFCs? How would other standards-development
organizations (SDOs) treat the principle?

1. Technical means to inhibit harm
2. Detect harm and act against its source, e.g. legal means, prosecution.
3. Moral persuasion: put pressure on programmers and others responsible for products
which can be harmful

Overall, the accountability of technical standards-makers must be clearer.

A Multi-Stakeholder way
Is there an “Internet way” to approach this problem? A multistakeholder, Internet-proper
mechanism such as the IETF or ICANN in their respective fields?

Coordination
Work already being done against attacks (prevention, mitigation, isolation, response, etc.)
should be considered. Coordination of such work in an open manner could bring synergies
together for a safer Internet whilst avoiding the risk of creating “walled gardens”.

Certification / Good Practice
This is found to be a challenge in a network of networks that spans the whole globe.

On the one hand, one could foresee solutions in from other fields: for example, the certification
of electrical devices in the US through Underwriters Laboratories (UL) thus a “cyber-UL” could
be developed to certify the safety of Internet devices and systems and could operate with partial
automation, based on voluntary submissions. On the other hand, safety standards are mostly
predicated within a context of national laws. A principle like “thou shall not develop bad code”
isn’t working well. Bad systems are being used because they are novel, useful and exciting, with
pressure on time-to-market causing some to cut edges. Thus, on a borderless Internet, no
safety standards can be enforced.

This brings us to the potential for a set of Good Practice Standards which are voluntarily
adhered to. These should not be the remit of a single overarching authority. They should be
collaborative in scope, open, and should be promoted by all stakeholders, including
Government, the Private Sector and Civil Society.

Steps forward

Focus the DC on CIV to concentrate more on the technical design principle than on the higher
layer rights and values, which are much less well-defined, and universally variable.

Work with other stakeholders to build a set of Good Practice Standards that will enhance
“freedom from harm” in a technical perspective.

It is expected that this work should include collaboration with the Dynamic Coalition on Internet
of Things (DC-IOT) in particular. Collaboration with other Dynamic Coalitions is being
considered too.

Draft DCAD Substantive Paper for IGF 2017 DCs Main Session (DC on Accessibility and Disability)

1. Introduction

Since the approval of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2006, much efforts have been made to achieve an inclusive society for everyone, including persons with disabilities and persons with specific needs. Their voices are starting to be heard, and the progress is reported in participation of persons with disabilities in decision-making processes at national level. However in many countries, this is still an area for improvement.

To facilitate interaction between relevant bodies and to ensure that ICT accessibility for persons with disabilities and those with specific needs is included in the discussions around the Internet Governance, Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability (DCAD) was formed during the second Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 2007. DCAD aims to help create a future where all individuals have equal access to the opportunities through ICT.

DCAD members now consists of around 70 mailing list subscribers, made up of representatives from organizations for persons with disabilities, UN agencies, international organizations, policy makers, industry, academia, civil society and experts on accessibility, from both developing and developed countries of all regions of the world. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) provides DCAD with secretariat support.

As one of the activities of DCAD, it reviews accessibility of IGF meetings each year and report to IGF. While it is generally felt that accessibility of IGF meetings improved thanks to the efforts made by all concerned parties especially the host countries, there still are a lot of barriers for persons with disabilities to appropriately participate in the meetings. These barriers may not be felt by the others than those who are concerned, thus a review process by accessibility experts is necessary. This is an important step to achieve a truly inclusive society.

Furthermore, to raise awareness of the fact that there are a number of areas of accessibility concerns, DCAD addresses and discuss selected issues raised by its members. This year, DCAD focuses on universal design, to better understand what the issues are considered around ICT accessibility.

“Universal design" is defined by UNCRPD Article 2 and means the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. "Universal design" shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed.

Every single person can be permanently or temporarily disabled due to physical, environmental (e.g. a phone call in a noisy environment) or cultural (e.g. spoken language diversity) conditions. It is important to note that universal design is beneficial for the entire community. The following paragraphs provide brief descriptions of related topics, which will be further discussed at the DCAD/G3ict workshop on “Universal Design and Creating an Accessible Global Digital Future” (WS 54).

2. Some Topics of DCAD’s focus at IGF 2017

2.1. Key concepts of universal design

2.1.1. Universal design, principles and practice (by Gunela Astbrink, Women With Disabilities Australia)

Universal design (sometimes called inclusive design) means products and services are designed to meet the needs of the majority of the population taking into account age and ability. The principles of universal design are: 1. Equitable Use 2. Flexibility in Use 3. Simple and Intuitive to Use 4. Perceptible Information 5. Tolerance for Error 6. Low Physical Effort 7. Size and Space for Approach and Use Accessible websites and smart phones are just two examples of putting universal design into practice. Challenges exist especially in developing countries where affordability and lack of awareness are major considerations.

2.1.2. Impairment, Disability and Universal Design: Key concepts for Accessibility (by Gerard Ellis, Feel The BenefIT)

UNCRPD differentiates between impairment and disability. It also acknowledges Universal Design as a key concept for accommodating the needs of persons with disabilities and older persons. This presentation will investigate the difference between the 3 terms. It will also demonstrate how the accessibility of products, services and environments can be improved or disimproved without altering a person’s impairment or even when no impairment is present.

2.2. Importance of ICT standards on accessibility for universal design

Accessible ICT implies interoperability, and standardization is one way to provide interoperability. A lot of work is being done by international organizations to develop international standards on accessibility to meet rapidly evolving ICT environment. Examples of standards are described below.

2.2.1. Next Generation Web Accessibility Guidelines (by Shadi Abou-Zahra, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) )

The accessibility guidelines of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) are the international standard for web content, user agents, and authoring tools. Particularly the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) has been adopted by many organizations and governments around the world, including in Europe, the United States, and Japan. This presentation introduces the next generation of these guidelines to better address mobile and connected devices, augmented and virtual reality, and many more current and future technologies on the internet.

2.2.2. Standardization efforts at ITU for an accessible global future (by Masahito Kawamori, ITU-T Q26/16 Rapporteur, Keio University)

ITU is playing an important role through its activities and efforts in making ICT accessible and achieving inclusive society. One of the ITU accessibility activities is standardization at ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T): Standardization makes it possible on a global scale, to connect equipment and services from different manufacturers. The most important goal of ITU-T’s accessibility activities is to make sure that newly developed standards contain the necessary elements to make services and features usable for people with as broad range of capabilities as possible. Standardization efforts made at ITU-T Q26/16 “Accessibility to multimedia systems and services” as well as other groups within ITU will be described.

2.3. Case study from developing countries

2.3.1. ICT Accessibility in Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities (by Muhammad Shabbir, Board of Directors of ISOC Islamabad Pakistan Chapter)

The ICTs offer many new and affordable opportunities equally to all of us, whether persons with disabilities (PWDs) or not. Some of the advantages of ICTs for PWDs include: easy knowledge acquisition, enhanced communication, opportunities for higher education and improved employment prospects. Notwithstanding the benefits, in most of the developing countries, the prospective gains promised with the digital era, have not yet become the reality for most of the PWDs due to a variety of challenges/ barriers. Moreover, due to the huge difference in low income and high price of new devices and softwares, the gap of available technologies for PWDs between developed and developing world is increasing day by day.

In this context, this paper presents the case study of Pakistan’s experience with ICT accessibility for PWDs as a developing state and discusses the challenges and opportunities in the way. The challenges relate to: availability of technology, its affordability, awareness about the technology and universal design, and willingness of the people to adopt it. Despite the aforementioned challenges, taking advantage of accessible technologies, PWDs are contributing in many professions ranging from academia, management, research, civil services to policy relevant circles and playing their role in national development.

The key questions for the study are: How and in what ways Pakistani PWDs are taking advantage of ICTs? What are the challenges and opportunities in the way? And how the state of ICT accessibility can be improved for developing countries?

The study argues that the appearance of PWDs in superior services exams; Pakistan being a ratified signatory to UNCRPD; PTA conducting the national level Mobile App Award 2016 under the theme: “Embracing Mobile Accessibility for PWDs”; and, Pakistan’s National IT policy 2017 dedicating a section to address the concerns of PWDs are all indicative of positive signs for the future of accessible ICTs in the country.

The UNCRPD specifically mentions terms for assistive technology in eight of articles 4-32 (4, 9, 20, 21, 24, 26, 29, and 32). Measures that could include assistive technology (e.g., take all appropriate measures) are mentioned in an additional 17 articles. Signatories to the CRPD have committed to accessibility for PWDs and to international cooperation, both technical and economic. To comply with the CRPD, national governments should implement measures to meet citizens' needs for assistive technology, and governments and international organisations with available means should provide technical and economic assistance to developing countries to access, share, and transfer assistive technology. Therefore, development of strategies and methods for effective collaboration in this domain would help bridging the ICT accessibility gap between the developed and developing countries. Additionally, accessibility and usability for PWDs should sit at the very heart of the ICTs policy, planning, design and implementation processes and not as standalone/independent or add-on venture. Lastly, ensuring the access of PWDs in developed or developing countries to the same technology, at the same time, and at the same price as the general public receives, should be the ultimate aim to achieve.

Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries: Summary (DC on Public Access in Libraries)

The need for a Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries was realized during the 2011 Internet Governance Forum. At the time, Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) shared the outcome of a survey that revealed how most policy makers in developing countries see libraries as repositories of printed materials and not as spaces for Internet access and use. Since then, the Dynamic Coalition for Public Access in Libraries has facilitated interaction between relevant stakeholders, increasing the visibility of libraries in the debate for public access both in developing and developed countries.

Libraries are catalysts for Internet use and access. Access to information via the Internet is vital for the economic, educational, and societal well-being of individuals. The outcomes public access yields are numerous. Access to information empowers people to exercise their political and socioeconomic rights, to be economically active, and to learn new skills. Access to information enables informed decision making, supports creativity and innovation, provides transparency and helps citizens to hold governments accountable. 

Public access to information is a free, or mostly free, undertaking of public libraries worldwide. As public institutions, libraries look to guarantee access to all. The horizontal and decentralized placement of libraries within nation states allows for easy, reliable and safe access to information and irrespective of the size of this network, libraries tend to be regarded as safe places to gather, exchange ideas, develop digital literacy skills and access the Internet.

As such, this access helps deliver inclusive development and achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals. However, it should not be taken for granted. Libraries need to be connected to the physical infrastructure necessary for connectivity, implying the need for properly adapted regulatory and budgetary policies, including funding for continuous staff development. This access also needs to be protected from Internet shutdowns, which harm people’s ability to use information to improve their lives. Partnerships between actors – libraries, regulators, businesses, adapting to local circumstances, could help deliver progress.

Access in libraries remains an essential tenet of a democratic, open society and libraries are catalysts that facilitates access to information and the overall societal well-being. The Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries provides a space within the IGF to address the Internet governance issues relating to public access, and enable a discussion to take place about how the existing expertise, networks and infrastructure offered by public libraries can contribute to the goals and spirit of the WSIS process. 

IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC ACCESS IN LIBRARIES FOR DEVELOPMENT

The UN 2030 Agenda recognizes that access to information is crucial for sustainable development, and offers affirmation of the work that libraries do in guaranteeing public access to the Internet. As we look to bring the remaining billions online, libraries offer a cost-effective way of doing this, giving people their first taste of the Internet, and guaranteeing continued access to those who cannot afford it for themselves.

The Development and Access to Information report (DA2I), produced by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) and the Technology and Social Change Group at the University of Washington (TASCHA) offers not only qualitative evidence of the importance of access, but also sets out a basket of indicators which will allow for the monitoring of governments’ progress towards meaningful access to information. It highlights the role of public libraries as facilitators of development through access worldwide. Libraries are fully immersed in the reality of the communities they serve and are well positioned to provide free access to information to all members of society. They can be a more welcoming environment than Internet cafes, act as the hubs of partnerships with other actors, and as already highlighted, help build the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours necessary to make for confident and responsible Internet users. Even in societies with high levels of home Internet penetration, such as the Nordics, the evidence seems to indicate that usage of public access remains high.

  • What further evidence is there of how public access can help develop interest in, and demand for, home or mobile internet access?
  • Why does there continue to be such strong use of public access in countries where home or mobile Internet access is well developed?

THE PARTICULAR ROLE OF DIGITAL LITERACY

A key pillar of meaningful access to information, as identified by the Development and Access to Information report, is the importance of digital literacy skills, given that access to the Internet alone, or the ownership of a device, does not guarantee an equal opportunity to create, receive, apply, and create information. The ability to not just to read information, but to use digital tools creatively, from blogging, to editing a Wikipedia page or coding, can be decisive in helping people make the most of the Internet. This ability can be summed up as ‘digital literacy’  - the capability to harness the potential of digital tools to their fullest effect - efficiently, effectively and ethically – to meet our information needs in our personal, civic and professional lives. 

Libraries and other community anchor institutions help people to benefit from information and related tools, ensuring people can use digital information and skills to improve their lives. The combination of training and support to develop digital literacy provides a strong argument for public access to lie at the heart of strategies for ensuring that communities and societies are not only connected but thriving online. 

DC-PAL will continue to include evidence-gathering on the role of libraries in developing digital literacy among their users, both in developing and developed countries.

  • What can governments, businesses and other stakeholders do to ensure that libraries and other community anchor institutions are enabled to offer effective digital literacy training?

GETTING THE RIGHT POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC ACCESS

In addition, reflection continues on the right policy framework for public access in libraries. Universal Service Funds offer a potentially powerful tool for building high speed connections to libraries and other community anchor institutions, along the lines of the United States’ e-Rate programme. In some countries, these funds are often under-spent, with opportunities to get people online lost.

There are also potential regulatory challenges, especially when it comes to spectrum. Governments should enable libraries both to receive information and to build community connectivity.

 

In addition, the apparently growing number of Internet shutdowns presents a worrying trend. Libraries guarantee free, public access to all, but this is jeopardised by governments’ recourse to shutdowns.  While freedom of expression and access to information online is not an absolute right, Internet shutdowns represent a heavy-handed and usually disproportionate means of achieving their policy objectives. In the short term, they limit the flow of information and control what people can see and say online. In the long term, they have serious social and economic repercussions.

The UN and many human rights experts have recognised that internet shutdowns are a violation of international human rights law. Governments must find solutions that are proportionate. Internet shutdowns carry too high a price now and in the future, to be an acceptable tool.

  • Where do policy-makers and regulators need to act to facilitate the development of public access? What could be done to ensure that Universal Service Funds in particular realise their potential in this area?
  • What more can we do to underline that the costs of Internet shutdowns more than outweigh any potential benefits in all but the most exceptional circumstances?

PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR PUBLIC ACCESS

A number of active members of the DC have sought, through a Partnership for Public Access (P4PA), to develop partnerships in which individual libraries and library associations, civil society groups, government and business collaborate to deliver both public access to the Internet, and the support needed to make this meaningful. For example, in Tunisia, there have been coding classes to help young people realise the potential of the digital economy, and work to help local librarians develop the confidence to deliver digital literacy to users. This project will now expand to include Colombia, where strong library infrastructure and civil society opens opportunities to connect areas which were long isolated by the conflict.

The potential of public access initiatives to marry up with Community Networks is also increasingly clear. Libraries can act not only as hubs or nodes in Community Networks, but can also serve to help community members develop the necessary skills and start to produce local content.

 

  • Which actors need to be engaged in order to build effective partnerships for public access at the local level? Which examples could inspire others?
  • How can public access points such as libraries work together with the growing community network movement to maximise connectivity?

IGF 2017 Substantive Paper (DC on Blockchain Technologies)

I. Introduction to the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies

The Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies endeavors to bring clarity to governance approaches for blockchain technologies, smart contracts and decentralized autonomous applications. The Dynamic Coalition strives to bring together diverse stakeholders, from diverse experts to global institutions, to facilitate the development and deployment of blockchain-based applications alongside governance policies that enable innovation. The hope is that the Dynamic Coalition can contribute to the conversation around blockchain technology policy, technical development, and next-generation applications at a global scale.

II. Governance Issues and Trends in Blockchain Technologies

Since the December 2016 IGF meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, several new governance issues and trends emerged in blockchain technologies: governance mechanisms related to hard forks in open source blockchain technologies, government adoption of blockchain-based systems for use in their own processes, the growing popularity of “Initial Coin Offerings” or “ICOs” and the resulting regulatory response, and the ever present concern for appropriate regulation of blockchain-based applications and activities.

Blockchain Governance Challenges
In March 2017, Business Insider ran a story called “A Bitcoin civil war is threatening to tear the digital currency in 2 – here’s what you need to know.”1 The authors described “[d]evelopers, miners, and other stakeholders [] locked in a heated debate over how best to scale the network, with chances steadily rising of irreconcilable differences causing a so-called ‘hard fork’ that would split Bitcoin in two.”2 The authors describe the situation in stark terms as a “crisis,” and warned that terrible things, including a steady price drop and battered reputation, would result from a hard fork.3 Commentators also predicted a loss of trust for the Ethereum protocol after its hard fork in early 2017.4 The Bitcoin blockchain and the Ethereum protocol have now each undergone a hard fork. Some view the hard forks as failure of the system and use them as an opportunity to criticize the technology. Others argue that hard forks represent one of the most democratic elements of the built-in governance mechanisms of public blockchains. Even for those who view hard forks positively, questions remain about whether and to what extent limits on hard forks should exist, and how to create those limits endogenously to mirror the core values of the public blockchains.

Government Adoption of Blockchain-Based Systems

Governments all over the world launched blockchain initiatives in 2017 with the aim of using
blockchain-based systems to make their administrative processes more efficient, transparent and
accountable. For example, Delaware launched its Blockchain Initiative in May 2016 to begin
moving certain Delaware government processes to blockchain-based systems. Delaware’s project
is three-fold: (1) moving records in the Delaware archives to a blockchain-based archival system,
(2) enabling the issuance of corporate shares on blockchain-based systems, and (3) enabling
participants in the secured credit system to file notices of liens in a blockchain-based filing system.
Elsewhere, Sweden is building a real property recording system for the blockchain, Dubai
launched a significant government blockchain effort, Malta is developing a broad national strategy
to allow the government to embrace bitcoin and blockchain innovation, and the EU Commission
works to streamline anti-money laundering compliance through blockchain-based systems. Other
similar government efforts abound. The questions for government blockchain-based initiatives
such as these are two-fold: (1) when should an administrative legal function be moved to a
blockchain-based system, and (2) what impact will doing so have on related law?

The Rise of Initial Coin Offerings

A wave of very successful Initial Coin Offerings (“ICOs”) occurred in 2017. ICOs are viewed as
an innovative method for raising business capital, using smart contract enabled by blockchain
technology. By the end of May 2017, twenty-five (25) ICOs raised just over $163 million, whereas
in all of 2016, sixty-four (64) ICOs raised $103 million total. Regulatory bodies were slow to move
on the ICO phenomena, but by the end of July 2017, the United States Securities Exchange
Commission (“SEC”) issued a ruling explaining that some ICOs would be considered securities
under the U.S. analysis of an “investment contract.” Before the end of August 2017, the SEC would
follow-up with a consumer investor alert, warning consumers to be cautious when considering
whether to invest in an ICO. Meanwhile, the Government of China issued an order banning ICOs
as a method of corporate fundraising. As a result, the field remains rife with unanswered
governance questions, including how to coordinate national policies that affect an activity based
on a borderless technology, and whether and to what extent the application of existing laws in the
name of consumer protection is preferable to allowing an ICO market to develop and test the waters
for new and innovative methods of economic and financial order.

Continued Debate Over Appropriate Regulation

The debate over appropriate regulation of blockchain-based activities remains a heavy focus of
advocacy efforts, academic investigation, and government interest. Discussions in the United
States in 2017 centered around the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Regulation of Virtual
Currency Businesses Act (a model law to guide state measures in the future), finding a path toward
federal, uniform regulation, and tax relief. China remained uniformly contrarian towards
cryptocurrencies, prohibiting financial institutions and third-party payment providers from
accepting, using, or selling virtual currencies. This tightened control impacted bitcoin exchanges
in China directly, forcing them to impose trading fees beginning in January 2017. The National
Bank of Hungary issued a public statement just after the 2016 IGF meeting warning consumers
about the unregulated nature of cryptocurrencies and their related risks. In January of 2017, the
Israeli central bank and Finance Ministry followed suit, issuing warnings to the public about the
risks associated with cryptocurrencies.

Meanwhile, on April 1, 2017, Japan’s Financial Services Agency enacted a new law authorizing
the use of digital currency as a method of payment. To do so, Japan essentially categorized bitcoin
as a form of prepaid access and subjected participants in the prepaid ecosystem to the same kind
of anti-money laundering and consumer protection requirements as those dealing in prepaid access.
Other countries also took action in 2017, most of which was along similar lines: exhibiting overarching
concern for protecting consumers and enabling tight compliance with anti-money
laundering regulations.

In France, pursuant to the law of 9 December 2016 on Transparency, Anti-Corruption and
Economic Modernisation, and following the adoption of the legislation on mini-bonds, the
Government has been granted powers until 9 December 2017 to reform securities laws so that
securities that are not traded via a central securities depository (CDS) or a securities settlement
system (SSS) could be represented and transmitted using distributed ledger technology. The list of
securities potentially covered by the French initiative is as follows: (a) equity securities which are
not traded on a trading venue and are not transferred following a financial guarantee contract; (b)
debt securities which are not traded on a trading venue and are not transferred following a financial
guarantee contract; (c) short term debt securities; and (d) units in collective investment
undertakings. The driving force behind such legislation is that the French authorities are convinced
that a robust legislative framework is needed to ensure the legal certainty of the financial
transactions conducted using this technology. Thus, the French Treasury launched a consultation
on the representation and transmission of certain securities via “distributed ledger technology”
before proposing a draft ordinance that has now been submitted to stake-holder consultation by
the Treasury.

The consultation process was very interesting, as it underlined the frictions between blockchain
and regulation regarding securities laws, especially in the fields of compliance, know-yourcustomer,
data protection law, and supervision issues. Moreover, some stakeholders emphasized
that the references to distributed ledger technology should be more precise (i.e., private or public
blockchains) in order to build a solid legislation or consider new kinds of supervision based on the
inherent characteristics of such a technology.

The question moving forward is whether and to what extent such measures inhibit adoption of the
technology, and how much of the regulatory approach to cryptocurrency will spill over to the
underlying protocol technology, which can be used for a myriad of other use cases. Furthermore,
it will be important to consider ways to ensure the positive effect of “technology neutral”
legislation.

III. Current Efforts of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies in These
Areas

The Dynamic Coalition carries out its work through its email list-serve and through organically
formed working groups, which are composed of academics, lawyers, economists, programmers,
protocol architects, cryptographers, security experts, technologists, and entrepreneurs, amongst
other disciplines. Of the ten (10) active working groups, several focus directly on the issues that
emerged as preeminent since the 2016 IGF meeting: Identity & Privacy, Blockchain Governance,
Regulation & Compliance, Institutional Governance, Smart Contracts, and Crypto-Equity.

The Identity & Privacy working group focuses on the fundamental problem of trust on a trustless
Internet. It aims at identifying the various challenges and opportunities of blockchain technologies
to the identity/privacy dilemma, elaborating potential interim solutions (e.g., federated KYC), and
sketching out a variety of issues related to the developing world (e.g., persistent identity and secure
land records) which may require distinct treatment. In addition, the working group explores ways
in which blockchain technologies may be applied to existing AML/CTF frameworks. To that end,
the group has conducted an exhaustive survey and impact assessment of current AMF/CTF
policies, as applied to emergent blockchain technologies. Specific attention should also be paid
regarding the entry into force of the Data Protection Regulation in Europe by the 18th of May,
2018. The economic consequences of the GDPR, its standards on privacy and the possible
interactions with any regulation on blockchain could be particularly useful.

The Blockchain Governance working group investigates the intersection of law and blockchain
governance, asking whether and how law can provide guideposts for blockchain governance.
Inversely, the Regulation & Compliance working group aims at investigating (and elaborating)
specific regulatory and policy frameworks for blockchain technology that will promote innovation
and growth while preventing systemic risk, ensuring financial stability and protecting consumers
and entrepreneurs against economic harm and illegal activity. These efforts are increasingly
important in light of the significant and fast-pace growth of blockchain and other distributed ledger
technologies. The number and variances of protocols is rapidly growing, as are the number of
significantly different use cases.

Relatedly, the Institutional Governance working group explores the spectrum of ways in which we
can leverage blockchain technologies to address the growing deficit of accountability and trust in
both public and private institutions. This can be done in two ways: (1) using blockchain
technologies as a means to improve existing governance structures within an institution by
improving the transparency, auditability, and accountability of its operators; and (2) leveraging
new opportunities that blockchain technologies provide for the establishment of a new operational
layer for human interaction that can support, complement, and perhaps replace, current governance
structures. The working group addresses these questions by investigating the use of blockchain
technology and smart contracts for enhanced information security and institutional governance,
with particular focus on the new opportunities for technological due process and institutional
accountability that these technologies provide.

The Smart Contracts working group investigates the legal validity and enforceability of smart
contracts and the need for alternative enforcement or adjudication mechanisms. Relatedly, the
Crypto-equity working group investigates the technical implementation and legal viability of new
governance structures based on the issuance and distribution of digital tokens (often done through
smart contracts). Blockchain technologies provide new ways of issuing secure and tradable digital
tokens on a distributed network. Although these tokens are often described as cryptocurrency, they
have many other potential applications, ranging from traditional stocks and securities, claims to an
underlying property title, proof of ownership over specific assets, voting rights or other privileges
within an organization, and many other use-cases. The purpose of the Crypto-equity working group
is to examine the benefits and drawbacks of blockchain-based applications from the standpoint of
existing legal infrastructure.

The Ethics working group works to inculcate a culture of healthy social and ethical norms that
foster individual and collective responsibility. The working group asks what kind of values can be
baked into a blockchain-based system, and queries whether those involved in developing the
technologies can ensure they empower people, as opposed to replicating or exacerbating prevailing
societal inequalities and power dynamics.

IV. Issues and Questions Calling for Further Exploration

The Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies sees many governance policy issues
emerging as a result of the trends discussed above, which its working groups will continue to
explore, including:
 How does the dichotomous move of some governments, on the one hand, adopting
blockchain technologies for use in government processes, and other governments, on the
other hand, criminalizing certain uses of cryptocurrencies, impact the future of the
technologies’ use and the trajectory of governance mechanisms?
 What social changes could Blockchain put in effect in a community in order to foster
social goods?
 Is there a role for Blockchain in reducing inequalities?
 How can Blockchain developments be allied to sustainable development?
 Should developers build solutions to these questions with the over-arching governmental
concerns with consumer protection and anti-money laundering in mind? If so, how do
they achieve that? If not, how do developers prevent walking into a regulatory
conundrum like that faced by ICOs?

Input Document for the DCs Main Session at the Internet Governance Forum 2017 (DC on Innovative Approaches to Connecting the Unconnected)

The Dynamic Coalition on Innovative Approaches to Connect the Unconnected focuses on compiling case studies of innovative ways to connect unconnected communities. As of 25 September 2017, we have compiled case studies of 85 connectivity projects, with an aim to publish all of them by this year’s IGF. A full list of case study candidates that we have reached out to is compiled and can be accessed online.

The list of compiled case studies, which we will be analyzing and presenting at the IGF, is as follows:
 

 Project Name

Country

Refugee Hotspot

Netherlands

Mawingu Networks

Kenya

Adaptive Technology Center for the Blind

Ethiopia

The Connected Homes Program

Costa Rica

Mobile Solar Computer Classroom

Uganda

Zenzeleni Networks

South Africa

She Will Connect Africa

Nigeria

Project Tawasol

Tunisia

Nepal Wireless Networking Project

Nepal

Internet @ My School

Yemen

Comcast Internet Essentials

U.S.

Intel® Learn Easy Steps

India

Fonias Jurua Project

Brazil

Escuela+

Uruguay, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Chile

Econet Wireless

Zimbabwe

Malawi TV White space project

Malawi

Vanuatu Inter-Island Telemedicine and Learning Project

Vanuatu

Rhizomatica

Mexico

Pamoja Net

Congo

Digital Village Squares

India

Pohnpei Catholic School

Micronesia

Zamora Teran Foundation

Nicaragua

Soweto Wireless

South Africa

Project Isizwe

South Africa

Wireless Leiden

Netherlands

Napo Network

Peru

Zaya Learning Lab

India

Sarantoporo

Greece

Universal Service Fund

Pakistan

Arran TVWS Deployment

Scotland

WiFi Interactive Network (WIN)

Philippines

Maendeleo Foundation

Uganda

WLAN

Slovenia

Johannesburg WUG (JAWUG)

South Africa

Namibia TVWS Pilot

Namibia

IITB TVWS Pilot

India

Mimosa

U.S.

Personal Telco

U.S.

SAARC Development Fund

Bhutan

Internet Connectivity at Nyirarukobwa Primary School

Rwanda

Fonatel’s Initiatives

Costa Rica

Progetto Neco

Italy

Balsapuerto Network

Peru

Cisco Connected North

Canada

e-Daara Thieyetou

Senegal

EOS Foundation’s Initiatives

Romania

Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan

Pakistan

Siyafunda Community Technology Centre

South Africa

Zap Quebec

Canada

Connect With Axiom

U.S.

Child Help

Sierra Leone

Remote Experimentation on Mobile Devices for Basic Education

Brazil

Farmerline

Ghana

Myanmar Book Foundation

Myanmar

The 21st Century Digital Farmer

Kenya

AMW Network

Nigeria

Amakomaya

Nepal

Online Vidhyalaya

Nepal

All Girls Technology Camps

Gambia

Connectivity to Support Prenatal care in Ghana

Ghana

National Computer Board

Mauritus

TunapandaNet

Kenya

Datamation Foundation

India

Fusion

Sri Lanka

Ghana Code Club

Ghana

Linguoo

Argentina

Telenor Myanmar

Myanmar

Educational Initiatives Trust

Kenya

Kioscos Vive Digitales

Colombia

Value-Stream based Framework

India

Li-Fi LED

Ivory Coast

eKrishakMitra

India

Next Wave Cities

Phillipines

Accessibility Initiatives in India

India

Blind Accessibility in Germany

Germany

Downtown

Spain

Mjangale

Senegal

National Computer Board

Mauritius

AGESIC

Uruguay

NASCO Foundation

Ghana

Jakarta Smart City

Indonesia

EDUS-Electronic Health Record System

Costa Rica

Kedesa

Indonesia

WoredaNet

Ethiopia

As part of the DCs main session, we would like to highlight some of our key takeaways from the
case studies that we have compiled thus far. In particular, we would like to focus on the lessons
that we can learn from various demand-side interventions, and how success of certain
interventions depends on both demand and supply side interventions. We have gathered data
on the business models that various initiatives rely on, and will comment on how some of these
initiatives are able to sustain themselves in the long run. Further, our submission will focus on
the different dimensions of sustainable development goals that are being supported by last mile
connectivity initiatives, including e-health, remote education, e-government and e-agriculture
based initiatives.

The case studies bridge a key information gap, and provide resources to implementing
organizations on the ground. Further, analysis of the case studies provides key insights on the
scalability and sustainability of last mile connectivity initiatives, which we believe will aid efforts
on the ground to connect the next billions.

Internet of Things Good Practice Policies (DC on Internet of Things)

Since the IGF in Hyderabad in 2008 , the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things (DC-loT) has
engaged in debate at IGFs and at meetings in between IGFs on the usefulness of Internet of Things, its
necessity to help address global and local societal challenges, and the challenges that need to be
addressed in order to ensure the Internet of Things is developing in a way that serves people around the
globe. This is through enabling them to realize the potential benefits and innovative applications that
the IoT can provide while addressing the risks and concerns which can arise from new uses of data. At
the IGF 2015, in Joao Pessoa the DC-loT presented and discussed its first draft paper on Internet of
Things Good Practice policies. This was followed by intersessional discussions, and a workshop during
IGF 2016 in Guadalajara, and contains now the insights collected up to September 2017.

Over time we have found an agreement that legislation alone will not be sufficient to “guide”
responsible development of IoT products and services, and therefore there is a need for "loT going
ethical" as the way to find a sustainable way ahead that would help create this "world we want our
children to live in", or "a future we want" -as a practical definition of "ethical". At the same time it is
recognized that we are not yet on a common understanding on what this and that a proposed “ethical
approach” should be “sufficient” from a civil society point of view, and “do-able” from a business point
of view – but progress was made. This progress was reflected in the IGF 2016 DC IoT meeting report, and
now in the text below.

As in 2016, this paper does not represent the Dynamic Coalitions final position on the Internet of Things.
It represents an overview of the current thinking, with the aim to further develop this position during
the IGF meeting in 2017, moving towards a "rough consensus", global, multi stakeholder position on an
ethical approach towards loT development and deployment.

Internet of Things Good Practice policies

Preamble

A. The Internet of Things is a set of devices connected to the Internet interacting with each other
and/or human actors, therefore, as a general matter standards and principles that are applicable
to the Internet and society at large, are also applicable to the Internet of Things.
 

B. The Internet of Things is not just about objects, data collected and shared, and actions by those
objects: it also has implications for people and society.
 

C. The Internet of Things, like the Internet, should be open to connect to and secure in its use.
 

D. To foster both innovation and user trust in the Internet of Things, like the Internet, a careful
balance should be struck between regulation and space for innovation. This requires
governments to hold back on regulation where possible, and industry to commit to
self-regulation, where necessary, while recognizing that future useful/necessary applications as
well as limitations cannot be determined yet, today, in full. Please note that current existing
legislation that does not (yet) take IoT into account may affect the legal ability to deploy IoT
products and services;
 

E. There are important benefits from the Internet of Things to deal with a wide range of societal
challenges, ranging from medical and health care, social care, and urban planning to agriculture,
food chains, security and environmental sustainability. These benefits need to be explained and
responsible development of IoT should thus be fostered and stimulated.
 

F. The Internet of Things is in its early phase and it is still evolving, though it has been around long
enough for there to be some historical consequences. Therefore, not all of the technical and the
governance issues have been considered yet. Especially, the issues of security and privacy will
need to continue to be explored to ensure justified trust in the Internet of Things environment.
 

G. The Internet of Things, needs investments in innovation and deployment in order to develop.
Investors like to know that their investments will lead to products and services that are not
countered by governments (illegal) or markets (seen as unsafe, unwanted, unethical) or even
subsidized/acquired by governments in response to specific societal challenges. We should
consider how to enhance the potential for investment in both the IoT and the methods to assure
its security and privacy.

1. Internet of Things Good Practice Principles

Internet of Things Good Practice aims at developing loT systems, products, and services taking ethical
considerations into account from the outset, both in the development, deployment and use phases of the
life cycle, thus to find an ethical, sustainable way ahead using loT helping to create a free, secure and
rights enabling based environment: a future we want, full with safe opportunities to embrace.

2. Towards an ethical framework for loT Good Practice

Ethical values are the product of applicable law, cultural values, morals, and habits, and are globally
rooted in outline in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals
that were adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Good practice in loT products, systems and services around the world require:

A. Meaningful Transparency to users: understandable and clear terms of use, including an
overview what is tracked, and the ‘why’, and the ‘how’ that information is used in IoT systems
and how it is shared, with whom it is shared and under what terms. Transparency also includes
"usability" as it doesn't help to have options if you do not know how to use those, and
"accountability" as it is important to know whom to address in case of wrong use or abuse; It
should be noted that the purpose of transparency is to provide sufficient information to allow
users to make informed decisions about whether and when to use technology. There are limits
to transparency in relation to specific details that if public could compromise the security of an
IoT deployment or which may impact elements of innovation that might be protected by
Intellectual Property laws; neither of those elements should negatively impact the ability of a
user to have the needed information to make decisions about the use of a product.

B. User’s ability to understand and exert appropriate control of personally identifiable data
produced by, submitted, or associated with an application. This is necessary for multiple
reasons, ranging from essential privacy and other human rights to business and competition
reasons. This user control may be reflected in various ways, through an ability to direct where
data is sent or stored, whether the data is generated at all, be able to appropriately delete
historic data, be in control of security settings for the data. For instance:
a. Ability to turn off individual tracking (and how this can be done) where and when
possible, in the highest level of granularity as practically possible." All or nothing" does
not always fit here, depending on the specific application. Another option would be
allowing users to control access to their own tracking data via sufficient and useable
means.;
b. Enable the user to protect their personal data with a technology of choice such as strong
public key encryption;
c. Ensure user awareness of data set correlation capabilities and its implications on user
privacy;
d. Ensure user awareness of machine learning (and eventually possibly artificial
intelligence) that may lead to change in behavior of IoT environments the user is
confronted with;
e. Consider the ability to delete and export historic data: or at least makes sure that
historic data are no longer related to individual accounts unless explicitly agreed
otherwise ("the right to be forgotten" in practice - and data can still be used for business
process innovation etc.);

C. Security: Security is an important and relevant concern for IoT both from a data perspective but
also from the perspective of potential physical damage or harm.. Therefore, the security of
individual loT devices, systems and the data related to the systems need to be secured
adequately. An additional challenge raising from some loT applications is the fact that the
devices and systems may be in use for a long time and the security requirements may change
during that time. Good practice includes assessment of security impact of any part of an IoT
system when developing or deploying, not deliver IoT objects with default passwords to end
users, and ensure the ability to change passwords.

D. Privacy: All stakeholders in the Internet value chain, which includes the Internet of Things,
including governments and industry, including both direct and indirect use and reuse of data,
should comply with privacy and data protection norms and international law. In particular, any
techniques to inspect, correlate or analyze Internet traffic shall be in accordance with privacy
and data protection obligations around the world and subject to clear proactive legal
protections. Good practice includes assessment of privacy impact of any part of an IoT system
when developing or deploying with a clear understanding which data that relate to persons are
collected, where they are stored and how they are used and shared.

3. Implementation and enforcement

An important element of loT Good Practice is its supporting mutual trust amongst all the components of
loT systems: human, devices, applications, existing institutions and business entities. Trust is boosted by
a recognition of personal needs; by transparency in how things are organized-namely in a way that
clearly shows that relevant measures have been taken to meet those needs-; and by accountability in
ensuring that responsibilities are clear, and if someone responsible (person or organization) fails to live
up to what is promise or required, they will be made accountable, thus assuming a principles based
front end (ethical, i.e. in line with Human Rights) and harms based backend (accountable).

In order to ensure long term relevance of the products and services under development, it will be key to
establish a clear framework for transparency and accountability, with respect for current legislation and
pre-empting evolution of the regulatory framework reflecting changes in values and needs of citizens.

Recognizing that active use and abuse of vulnerabilities in systems happen, as well as that IoT has
become an attack vector for cybercrime and cyber warfare, good practice is to be pro-active in this
understanding, as justifiable trust in the Internet and IoT is crucial in order for society at large to benefit
from this. Measures by stakeholders are to include active monitoring networks and systems for abuse,
and taking prompt action when vulnerabilities and/or abuse of infrastructures are discovered.

Ultimately, the combination of technologies applied according to loT Good Practice ("Ethical loT") should
lead to products, ecosystems and services that are transparent for the user in terms of how they collect,
store and share information, that give choice to the user in terms of adapting that to his or her
appreciation of values (and legislation), and for which accountability for usages (and failure) is clear.

loT deployment in the development context need to be considered as it can help achieve specific
development goals. At the same time, attention should be paid to ensure access to loT is available. Next
to the necessary investment in infrastructure and openness of that infrastructure, both availability of
licensed and unlicensed spectrum is needed.

4. Education and awareness

Related to loT, individuals should have the right to have access to information on which these individuals
base their actions with loT - systems, - infrastructures and utilities. This information needs to be
provided in a manner that is accessible to the non-expert and may benefit much from Open Educational
Resources and prosumer (i.e. both producer and consumer) knowledge base. It is important to ensure
that all stakeholders are able to participate in the discussions, and it is up to both governments,
academic institutions and the private sector to help ensure user education. In addition, we call for
providing examples of practice around the world that help illustrate “good practice” as recognized to be
so within a specific region and by specific stakeholders.

Road ahead

The Dynamic Coalition will continue to work on these issues with a goal of producing output for
consideration during IGF 2018. The stakes continue to go up, and more influential players will further
progress in the field. The G7 Ministerial Meeting in Torino (September 25 - 26, 2017) adopted in its
Declaration a special section on a "G7 Multistakeholder Exchange on Human Centric Artificial
Intelligence for Our Societies" (Annex 2) that says: "the economic, ethical, cultural, regulatory and legal
issues linked to artificial intelligence [need to be] thoroughly researched and understood by policy
makers, industry and civil society." AI and IOT are not the same, but very interlinked. The G7 announced
its intent to start a "multistakeholder dialogue" on those issues but it did not outline how this will be
organized. The Torino document has a strong support for the multistakeholder approach in Internet
Governance and refers to the NetMundial Declaration on Principles for Internet Governance from Sao
Paulo (2014).

 

For more information on meetings that have taken place in the past, and meetings planned, and on
progress on this document, please go to http://www.iot-dynamic-coalition.org

Open Digital Trade: Background Paper (DC on Trade)

Version 0.0

Background Paper
Dynamic Coalition on Trade & the Internet [Full Report]

 

Preface 
 

Overview of Digital Trade Frameworks 
2.1 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 
2.2 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 
2.3 Information Technology Agreement (ITA)
2.4 Developments from the Doha Round 
2.5 Digital Trade and Dispute Settlement at the WTO 
2.6 Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce 
2.7 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 
2.8 Digital Trade and WTO: Present Status 
 

Plurilateral and Mega-regional Trade Agreements 
3.1 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 
3.2 Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) 
3.3 Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) 
3.4 North-American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
3.5 The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) 
 

4. Digital Trade and Internet Governance 
4.1 Paperless Trading 
4.2 Custom Duties 
4.3 Cross-border Data Flows and Data Localization 
4.4 Intellectual Property Rights 
4.5 Unsolicited Emails and Malware 
4.6 Prohibition on Source Code Disclosure 
4.7 Access: Net Neutrality 
4.8 Online Protection of Personal Information 
Part IV: Transparency and Openness in Trade Negotiations 
Rethinking Internet and Trade 
Brussels Declaration on Trade and Internet 

Part IV: Transparency and Openness in Trade Negotiations 
Rethinking Internet and Trade 
Brussels Declaration on Trade and Internet

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
EU European Union
FTAs free trade agreements
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GDP gross domestic product
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
IP Internet Protocol
IPRs intellectual property rights
ISPs Internet service providers
IT information technology
ITA Information Technology Agreement
MNEs multinational enterprises
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PCs personal computers
RCEP Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
SMEs small and medium enterprises
TBT Technical Barriers to Trade
TiSA Trade in Services Agreement
TRIPS Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
TPP Trans Pacific Partnership
TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
UPICC Uniform Principles of International Commercial Contracts
US United States
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
WTO World Trade Organization

1. Preface

Proliferation of digital technologies and cross-border flow of information has created social, economic
and cultural growth. Nations now face the challenge of ensuring that the opportunities and benefits driven
by Internet and communications technologies (ICT) are shared by all. With the development of national
standards and the emergence of digital players transforming production processes and industries, there is
increased push for centrally controlled regulatory environment for the Internet and Internet related
services. This is driven by both economic and strategic interests.

The pace of ICT adoption and its impact on national economies has raised concerns about the legitimacy
of control and civic participation. Issues that were considered purely technical have transformed into
areas for strategic governance and tools for foreign policy. While the Internet was conceived as a
technology that would defy national borders, the historical imbalance of the United States' domination of
ICTs and growing fears of surveillance has created the political momentum for increased state control on
regulatory aspects of the Internet.

The evolution of the Internet from a research network to a platform for commerce presents challenges for
trade law. The World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements were developed more than two decades ago
and are inadequate in dealing with complex issues of present day digital economy. While the role of
nation states in regulating physical goods and services has been established in global trade order, the role
of nation states with respect to cross-border flow of information is less understood.

This is partly due to the novelty of digital technologies and the associated unorthodox processes that have
evolved in the context of its governance. Existing Internet governance (IG) frameworks—many of which
are still evolving—are led by multistakeholder decision-making where state and non-state actors address
issues through open and transparent arrangements of rulemaking. This is in contrast to conventional
regulatory domains which feature state-led processes for the development of global norms and treaties.

In the absence of global binding norms on Internet related issues, and in light of fears of rising 'digital
protectionism', states are are seeking to draw up rules and frameworks for regulation of the digital
economy through conventional mechanisms for international cooperation such as trade agreements.
Although trade and Internet governance appear to be disconnected, with the growing significance of the
Internet for international trade, a tenuous and complex relationship between the fields is emerging that
will have repercussions on the development of the digital economy.

Direct or indirect inclusion of contemporary issues related to the Internet are being included in plurilateral
and multilateral arrangements with the aim to counter restrictive measures on data flows that hinder cross-
border trade. For example, the Electronic Commerce Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
(TPP) contains provisions that ban data localization. Such provisions are accompanied by other legal
obligations on cybersecurity, spam and intellectual property. Similar provisions are also being proposed in
other ongoing plurilateral trade negotiations including the the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP), the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP) and most recently the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ).

Any framework or rules evolving out of these agreements will have a deep impact and Internet
governance processes and policymaking. Regulating commercial aspects of Internet through trade
agreements entails choices that will significantly influence and bear repercussions for critical aspects of
the emerging digital economy. It requires coming up with global solutions that strike a balance between
trade liberalization and preservation of fundamental goals of Internet governance such as openness,
transparency and protection of human rights. It would also necessitate resolving differences in political
and ideological stance on issues like privacy, innovation and democratic standard setting.

It is important to understand the complexities and risks involved in aligning the disciplines of trade policy
and Internet governance. Despite recent initiatives, it is important to take a step back and question
whether trade agreements should be concerned with setting standards for Internet technologies or on
issues such as national security and privacy. Going forward policymakers and governments need to
understand how the application of international trade law could be better aligned with values of Internet
governance such as openness and inclusion.

With the aim of bringing in a multistakeholder approach to application of international trade civil society,
private sector, technical and academic community members have come together to form the Dynamic
Coalition on Trade and the Internet (DCTI). The Dynamic Coalition was formally approved by the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat in February, 2017 and the inaugural meeting will be held in
Geneva in December 2017. The Dynamic Coalition aims to serve as a liaison between representatives
from trade institutions and government delegations and the broader IGF community. The Coalition been
established to address the lack of transparency in international trade negotiations and domestic
consultation processes and provide recommendations about how Internet public policy can be developed
in a transparent and inclusive way. The Coalition will also serve as an interface for the exchange of
information and best practices on Internet public policy issues.

This paper is a resource developed for the DCTI and summarizing the issues, concerns and recent
developments on trade and digital rights. The paper is divided in four parts.
Part I provides a background to the evolution of trade frameworks in the context of digital trade agenda.
This section will draw on history of intellectual property trade frameworks and recent attempts to
introduce e-commerce related issues in the digital trade agenda.

In Part II we cover the trade negotiations that have included digital issues or are currently being
negotiated. We delve into the status of negotiations including the areas where countries have reached
consensus or others where negotiations face inability to pass muster and what experts have been saying
on these issues.

Part III we address some of the emerging themes and issues in the context of the digital economy that are
increasingly being included in trade agreements. We analyze these provisions based on the implications
for Internet governance and on consumers and human rights online.

In Part IV we highlight some of the procedural inconsistencies between the multistakeholder approach
that is common to Internet governance. We provide a broad-range of recommendations for introducing
transparency and opening up digital trade negotiation processes by by governments for the participation
by affected stakeholders and NGOs. The recommendations seek to establish a framework for participation
of diverse stakeholders when developing rules through regional and mega-regional trade treaties.

Preview of the 2017 DCPR Outcome: Platform Regulations (DC on Platform Responsibility)

Preview of the 2017 DCPR Outcome: Platform Regulations (DC on Platform Responsibility)

Preview prepared by Luca Belli and Nicolo Zingales

Since the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) in 2005, Internet governance has been widely understood as the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. This definition has fostered a lively and interdisciplinary discussion debate what roles and responsibilities might be attributed to different stakeholder groups and in different contexts, particularly considering the extent to which their actions affect Internet users and society more broadly. In that regard, one of the most fertile grounds of discussion has been the evolving notion of liability of Internet intermediaries, defined by the OECD as entities that “bring together or facilitate transactions between third parties on the Internet”[1]. Originally, the focus of that discussion was on the need to provide intermediaries with legislative protections from liability for third party content, which appeared insufficient and inconsistent across domains and jurisdictions. Then gradually, the initial scepticism by some stakeholders matured into a shared understanding of the importance of these protections and the recognition of best practices, thanks al so to consensus-building civil society initiatives such as those led by the Association for Progressive Communication[2] and by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ultimately producing a set of guidelines entitled “Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability.”[3]

While the need for the spreading of those best practices remains current and even increased after the submission of certain legislative proposals under consideration in a number of jurisdictions around the globe, a parallel discussion began to unfold concerning the potential effects on individuals of the private actions taken by intermediaries -in response to liability threats or otherwise-, in particular when it comes to the exercise of their fundamental rights. Participants in this discussion observe the negative consequences arising from the proliferation of private governance regimes, and interrogate themselves about conceptual issues concerning the moral, social and human rights responsibility of the private entities that set up such regimes. The increasing importance of this notion of   “responsibility” has not gone unnoticed, having been captured for example by the special report prepared by UNESCO in 2014[4], the study on self-regulation of the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam[5], the 2016 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression[6], the Center for Law and Democracy’s Recommendations on Responsible Tech[7] and most recently, the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on the roles and responsibilities of Internet intermediaries[8].

At the same time, the notion of “intermediary” is increasingly replaced in common parlance by the more palatable term of “platform”, which evokes a role that goes beyond one of mere messenger or connector, and extends to the provision of a shared space within which users can carry out their activities and generate value. It is at this juncture that, at the 2014 Internet Governance Forum, the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility was created. The DCPR is a multistakeholder group established under the auspices of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum dedicated to the analysis of the role and responsibilities of online platforms from a technical, legal, social or economic perspective. Since its inception, DCPR has facilitated and nurtured a cross-disciplinary analysis of the challenges linked to the emergence of digital platforms and has promoted a participatory effort aimed at suggesting policy solutions.

The Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights,[9] whose development was facilitated by the DCPR in 2015, constitute a prime example of such efforts. The Recommendations represent a first important step in identifying criteria through which platforms’ private orderings can be held accountable for their impact on users’ fundamental rights to freedom of expression, privacy and due process. More efforts of this type are encouraged to extend the discussion to other rights, recognise the appropriate role for public policy, and define sound mechanisms guiding platforms in their response to requests for removal, including any balancing of conflicting rights and interests. While the extent to which this type of work should be conducted at the global, regional or national level remains one of the governance challenges of our generation[10], the urgency of this discussion can hardly be overstated.

Hence, this book offers a response to the DCPR’s call for multistakeholder dialogue, made ever more pressing by the diverse and raising challenges generated by the platformisation of our economy and, more generally, our society. Despite the evident need to address these challenges, finding consensus and a sense of shared purpose is not always an easy task. For example, significant controversy exists concerning the very notion of “platform,” and the type of actors whose responsibilities should take the centre stage in this discussion.[11] The above-mentioned DCPR Recommendations adopted a high-level definition, which is neutral as to the type of involvement in content creation or distribution, but refers to a specific type of intermediation that runs at the application and content layers, allowing users to “seek, impart and receive information or ideas according to the rules defined into a contractual agreement”.

This definition excludes prima facie, from this particular discussion, telecommunications companies and Internet Access Providers (IAPs), which remain at the core of other forums such as the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue and the Global Network Initiative. Nevertheless, as an attentive reader of the present volume will notice, legal developments on the rights and obligations of “upstream” intermediaries such as IAPs and domain name registrars (and registries) are considered to the extent they inform, corroborate or anticipate the emergence of analogous legal issues “downstream”. By way of example, the discussion arising from the pulling out of neo-Nazi content from certain domain name providers and content delivery networks (see e.g. David Kaye’s mention of Cloudflare) closely follows the thread of combating “hate speech” that led to the adoption of similar measures by social media companies; it should therefore be considered as part of that broader tendency. Discussing in isolation from parallel developments at the upstream level carries the risk of missing important insights on legal remedies available to users affected by private measures, as is illustrated by the evolution of the legal framework concerning injunctions against innocent third parties in chapter 2.

The increasing centrality of digital platforms, both, in the collection and processing of personal data and in the production and dissemination of content, has attracted growing political and regulatory pressure over rights and responsibilities that ought to be attributed to them; and expectations are increasingly being placed on the role of large platform operators to provide “safe” online spaces for user engagement. This trend is visible in the legislative proposals that have emerged in various countries demanding social media companies to prevent hate speech, incitement to violence or hatred, and “dangerous terrorist recruitment material.” In that regard, this volume offers some reflections on online platforms’ roles and responsibilities in the eyes of regulators, warning about the dangers associated with an increasing instrumentalisation of these entities for the pursuit of a wide range of (often ill-conceived) public policy measures.

Over the last year, one of the most visible manifest trends of platform regulation has manifested itself in the context of the identification and prevention of “fake news”, stirring controversy over the role and impact of online platforms in influencing the shape and content of relevant discussions the public sphere. This discussion offers a perfect example of a recurring problem with platform regulation: an important part of the content that is supposed to be prohibited escapes clear legal definition. It comprises a variety of different phenomena and, therefore, arguably requires a combination of a wide range of measures that should not be based on vague terminology. While some proposals have called for special legislation to restore trust and create a level playing field, major platforms such as Google and Facebook have been quicker in addressing those concerns, including structural responses and tools for users to limit their exposure to such misinformation.

A different but related problem has arisen regarding “brand safety”, i.e. the concerns of advertisers in relation to the association of their ads with certain types of content deemed to be “inappropriate”. In March 2017, following a letter by the Guardian and many brands pulling their ads from YouTube, Google announced to have heard concerns “loud and clear” and raised its bar for “hateful, offensive and derogatory content” which will be excluded from the association with Google ads. Much like in the context of fake news, swift response by the platforms to a pressing societal problem serves as a backstop to the spreading of harm, preventing possible legislative intervention. Yet important questions remain regarding the transparency, proportionality and effectiveness of the measures these companies have taken, and of their impact on small and independent news providers and for content creators, some of whom (particularly those with content characterised as “sensitive”) have seen their ad revenues dramatically reduced since Google adopted this revised policy. Similar questions arise in relation to the recent emphasis by the European Commission on platforms’ responsibilities to protect users and society at large against the exploitation of their services for the dissemination of “illegal content”, a concept which is left for platforms to determine on the basis of EU and national law[12].

In addition to these content-related trends, platforms are increasingly under the scrutiny of regulators for various concerns relating to market power, information asymmetry and use and collection of personal data. For example, the European Commission is considering the adoption of special legislation to assuage concerns of contractual exploitation towards platform-dependent businesses[13]. Exploitation is also a central concern of the criticism being levelled to platforms for their relationships with workers/employees, leading most recently to several tech companies developing a code of ethics for worker values[14]. Finally, there are multiple investigations on the possible exploitation of personal data, relating both to their unlawful acquisition and their misuse leading to discrimination and consumer harm.

Against this backdrop, the need for a multistakeholder discussion on the role and responsibilities played by online platforms in our society becomes crucial. This book is built on the previous efforts of the DCPR and, although it does not pretend to offer definitive solutions, it provides some elements of reflection that should be carefully considered by all stakeholders in their effort to shape sustainable policies addressing shared problems regarding digital platforms.

 


[1] See OECD, The economic and social role of Internet intermediaries (OECD Publications,,2010),  <https://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/44949023.pdf> [accessed 31 October 2017].

[2] See Emilar Vushe Gandhi, ‘Internet intermediaries: The dilemma of liability in Africa’, (APC News,19 May 2014). <https://www.apc.org/en/news/internet-intermediaries-dilemma-liability-africa> accessed 31 October 2017; Nicolo Zingales, ‘Internet intermediary liability: identifying best practices for Africa’, (APC Publication, 2013), <https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf> [accessed 31 October 2017]

[3] See ‘Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability. Best Practices Guidelines for Limiting Intermediary Liability for Content to Promote Freedom of Expression and Innovation’ (24 March 2015),  <https://www.eff.org/files/2015/10/31/manila_principles_1.0.pdf> [accessed 31 October 2017].

[4] Rebecca MacKinnon et al., Fostering freedom online: the role of Internet intermediaries (UNESCO Publication, 2014). <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/publications-and-communication-materials/publications/full-list/fostering-freedom-online-the-role-of-internet-intermediaries/> [accessed 31 October 2017]..

[5] Cristina Angelopoulos et al., ‘Study of fundamental rights limitations for online enforcement through self regulation’ (IVir, 2015)  <https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1796> [accessed 31 October 2017]. .

[6] Report of the the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council on Freedom of expression, states and the private sector in the digital age, A/HRC/32/38 (11 May 2016) <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/095/12/PDF/G1609512.pdf?OpenElement> [accessed 31 October 2017].

[7] Center for Law & Democracy, ‘Recommendations for Responsible Tech’ <http://responsible-tech.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Final-Recommendations.pdf>[accessed 31 October 2017].

[8] Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2017x)xx of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries. https://rm.coe.int/recommendation-cm-rec-2017x-xx-of-the-committee-of-ministers-to-member/1680731980 [accessed 31 October 2017].

[9] The Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights are annexed to this book and can be found at <http://tinyurl.com/toshr2015> [accessed 31 October 2017].

[10] See the work carried out to streamline the interactions between different regimes by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project, described at https://www.internetjurisdiction.net/.

[11] For example, the relatively specific definition adopted by the European Commission in its consultations on online platforms – focused on the connection between two interdependent user groups – has been criticised for casting too wide regulatory net, catching a wide range of actors, business models and functionalities. Nor did the European Commission achieve more consensus with its narrower notion of “platforms making available large amounts of copyrighted content” identified as targets of heightened duty of care in the proposal for a copyright directive. Indeed, this latter definition triggering discussion as to the meaning of “large amount” and whether this should be defined (also) in relation to the profits made through the provision of access to such copyrighted material.

[12] See Communication on Tackling Ilegal Content Online. Towards an Enhanced Responsibility for Online Platforms, supra n. 11, pp. 5-6.

[13]  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on the Mid-Term Review on the implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy A Connected Digital Single Market for All, COM (2017) 228 final.

[14] Michael J. Coren, ‘Silicon Valley’s finest are finally developing a code of ethics’ (Quartz,  20 April 2017), <https://qz.com/964159/the-president-of-y-combinator-sam-altman-is-leading-an-effort-to-develop-a-code-of-ethics-for-silicon-valley-in-response-to-president-donald-trump/> [accessed 31 October 2017]. 

Part I – Exploring the Human Right Dimensions

This first part of the book explores some of the most pressing challenges regarding the impact that public
regulations targeting digital platforms and self-regulation developed by such entities may have on their users’
fundamental rights.

In their opening chapter on “Law of the Land or Law of the Platform? Beware of the Privatisation of
Regulation and Police,”
Luca Belli, Pedro Francisco and Nicolo Zingales argue that digital platforms are
increasingly undertaking regulatory and police functions, which are traditionally considered a matter of public
law. The authors emphasise that such functions have been growingly delegated to platforms by public
regulation while, on the other hand, platforms are self-attributing such functions to avoid liability, de facto
becoming private cyber-regulators and cyber-police. After highlighting the tendency towards delegation of
public functions to private platforms, Belli, Francisco and Zingales provide concrete examples of such
phenomenon. For example, the chapter scrutinise three types of delegations of public power: the imposition of
open-ended injunctions against innocent intermediaries, typically for content removal or website blocking; the
implementation of the right to content delisting against search engines, also known as the “right to be
forgotten”; and the enlisting of numerous IT companies into a voluntary scheme to counter “illegal hate
speech”. The authors show in all these cases that the amount of discretion conferred on platforms is
problematic from the standpoint of the protection of individual rights. Furthermore, the paper reviews the
parallel copyright regime developed by YouTube in order thereby emphasizing another collateral effect of the
privatisation of regulation and police functions: the extraterritorial application of a national legislation – US
copyright, in this case – which de facto turns the platform into a private proxy for global application of
national regulation. The authors conclude highlighting some of the challenges and viable solutions for the
protection of individual rights in an era of increasing privatisation of regulation and police.

In her chapter on “Online Platform Responsibility and Human Rights,” Emily Laidlaw explores the human
rights responsibilities of online platforms at the intersection of three areas: human rights, corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and regulation. In this conceptual paper, Laidlaw untangles the governance problems in
framing platform responsibility, focusing on the uneasy relationship between CSR and law, and identifying the
difficulties in articulating what it means for a platform to respect human rights. The chapter highlights the
benefits and challenges in considering CSR as part of the relevant regulatory framework, in particular when it
comes to the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. She concludes by
identifying three key challenges for the future of platform governance: defining appropriate (and where
possible uniform) rules for intermediary liability; clarifying the scope of application of the duty of respect; and
developing the linkage between alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and human rights.

In “Regulation by Platforms: the Impact on Fundamental Rights,” Orla Lynskey points out that the
relationship between platforms and regulation is two-fold: in addition to the various forms of regulation
affecting platforms, the latter also constitute a regulator themselves through ‘private ordering’, with notable
implications for economic, social, cultural and political dimensions of our lives. Lynskey explores, in
particular, both direct and indirect ways that platforms influence the extent to which we can exercise our
rights, and argues that these implications are exacerbated when these platforms are in a position of power -for
instance because of the number of individuals that use them. Importantly, she suggests that competition law is
not sufficient to constrain platform behaviour, in particular when it comes to addressing data power’ (the
power to profile and to exacerbate asymmetries of information) and ‘media power’ (the power to influence
opinion formation and autonomous decision-making) which transcend the economic notion of market power.
The chapter illustrates this point by reference to two examples (search engines and app stores) and concludes
briefly identifying some of the options and challenges which policy-makers are confronted with in trying to
tackle these issues.

In their chapter on “Fundamental Rights and Digital Platforms in the European Union: a suggested way
forward,”
Joe McNamee and Maryant Fernandez emphasise that it is important to understand which actors we
are addressing when referring to “digital platforms” because it may be counterproductive to categorise players
as different as AirBnB, Google News and YouTube, to name but a few examples, as the same type of
business. In this sense, the authors usefully suggest five classifications of platforms based on the relationship
with consumers or businesses and based on the transactional nature of the relationship. Furthermore, this
chapter notes that standard content guidelines of digital platforms do not necessarily respect the principle of
legality or comply with fundamental human rights. In this regard, so called “community guidelines” often ban
content, which is lawful and/or protected by European human rights law, often in an arbitrary and
unpredictable way. McNamee and Fernández Pérez offer several examples of bad practice to corroborate their
thesis and to conclude that, worryingly, neither governments nor Internet intermediaries appear to feel morally
or legally responsible/accountable for assessing the durability or potential counterproductive effects that can
be deployed by the measures that they implement. Importantly, the authors conclude the paper recommending
the essential points that that future platform policies should incorporate in order to abide fully to the
obligations prescribed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Part II – Data Governance

The second part of this volume is dedicated to the analysis of one of the most crucial element concerning
platform policies and regulations. The protection and use of individuals’ personal data have crossed the
borders of from privacy-focused discussions, growing to encompass an ample range of topics, including
competition, property rights and the conflict with the collective right to access to information. The chapters
included in this part provide a selection of analyses and some useful food for thoughts to identify priorities and
ponder what regulatory solutions might be elaborated.

Krzysztof Garstka and David Erdos open this second part with an important reflection on the right to be
forgotten from search engines, entitled “Hiding in Plain Sight: Right to be Forgotten & Search Engines in
the Context of International Data Protection Frameworks.”
The authors note that, in the wake of Google
Spain (2014) it has become widely recognised that data protection law within the EU/EEA grants individuals a
qualified right to have personal data relating to them de-indexed from search engines, this is far from being a
uniquely EU/EEA phenomenon. Through an analysis of five major extra-EU/EEA international data
protection instruments, Garstka and Erdos conclude that most of those lend themselves to a reasonable
interpretation supporting a Google Spain-like result. In light of the serious threats faced by individuals as a
result of the public processing of data relating to them, they argue that the time is ripe for a broader process of
international discussion and consensus-building on the “right to be forgotten”. They also suggest that such an
exercise cannot be limited to the traditionally discussed subjects such as challenging and d search engines), but
should also encompass other actors including social networking sites, video-sharing platforms and rating
websites.

The following chapter turns to the economic dimension of platform regulation, with Rolf Weber’s analysis of
the heated (but often misinterpreted) subject of “Data ownership in platform markets.” Weber points out
stressing that, while in the past platform regulations mainly concerned content issues related to accessible
information and to provider responsibility, the growing debates about data ownership might also extend the
scope of regulatory challenges to the economic analysis of platform markets. Relevant topics are collective
ownership and data portability in the legal ownership context, as well as access to data and data sharing in
case of an existing factual control about data. Weber opines that these challenges call for a different design of
the author regulatory framework for online platform.

The question of data ownership is further explored by Célia Zolynski in “What legal framework for data
ownership and access? The Opinion of the French Digital Council.”
This chapter takes stock of the
existing European debate and puts forward the approach of the French Digital Council (Conseil National du
Numérique or CNNum). The Chapter is in fact a CNNum Opinion issued in April 2017 to respond to the
public consultation launched by the European Commission on online platforms exploring various legislative
and non-legislative options, including the creation of a property right over non-personal data, to encourage the
free flow of data. First, the Opinion submits that value creation mostly occurs when data is contextualized and
combined with data from other datasets in order to produce new insights. Thus, the issue is not to establish a
hypothetical right of data ownership; rather, it is about thinking and designing incentive regimes of data access
and exchange between data controllers so as to encourage value creation. Indeed, contrary to a widely-held
belief, data ownership does not necessarily facilitate data exchanges - it can actually hinder them. Above all,
the Opinion makes the argument that a free flow of data should be envisioned not only between member
States, but also across online platforms. Importantly, the chapter highlights that these new forms of sharing are
essential to the development of a European data economy.

Part III – New Roles Calling for New Solutions

This part scrutinises the conundrum created by the blurring of distinction between private and public spheres in
some of the most crucial fields interested by the evolutions digital platforms. By exploring the challenges of
regulation, terrorism, online payments and digital labour, this third part highlights the heterogeneity of roles
that platforms are undertaking while stressing the need of policy solutions able to seize such diversity and
properly addressing the underling challenges.

Marc Tessier, Judith Herzog and Lofred Madzou open this part with their chapter on “Regulation at the Age
of online platform-based economy: accountability, users’ empowerment and responsiveness.”
This paper
expresses the views of the French Digital Council (CNNum) on the regulatory challenges associated with the
development of the digital platform economy. This piece is part of a more comprehensive reflexion on online
platforms policy-related issues developed by CNNUm since 2013, when the Council had been assigned the
task to organise a consultation with the French plaintiffs involved in the Google Shopping antitrust
investigation and made recommendations on policy issues posed by the rise of online platforms. Then in 2014,
the former Prime Minister asked the Council to organise a national consultation to elaborate France's digital
strategy. In this context, various market actors and civil society organisations reported their concerns about the
lack of transparency regarding online platform activities and the asymmetry of power in their relationships
with platform operators. To address these legitimate concerns, several recommendations were made; including
the need to develop the technical and policy means to assess the accountability and fairness of online
platforms. In 2016, following that recommendation, the government entrusted the Council with the task of
overseeing the creation of an agency with these capabilities. In their contribution, Tessier, Herzog and Madzou
discuss the challenges brought by the platform economy to our traditional regulatory tools, offering and a
comprehensive policy framework to address them and the possible grounds for intervention of a potential
Agency for Trust in the Digital Platform Economy

In her chapter on “Countering terrorism and violent extremism online: what role for social media
platforms?”
Krisztina Huszti-Orban highlights that social media platforms have been facing considerable
pressure on part of States to ‘do more’ in the fight against terrorism and violent extremism online. Because of
such pressure, many social media companies have set up individual and joint efforts to spot unlawful content
in a more effective manner, thereby becoming the de facto regulators of online content and the gatekeepers of
freedom of expression and interlinked rights in cyberspace. However, the author stresses that having corporate
entities carry out quasi-executive and quasi-adjudicative tasks, outsourced to them by governments under the
banner of self- or co-regulation, raises a series of puzzling questions under human rights law. In this
perspective, this chapter outlines the main human rights challenges that are arising in the European context,
regarding EU laws and policies as well as Member State practices. In Europe, the issues of terrorism and
violent extremism online have become uppermost in the political agenda and, in such context, the author
argues that the lack of internationally agreed definitions of violent extremism and terrorism-related offences
raises the risk of excessive measures with potential cross-border human rights implications. Furthermore,
Huszti-Orban analyses the problems arising from the attempts to broaden the liability of Internet intermediaries
in the counter-terrorism context. Crucially, the paper emphasises the need to provide social media platforms
with human rights-compliant guidance with regard to conducting content review, the criteria to be used in this
respect and the specialist knowledge required to perform these tasks appropriately. The chapter also stresses
the role of transparency, accountability and independent oversight, particularly considering the public interest
role that social media platforms play by regulating content to prevent and counter terrorism and violent
extremism.

In “Revenue Chokepoints: Global Regulation by Payment Intermediaries”, Natasha Tusikov argues that payment intermediaries are becoming go-to regulators for governments and, in a recent development, for multinational corporations’ intent on protecting their valuable intellectual property rights. More problematically, she stresses that those intermediaries that dominate the online payment industry (namely Visa, MasterCard and PayPal) can enact revenue chokepoints that starve targeted entities of sales revenue or donations and thereby undertake many of these regulatory efforts in the absence of legislation and formal legal orders, in what is commonly termed “voluntary industry regulation.” Drawing upon interviews with policy-makers, intermediaries and right-holders, the chapter argues that governments strategically employ the narrative of “voluntary intermediary-led” in order to distance the state from problematic practices. Further, it contends that payment intermediaries’ regulatory efforts are part of a broader effort to shape Internet governance in ways that benefit largely western legal, economic, and security interests, especially those of the United States. The conclusion is, in line with other contributions in this book, that intermediary-facilitated regulation needs some serious thinking and must take place within an appropriate regulatory framework, especially when payment providers act as private regulators for private actors’ material benefit.

It is not a coincidence that the last chapter concludes precisely where the discussion began in the opening chapter: the observation of widespread delegation of regulatory and police functions to private entities without an adequate complement of rights and remedies available to secure the effectiveness of rights and obligations of affected individuals. As pointed out by virtually every contributor in this book, that is particularly problematic when platforms are in a position where they effectively decide the meaning, scope and level of protection of fundamental rights. This situation calls for a reflection on the goals for regulatory intervention in a platform society, and the role that private platforms can and should play in ensuring respect for individual rights.

The Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet Educational Resource Guide (v2) (Internet Rights and Principles Coalition)

2017 Internet Governance Forum, Geneva (Switzerland)
Dynamic Coalition Main Session

DRAFT Paper from the DC for Internet Rights and Principles (IRPC)
The Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet Educational Resource
Guide (v2)

Overview
The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles (IRPC) has been developing an Educational Resource Guide to
the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet for educational use, in the classroom but also for advocacy
purposes in different national and policy-contexts. The IRPC Charter is available in booklet form on the IRPC website at
http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/. It is currently in eight languages.

This paper refers to the English edition of the Charter Booklet, at http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wpcontent/
uploads/2017/03/IRPC_english_4thedition-1.pdf.

This paper provides a brief introduction to the first version of the IRPC Charter Resource Guide, which was developed
in coordination with the IRPC and Syracuse University students. It is intended to raise awareness, and to provide
access to relevant work on respective rights and principles in the wider community. For this reason, the Resource
Guide is an open-ended document that invites feedback in the form of suggestions for a range of nationally, and
regionally specific examples, and ideas for educational, and outreach uses. This paper is an abridged version of how
the Resource Guide links to the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet in the first instance. In the
second it indicates the directions in which the first version of the Resource Guide can take for providing case-study
material, access to inter-governmental, and national governmental initiatives that have been incorporating
fundamental rights and freedoms in decisions around internet-design, access, use, and content management. The
IRPC Charter has in this respect been a formative influence in a number of these initiatives.

The points below draw on the full draft of V.1 of the Educational Resource Guide (as developed by US-based
students). It maps the possibilities for V. 2 and therefore needs to be read alongside the Draft Guide. This is available
for comment and input on the IRPC Website at: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wpcontent/
uploads/2016/12/CharterResourceGuide.pdf

Background
In December of 2016, students of Prof. Lee McKnight at Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies at the
Maxwell School of Citizen and Public Affairs, and College of Law developed the first version of the educational
resource guide to the 2016 DC Main Session via remote participation in Guadalajara, Mexico.

This model of collaboration proved to be a very successful exercise for these students as they participated in the
creation of educational materials that develop and articulate the IRPC Charter for students and other communities.
This project was also useful in engaging university students in discussing the content of the IRPC Charter, and its Ten
Principles (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/campaign/). The resource guide provides clarification of how
existing law and norms relate to articulations, and jurisprudence on Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. The
Resource Guide can also serve as a growing repository of external reference materials, including evidence based
studies, and legal cases that provide further documentation and engagement relevant to the 21 Articles of the IRPC
Charter.

The IRP Coalition invites input from other groups in order to provide more material from around the world. This year it
is presenting this project for substantive discussion during the DC Main Session about how human rights and
principles for internet-policymaking and related decisions in the private sector, public sector, and civil society at large,
can be articulated in culturally and legally relevant ways to a range of audiences.

We aim to gather feedback and ideas to further develop the resource guide for use in a range of educational and
awareness-raising contexts. Since the IRPC Charter, and its Ten Principles, was launched in 2010/2011 there has been
a number of national and regional initiatives to develop these 21 Clauses, as well as the Ten Principles, in more
specific terms.

Where to Start – Developing the Study Guide for Multiple Scenarios
The following section is an overview of 20 Articles in the full charter, with related principles as they are broken down
in the Educational Resource Guide at http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wpcontent/
uploads/2016/12/CharterResourceGuide.pdf.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), negotiated and affirmed by governments of the United Nations,
stand as a firm commitment to uphold and protect fundamental human rights, the dignity and worth of each person
and the equal rights of men and women. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) present tremendous
opportunities to enable individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their
sustainable development and improving their quality of life.

As a study guide-form, the resources noted below are intended to contextualize each of the Charter's articles by
providing illustrative and often crosscutting examples, case studies, and pressing dilemmas that suggest how ICTs and
digital media both support and undermine these rights. These can be deployed in various ways for education,
discussion, awareness raising and knowledge-exchange, and as sources of inspiration. The section below is an initial
map of the core content in each of the Charter's Articles with suggested examples for educational and outreach use.
Each article is based in existing, and emerging international law and norms that connect policy-making on internet
design, access, use, and content management.

Right to Access the Internet
Internet accessibility is dependent upon quality of service, freedom of choice of system and software use, ensuring
digital inclusion, and net neutrality/equality.

• A number of Internet shutdowns took place and which are mostly allegedly motivated by political reasons
(Uganda, Kenya, Togo, Cameroon, Catalonia). Another trend is shutting down the Internet during school
exams (Algeria, Iraq) e.g. #keepiton campaign documents all these incidents.

Right to Non-discrimination in Internet Access, Use & Governance
Apart from the technical components of Internet accessibility, there must be consideration of equality of access,
marginalized groups and gender equality.

• Case Study: "United States: Administration Wrong to Target Immigrants, Social Media" (Freedom House, 27
Sept, 2017). The US Department of Homeland Security published a new rule to include in people's
immigration file: "social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results" as
part of people's immigration file." The new requirement takes effect Oct.
18.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/09/18/2017-19365/privacy-...

• GenderIT.org work on gender/Feminist Principles for the internet
https://www.genderit.org/resources/going-visible-women-s-rights-internet

• The Click Rights project of the Hivos IGMENA project (https://www.igmena.org/click-rights).

Right to Liberty & Security on the Internet
As the growth of Internet technologies continue throughout all corners of the world, inclusivity must also mean access
to protection against all forms of crime and resources that will prevent the spread of viruses, malware or phishing.

• External Resource: OECD Recommendation on Digital Security Risk Management for Economic and Social
Prosperity http://www.oecd.org/publications/digital-security-risk-management-for-ec...
9789264245471-en.htm

• Notable Cases: US v. Lori Drew, 2009 U.S. Dist. L.E.X.I.S. 85780 (2009) and US v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir.
1991).

• Case Study: "Your Tweet Can Be Used Against You" (Privacy International, 30 Aug, 2017).

• Case Study: "Reckless Exploit: Mexican Journalists, Lawyers, and a Child Targeted with NSO Spyware"
https://citizenlab.ca/2017/06/reckless-exploit-mexico-nso/

• Case Study: "This report describes 'Phish For The Future,' an advanced persistent spearphishing campaign
targeting digital civil liberties activists." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/phish-future

Right to Development Through the Internet
If the growth of Internet technologies is to be made inclusive and sustainable, ample opportunities must be made to
utilize these tools for poverty reduction and human development. Additionally, there must be consideration of the
disposal of e-waste in an environmentally safe manner.

• External Resource: The Internet and Poverty: Opening the Black Box
https://dirsi.net/web/files/files/Opening_the_Black_Box.pdf

The following links include some case studies on sustainability , which links to the SDG's UN agenda.
1. http://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/may-june-2017/sustainability-an....
2. https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38832/Open-Development...
SDGs-2017.pdf.
3. The world of the Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) in India – http://defindia.org/

Freedom of Expression & Information on the Internet
Inclusivity requires that all users (citizens, media) have the ability to use the Internet to participate in fair and safe
political processes that are free from censorship and hate speech.

• Notable Cases: Elonis v. US, 135 S. Ct. 2001, 575 U.S., 192 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2015) and Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015)
ECtHR 64669/09

• Case Study: "Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach ‘Jew Haters’"
https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach...

Freedom of Religion & Belief on the Internet
An inclusive and sustainable future of the Internet will provide a platform for all religions or belief systems.

• International Religious Freedom Report https://2009-
2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper

• Online Religion as Lived Religion http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/5823/

Freedom of Online Assembly & Association
An inclusive Internet in future will be one that empowers and encourages users to safely assemble and associate with
one another.

• Turkey Blocks Facebook, Twitter and Youtube Amid Military Coup http://fortune.com/2016/07/15/turkeyfacebook-
twitter-youtube-military-coup/

Right to Privacy on the Internet
Sustainable growth in Internet technologies must be founded on laws and policies that ensure privacy and develop
trust in online services.

• Report of the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council on the use of encryption and anonymity to
exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age.

• Necessary and Proportionate Principles Campaign: https://necessaryandproportionate.org/

Right to Digital Data Protection
Digital data protection resources must be made available to all Internet users, regardless of where or how they access
online services.

• Notable Cases: Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner and Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.
1540, 578 U.S., 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016).

• Case Study: "Will the Equifax Data Breach Finally Spur the Courts (and Lawmakers) to Recognize Data
Harms?" https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/will-equifax-data-breach-finally-s...
recognize-data-harms

Right to Education On & About the Internet
Digital literacy must be prioritized in order to ensure that all Internet users are learning vital 21st century skills and
understand the impact of the technologies that are so critical to modern life.

• Implementing the Right to Education- UNESCO
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002451/245196e.pdf

• Protecting the Right to Education for Refugees
UNESCO http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002510/251076E.pdf

Right to Culture & Access to Knowledge on the Internet

The digital space must be a place that is representative of the diverse cultures that use it and access to knowledge
must be made possible for all (e.g. languages, disabilities, etc.).

• Discuss: does the Clamp down on the TLD of. CAT by the Spanish authorities prohibits the right to culture .
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/09/20/puntcat-under-fire-internet...

Rights of Children & the Internet
Children must be protected on the Internet, through enforcement of laws on exploitation and child abuse imagery, as
well as consideration of their interests and views.

• Children's Rights in a Digital Age -
UNICEF https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Childrens_Rights_in_the_Digita...
_Children_Around_the_World_FINAL.pdf

Rights of People with Disabilities & the Internet
A physical or mental disability should not prevent any individual from accessing the Internet in its entirety.

• Internet Accessibility - Internet Access for Persons with Disabilities: Moving Forwards - Internet Society
https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2012/internet-accessibilit...
moving-forward/

• The Internet of Things: New Promises for Persons With Disabilities - www.G3ICT.org

Right to Work & the Internet
The digital economy must be one that is founded upon workers’ rights and accessibility by those of any socioeconomic
status.

• The sharing economy creates a Dickensian world for workers – it masks a dark problem in the labour market
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sharing-economy-gig-economy-uber-air....
html. See also
o Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory (Scholz, T., 2012).
o The Participatory Condition in the Digital Age (2016).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1ggjkfg
o Uberworked and Underpaid: How Workers Are Disrupting the Digital Economy (Scholz, T. 2016).
o Debating the Sharing Economy by Juliet Schor http://www.msaudcolumbia.org/summer/wpcontent/
uploads/2016/05/Schor_Debating_the_Sharing_Economy.pdf

Right to Online Participation in Public Affairs
Governments around the world must utilize Internet technologies to maximize the value of services for their citizens.

• eParticipation https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/eparticipation
• UN E-Government Survey 2016 https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/reports/un-e-government...
2016

Rights to Consumer Protection on the Internet
Digital goods and services must be held to the same consumer protection standards as those in the physical world.

• United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection (2016)
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditccplpmisc2016d1_en.pdf

Rights to Health and Social Services on the Internet
Health and social services information must be made accessible to all users so that an adequate standard of living can
be achieved.

• Global diffusion of eHealth: Making universal health coverage achievable (2016)
http://www.who.int/goe/publications/global_diffusion/en/

Right to Legal Remedy & Fair Trial for Actions Involving the Internet
As individuals begin to carry out more of their lives in the digital space, they must be given access to legal remedy, fair
trial and due process for actions carried out in the digital space.

• Notable Case: Google Spain, Google Inc., v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja
González Judgment, Case C 131/12, 13 May 2014

• Internet: case law of the European Court of Human Rights
(2015) http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_internet_ENG.pdf

• Max Schrems vs. Facebook ruling:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30...
e9c33f30.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuSah50?text=&docid=169195&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&d
ir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1416148

Right to Appropriate Social & International Order for the Internet
All entities and individuals with influence over the governance of the Internet must always prioritize human rights,
multilingualism, pluralism and effective participation.

• UN Human Rights Council Declarations on human rights and the internet
https://www.ejiltalk.org/un-human-rights-council-confirms-that-human-rig...
5207

• Internet Legislation Atlas (Hivos IGMENA Project) at https://www.internetlegislationatlas.org/#/countries

Duties and Responsibilities on the Internet
All Internet users must respect their fellow digital citizens and those in power must ensure that these principles are
carried out and enforced.

Some recent examples of various stakeholder initiatives, as human rights-based internet legislation, campaigns or best
practices:
• (Brazil) Marco Civil: http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/ and
https://thecdd.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/marco-civil-da-internet-unoffici...

• Netmundial Multistakeholder Statement: http://www.netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholderstatement/

• African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms: http://africaninternetrights.org/draft/

• (New Zealand) Internet Rights and Freedoms Bill: https://home.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/internetrights-
and-freedoms-bill

• Council of Europe Guide to Human Rights for Internet Users:
https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016804...

Counter-examples where debates ongoing
• (UK) Investigatory Powers Act (also known as the Snoopers' Charter):
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select...
publications/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter

Summing Up
As the examples above show, there have been a number of significant developments at the international, regional,
and national/local levels of policy-making that take human rights and principles as a baseline for future decisions. The
IRPC Charter has provided, in that respect, a framework for the extension and deepening of knowledge sharing, as
well as continuing to be an authoritative framework from which judiciaries, lawmakers, and civil society organizations
can assess and consider informed decisions. A key objective at the start of the Charter project at the 2009 IGF meeting
was to "drill down" more deeply into the 21 Articles, and in so doing provide milestones, points for debate and
consideration, and sources of inspiration and critique as well for future generations. This Resource Guide aims to fulfil
that objective.

Zero rating Map (DC on Network Neutrality)

This document describes the Zero Rating Map, which is 2017 outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN).1 In 2017, Zero Rating2 continued to be one of the most discussed net neutrality issue. In this context, the proposal to develop the Zero Rating Map was put forward to facilitate a better understanding of the issue, collecting objective data regarding existing zero rating offerings and regulations.

The idea to develop a Zero Rating Map was discussed via the DCNN mailing list, between June and September 2017. DCNN members provided multistakeholder inputs with regard to how to develop this interactive tool, from both a substantial and procedural standpoint. Notably, DCNN members provided feedback on the questions to be asked in order to collect precise and complete information as well as on the technical tools that could be exploited to collect information and to implement the Map.

The purpose of the Map is to build an open access resource that can contribute to the promotion of a more informed debate on Net Neutrality and Zero Rating and can be exploited by a wide range of stakeholders, including researchers, regulators, entrepreneurs and user rights advocates.

To date, inputs on Zero Rating practices in several countries have already been collected,
utilising an open Ethercalc sheet. All interested stakeholders are invited to contribute to
this crowdsourced effort, using the Ethercalc sheet to add information regarding their
respective countries. The beta version of the Zero Rating Map will be released at the IGF
meeting of the DCNN and will include information added to the Ethercalc sheet until 20
November 2017. The Ethercalc sheet will remain open to receive information
submissions during the IGF and after the IGF, and the Zero Rating Map will be regularly
updated, including the most recent information added to the Ethercalc sheet. The Zero
Rating Map will be available on www.zerorating.info

The elaboration of the Zero Rating Map is coordinated by Luca Belli, DCNN Chair and
Senior Researcher at the Center for Technology & Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas
(CTS/FGV). All contributors to this effort will be able, but not obliged, to include their
name as authors of the contributions Map, using a specific column in the Ethercalc sheet.
Contributors stating their name will be explicitly acknowledged in the Zero Rating Map,
which will be graciously maintained by CTS/FGV.

ANNEX
Information to be Collected via the Ethercalc Sheet

 Country
 Is there net neutrality regulation?
 Has any national regulator issued any regulation regarding zero rating?
 Name of the operators implementing zero rating offerings
 Are the operators zero-rating specific services (e.g. only whatsapp) or classes of
services (e.g. all instant messaging apps)?
 In case only specific services are zero rated, what are the zero rated services?
 Is the zero-rated service throttled or blocked after the data volume is exceeded?
 Is the user signing up for free (e.g. zero rated services are bundled with specific
offerings) or is the zero rating offering coming with a cost?
 Is the Content or Application Provider paying to be zero-rated?
 Name of the person providing information (optional)