TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 2015 Internet ... · September 2014. The title of this year’s...

1

Taking Stock and Looking Forward to 2015

ICC BASIS 27-October-2014

TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 2015

Internet Governance Forum 2014, Istanbul, Turkey

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

Business Action to Support the Information Society

(BASIS)

IGF 2014 – ‘Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder

Internet Governance’

2



CONTENTS

PART I: TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 2015 ......... 3

GENERAL COMMENTS ........................................................................ 3

THEMES AND HIGHLIGHTS OF IGF 2014 ........................................... 4

PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 6

HIGH LEVEL MEETING ......................................................................... 9

FOCUS SESSIONS IN THE MAIN ROOM ............................................. 9

BEST PRACTICE FORUMS (BPFS) ................................................... 18

YOUTH WORKSHOPS AND SESSION............................................... 18

OPENING AND CLOSING SESSION .................................................. 20

IMPORTANT IGF Announcements 2015 AND 2016 ............................ 20

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF IGF 2014 .................................................... 21

INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM SUPPORT ASSOCIATION ....... 21

PART II: LOOKING FORWARD TO IGF 2015 IN BRAZIL ................ 23

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A STRONGER INTERNET GOVERNANCE

FORUM IN 2015 .................................................................................. 23

INTERSESSIONAL WORK AT THE IGF ............................................. 28

STRUCTURE OF THE IGF………………………………………………...30

SUGGESTED INTERSESSIONAL THEME FOR 2015 ....................... 33

CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 33

ANNEXURE I ........................................................................................... 34

ANNEXURE II .......................................................................................... 36

3



This submission by ICC BASIS is in two parts:

PART I – Taking stock of IGF 2014 - starting with the preparations at the

Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meeting in February 2014, through the

conclusion of the IGF and its follow up beyond September 2014.

PART II: Looking forward to IGF 2015 in Brazil - including recommendations for a

stronger Internet Governance Forum in 2015 and intersessional work

PART I – TAKING STOCK OF IGF 2014

GENERAL COMMENTS I. ICC BASIS members congratulate the host country of Turkey, the organizers (in

particular the multistakeholder group ID-IGF), the IGF secretariat team, and the

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) on a

successful event, and look forward to working with all stakeholders to prepare

another successful IGF 2015. The host country provided a warm welcome to all

participants and the special contributions of Tayfun Acarer, Chairman of the

Board and President of the Information and Communication Technologies

Authority (ICTA).

We also would like to express our special thanks and recognition to Chengetai

Masango and the IGF Secretariat team, as well as the MAG Chair, Janis

Karklins, whose tireless efforts under a curtailed time period to host the IGF

deserve much appreciation. Special thanks to UN DESA for providing the

institutional home for, and administrative support to the IGF Secretariat, and for

supporting the IGF process in general.

II. The ninth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Istanbul, Turkey, 2 – 5

September 2014. The title of this year’s IGF was ‘‘Connecting Continents for

Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance” and among the key topics were

Improvements to the IGF, “Net Neutrality” and “Internet Assigned Numbers

Authority (IANA) transition stewardship”.

4



More than 2,400 participants and 1,163 remote participants were registered

representing six different regions of the world and 155 countries (breakdown: 571

from government, 581 from business, 267 from the Internet technical community,

779 from civil society, 96 from intergovernmental organizations and 111

participants from the media attended).

Tayfun Acarer, Chairman of the Board and President of the Information and

Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA), Turkey delivered the welcoming

message on behalf of the host country, Turkey. Thomas Gass, Assistant

Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs of United

Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), and Getachew

Engida, Deputy Director-General, United Nations Educational Scientific and

Cultural Organization (UNESCO) formally opened the ninth Internet Governance

Forum.

THEMES AND HIGHLIGHTS OF IGF 2014

The overarching theme for the 2014 IGF, derived by consensus of the MAG

together with all IGF stakeholders, was:

• Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance

Sub-themes of IGF 2014 were:

Policies Enabling Access

Content Creation, Dissemination and Use

Internet as an Engine for Growth and Development

IGF and The Future of the Internet Ecosystem

Enhancing Digital Trust

Internet and Human Rights

Critical Internet Resources

Emerging Issues

Highlights

Over 3,500 registrations – nearly 50% higher than 2013 – with 581 private sector

participants compared to approximately 400 in the previous year meant that

participation this year was stronger as compared to previous years. A more than

50% increase in registrations demonstrated the importance of IGF to all

5



stakeholders: private sector, civil society, technical community/academia,

government and international organizations.

The IGF 2014 successfully brought together an extensive range of leaders from

the many communities interested in Internet governance, and provided a unique

opportunity to have frank and open discussions on a wide range of issues. Like

its predecessors, the IGF 2014 brought together many stakeholders and experts

from a variety of disciplines and areas of responsibility that otherwise do not have

opportunities to engage with each other. A major value-add for all is the

constructive exchange of best practices and considerations of the best policy

approaches and options as they relate to respective situations or cultures, which

in turn resonate in policy discussions and decisions around the world and at

national and regional levels. The high-level event organized by Turkey before the

IGF, provided an opportunity for exchange, again, amongst a range of

stakeholders who may otherwise not have had the opportunity to meet or be

aware of the IGF.

We also recognize the effort to include participants from 144 countries around the

world in the IGF and the more than 1,200 remote participants for the workshops

and open forums in addition to main sessions.

Fortunately, excellent organizational planning positively impacted the ability of a

number of people to participate in the IGF this year. The early confirmation of the

host-country location made it practical and possible for many people to

participate, particularly from emerging countries, thus raising the participation by

over 50% over 2013. Additionally, visas for Turkey were available to most if not

all, through the e-Visa process which took barely a couple of minutes to

download. This further enabled the participation of several stakeholders from

developing countries (from Africa in particular).

6



PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT

2015 is another important year for the IGF, and we believe that the programme

development for 2014 was undertaken in an efficient and effective manner, around

issues relevant to participants from all sectors and stakeholder groups. This

development occurred, despite a severe constraint on time with the IGF being held in

early September nearly 2 months earlier than its usual timing.

Progress was made in ensuring that workshop proposals were updated and

completed in a timely way, and that the workshop selection process was improved,

carried out, and prepared for vigorously. Those efforts should continue. Workshop

proposers should also be encouraged to continue to seek greater participation of

speakers from as wide a group as possible and continue to encourage a greater

number of experts to participate in the IGF. In particular, future workshops would

benefit from an increased number of participants representing the engineering and

technical community.

We encourage and support the continued evolution of the agenda and the

responsiveness to community input. Business noted a much improved participation

level for all stakeholder groups that balanced their engagement in main sessions and

workshops in 2014 as compared to 2013.

The new, U-table format for focus/main sessions, with moderators standing

and moving between panelists and delegates, was a major improvement and

more interactive vis-á-vis IGF 2013.

Reconfiguration of the main room in a U-Table with seating on three sides was very

useful and promoted interactive discussion. Future venues should have the flexibility

to provide the same opportunity to adapt the room configurations to the types of

sessions that will be held in them. While we endorse the enhanced interactivity, we

caution that some restraint should be applied to find an optimal number of speakers

and suggest that some breaks are needed between long panel sessions.

Business appreciated the well-balanced mixture of workshops and the range of

participants at the IGF 2014. The high number of participants, especially from civil

society (779) and government (571) was particularly encouraging. Governments

increased participation proved the value that governments including from developing

countries, derive from participating in the IGF. Over 60% of all participants were

from developing countries including Turkey.

7



Going forward, it is very important to continue to strive for greater geographical

diversity with on-going outreach to potential participants from developing countries

for the IGF 2015. ICC BASIS supports outreach efforts to subject matter experts as a

component of expanding participation. We also think it is important to broaden the

conversation to include business and government experts from outside the ICT and

telecommunications sectors. ICC BASIS is engaged in a concerted effort to reach

out across business sectors. The digital economy essentially is the economy. It

therefore is imperative that non ICT stakeholders who capitalize on the innovative

power of the Internet participate in policy discussions that ultimately will affect how

they do business.

In addition, it is imperative to move the multistakeholder dialogue on Internet

governance forward, while extending IGF’s outreach, so that new members of the

various stakeholder groups can be active participants. Business therefore

encourages the host country and all stakeholders to make an effort to engage new

participants from all regions to join the IGF meetings to diversify attendance.

The Chairman’s summary once again captured the substantive outcomes of the

discussions during the focus sessions. The increased efforts to ensure workshops

(and other events) submitted a complete and usable report, have been important.

Further progress to ensure reports capture the many substantive policy options and

choices discussed should be made.

Business supports the recommendation in the Chairman’s “Summary on IGF

2014” under the section “Road to IGF 2015” where it has been recommended

that the community “consider concentrating intersessional activities around

themes of a developmental nature”.

8



As we consider these themes, we should note that the intersessional work should

focus on finding options and opportunities that can be the subject matter of IGF

panels and workshops. Intersessional work should not be confused with drafting

research papers or setting out policy pronouncements. Further business supports

the Chairman’s Summary on IGF 2014, which suggests use of best practice forums

or other modalities, such as intersessional work, could be brought forward through

the national and regional IGF initiatives, dynamic coalitions and other ad hoc working

groups within the IGF structure.

Recommendations

For future IGFs, MAG members will need to increase their engagement and be

firmly committed to the preparation of sessions in the main room and the

selection process for workshops. We suggest that a document be developed

that outlines the responsibilities and commitments of all MAG members to

ensure active engagement from MAG members across stakeholder groups. Lead

contacts for sessions in the main room should be required to have preparatory

calls with panellists prior to the IGF. Workshop organizers should be strongly

encouraged to likewise hold preparatory calls with relevant materials for

panellists prior to the IGF.

Further, it is recommended that specific principles for participation of MAG

members as speakers and moderators in main sessions and workshops should

be discussed and adopted through consensus by the MAG for 2015 and beyond.

It would also be helpful if organizers of main sessions can hold discussions

amongst themselves to ensure that a few select speakers who could be relevant

for more than one session, are approached in a structured manner, to avoid

duplication. Equally, the role of moderators and substantive rapporteurs should

be clearly identified and linked to the specific skill of carrying through the work of

managing sessions and workshops in the most effective manner possible. In

particular, the substantive rapporteurs play a critical role in capturing workshop

and plenary session recommendations, which enable the IGF to serve as a

unique laboratory for the exchange of best practices and capacity building

expertise. They should be acknowledged in workshop descriptions and their

selection should reflect an effort by workshop organizers to diversify based on

region, gender, and stakeholder group.

9



HIGH LEVEL MEETING

In line with established practice, the host country arranged a high-level meeting

based on the theme “Capacity Building for Economic Development”. Several senior

government officials including ministers, representatives of international

organizations, heads of regulatory bodies, and individuals leading civil society,

private sector and technical organizations spoke at the session. Thirty-three high

level leaders were invited to speak at the session.

FOCUS SESSIONS IN THE MAIN ROOM

Setting the scene

Overview

Immediately following the orientation session, participants convened for an

interactive “Setting the Scene” dialogue that provided topical insight and debate

related to the sub-themes of the IGF. The session aimed at allowing stakeholders to

review the overall programme and decide which sessions they would like to attend to

get the most out of their IGF experience. Organizers of main sessions and experts

were invited to provide unique insights into the main themes of the meeting and also

previewed the main sessions and other key sessions that would take place.

Recommendations

It is recommended that such a session much continue in 2015. Further,

organizers of main sessions should be invited to complete the briefing of the

delegates before inviting experts to comment on the themes. That way the main

purpose of the session is better achieved.

The session should also be used to provide a graphical description of the

building, workshop rooms, main session rooms, registrations, lunch and food

facilities, etc. This could be a five minute module by the host country to increase

awareness amongst participants.

10



Policies Enabling Access, Growth and Development on the Internet

Overview

There were one billion Internet users when the Tunis Agenda was adopted, in 2005.

Nine years later, there are approximately seven billion mobile subscriptions and

nearly three billion Internet users. Home Internet access is almost saturated in

developed countries, but only 31% in developing countries with Asia-Pacific and

Africa lagging behind the rest of the world. Public Internet access, infrastructure

sharing and access as a human right for the socially disadvantaged, vulnerable

sections and persons with disabilities are critical access issues that need global

attention.

The session had a U-table format and invited 21 speakers, 13 of whom were from

developing countries and two from international organizations. It was noted that

nearly half the participants were women.

The session was the most well attended of all main sessions with nearly 90%

occupancy across the entire three hour period.

Highlights

UNESCO underlined that infrastructure must go beyond connectivity.

International goals and perspectives must consider context, content and

competencies.

UNESCO’s research pointed to the important and complex relationship between

access to networks and the development of local content and information

knowledge flows.

The European Commission underscored that cooperating and communicating

across continents is beneficial.

“Leapfrogging” in African countries such as Kenya and Nigeria is stimulating

European efforts to generate access.

The access debate needs to be opened to include different sectors and

disadvantaged groups.

The community must reflect on social impacts of access such as human rights.

Work on access should seek to build new competencies.

11



Access problems are not solved by government solutions alone, but by inclusion

of private sector and non-profit entities.

The access debate should also include different types of technologies such as

TV.

Providers should start competing with mobile to develop an ecosystem where

everyone's user needs are met.

Recommendations

The session on Access and Development must continue for 2015.

It is recommended that the number of speakers be limited to 15-16 at most,

across multistakeholder groups.

Depending on the intersessional work for 2015, this session could become a

major contributor and discussion theme for 2015.

The 2015 session should build on the substantive rapporteurs report from the

2014 session, which was presented at the “Taking Stock” session.

Network Neutrality: Towards a Common Understanding of a

Complex Issue

Overview

Network neutrality was one of the most polemic issues, as was also witnessed at

NETmundial in April 2014. At NETmundial there were “diverging views as to whether

or not to include the specific term as a principle in the outcomes”. However,

NETmundial participants agreed on the need to continue the discussion regarding

network neutrality and recommended this discussion “be addressed at forums such

as the IGF”.

The session looked at the issue from different perspectives: technical, economic,

social and human rights as well as two cross-cutting perspectives, developmental

and regulatory. The discussions showed that all these issues are intertwined and

multifaceted. Given the differences between developing and developed country

perspectives, there was a sense that the search for a one-size fits all policy solution

would not be the best way to proceed globally. While there was a divergence of

views on many issues, such as the concept of appropriate network management, the

12



impact on innovation or zero-rating, there was also a convergence of views on the

importance of enhancing users’ experience or the need to avoid the blocking of legal

content.

The first segment of the session explored the technical aspects of network neutrality.

The second segment focused on the economic aspects, human rights implications of

network neutrality made up the last segment of the session.

Net neutrality was also an extremely well attended session with nearly 70-80% of the

main room filled to capacity across three hours.

Highlights:

The diversity of views expressed established clearly that there was no

established definition for net neutrality. In fact, it seemed that net neutrality was

yet to be discussed in several developing countries, even as a concept.

Without the protections of a free and open Internet, innovation and investment

will be stifled.

Business needs the freedom to innovate and the liberty to manage for end

customers’ benefit.

Discussion of the open Internet should include how to enable freedom of

expression, competition, consumer choice, meaningful transparency, and

appropriate network management.

A multistakeholder approach is required to define a network neutrality problem.

User demands or citizen demands should be assessed before and during the

formal legislative or rule making processes.

Views and concepts of net neutrality should link to principles about human rights

that are applicable to all media and technologies should be provided.

It is challenging to separate the technical, economic, and social issues

embedded in “Net neutrality”.

Recommendations

IGF should take the discussion on network neutrality forward.

13



A precondition to any such discussion would be neutral moderators/organizers

and a diversity of participants and panelist representing multistakeholder groups

and developing country perspectives.

Workshops on the issue of network neutrality in 2015 should be welcomed, while

ensuring diversity of speakers representing all points of view.

Business in general, and especially from developing countries, must consider

joining and contributing to the Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality.

Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem and the Role of

the IGF

Overview

As the Internet continues to grow and its benefits reach more people, more

stakeholders are entering the Internet governance debates, with the aim of

addressing concerns they have about the use and potential misuse of the Internet.

Existing organizations, such as UN agencies, upon request by the governments,

examine their roles in relation to Internet related issues while newer organizations

that follow more of a “bottom up” governance approach, such as the Internet

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), now co-exist alongside

intergovernmental organizations. In addition, since 2006, the IGF has been a

platform for stakeholders to come together on an equal footing to discuss, exchange

ideas and share good practices with each other. While many are embracing the

engagement of stakeholders more directly in decisions and governance, others

remain concerned that more intergovernmental involvement in the Internet is

needed, especially on public policy issues. This main session was planned at an

important point in the discussions about Internet governance, with numerous Internet

governance related meetings being held in 2013 and 2014 and the current mandate

of the IGF due to expire in 2015.

This main session drew excellent attendance with the main room filled upwards of

80% across the duration of the session on the morning of day two.

14



Highlights

The Internet ecosystem is defined as “all the interested and affected parties, both

natural and artificial, institutions and individuals”. Implementation is a key

challenge.

Problems and solutions must be evenly distributed and not contained to one

authority.

IGF’s main challenge is to ensure the ecosystem evolves in a multistakeholder,

inclusive, and transparent manner.

Industries are critical in the discussion of Internet governance.

Stakeholders must link Internet governance processes to the policy process,

otherwise governments will intervene and the multistakeholder process may be

lost.

Stakeholders must reflect on how IGF outcomes can affect the digital sphere

globally.

Regional IGFs and funding play a vital role in making the IGF stronger.

Recommendations

It is recommended that learning captured from IGFs is taken back to other forums

discussing Internet governance issues.

The importance of regional and national IGFs in both strengthening the IGF and

encouraging more stakeholders to participate in Internet governance, would be

an important step.

There was strong consensus that the IGF’s mandate should be renewed beyond

2015; in fact there was work across stakeholder groups in support of not just

renewing the mandate, but doing so for more than a five year period

The IGF needs sustained and predictable funding.

Intersessional work could be one strong improvement/evolution for 2015. This

must be achieved through consensus and without diluting the mandate and basic

structure of IGF.

15



IANA Functions: NTIA’s Stewardship Transition and ICANN’s

Accountability Process

Overview

This topical session was a response to two developments in the first half of 2014: (1)

the announcement by the United States National Telecommunications and

Information Administration (NTIA) in March 2014 to transition its stewardship of the

IANA function to the global multistakeholder community; and (2) prompted by that

announcement, a call by many in the ICANN community to examine ICANN’s

accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the United

States Government. Both these issues also appeared in the NETmundial

Multistakeholder Statement of Sao Paulo as issues with relevance to the broader

Internet governance ecosystem. The aim of the session was to help participants gain

a better understanding on the two interrelated processes of IANA stewardship

transition and ICANN accountability.

This session was extremely well attended. There was approximately 70% occupancy

in the main hall.

Highlights

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) update:

- ICG has appointed officers to the committee and drafted a charter.

- A framework has been developed including the next steps to reach out to

the communities.

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group’s role:

- Transition group’s function is not to create proposals, but to assemble all

proposals from the operational community proposals.

- ICG must ensure the proposal complies with the United States National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) transition

programme.

- Business community has requested all proposals to be tested and

validated.

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group and communities:

- ICG members speak on behalf of their own groups. They do not speak on

behalf of the group as a whole unless so specified.

- Operational communities must start organizing to develop proposals

16



- ICANN accountability is a separate, but related topic to accountability in

the IANA transition proposals. ICG has asked each proposal to describe its

accountability mechanisms.

- Stakeholders are encouraged to provide input directly into operational

community proposals or through their representatives but may also go

directly to the committee.

- Everyone in the community must be engaged early on to ensure the

deadline is met and controversial issues are solved.

ICANN accountability:

- ICANN accountability is related to, but different than the accountability

functions within the IANA transition.

- Improvements made to the ICANN and IANA system not related to the

transition or specific concerns of post United States National

Telecommunications and Information Administration accountability are

best considered post-transition not during transition to avoid increased

complexity.

- A major priority of business is the continued security, stability and

resiliency of the Internet.

Taking Stock and Open Microphone Sessions

Overview

The traditional IGF Taking Stock session reflected on the main outputs of the IGF

main sessions. Participants identified issues that could lend themselves to ongoing

inter-sessional work and discussed appropriate ways to pursue this work. Some

other overall suggestions were considered regarding the role of the IGF in the

evolving Internet governance ecosystem.

It was stressed during this session and throughout the week that while the IGF

structure and process is certainly effective and unique, there is opportunity to do

more to revitalise and strengthen the IGF going forward. It was said that the capacity

building and knowledge transfer made possible by the IGF and IGF national and

regional initiatives must be increasingly more actionable, practical, portable and

applicable. The community needs to better capture IGF learning and make it

accessible and applicable to a wider group of people. Case studies, best practices

and capacity building on gaining the benefits of the digital opportunity, especially

geared toward developing countries, should also be prioritized in coming IGFs.

17



The session saw less than half the main hall occupied.

.

Highlights

Policies enabling access, growth and development on the Internet:

- Broadband access should be recognized as a universal right and a key to

digital social inclusion.

- Increase of sector participation is required in ICT government and business.

- Private enterprises must engage local communities and small enterprises to

provide sustainable development.

Network Neutrality: Towards a common understanding of a complex issue:

- Session clarified issues and provided new areas of the net neutrality debate

fuelling support for further research and consideration.

- Role of the IGF discussion did not come to closure.

- IGF should continue, alongside the Dynamic Coalition.

- How to bring the Dynamic Coalition into the process of net neutrality.

Evolution of Internet governance ecosystem and the role of IGF:

- IGF should transport awareness, knowledge, and information sharing into

action.

- Support to extend the IGF mandate, and to create support mechanisms for

IGF secretariat.

- IGF should create inclusive mechanisms during and before the forum.

- MAG should enable and facilitate more participation, especially from

developing countries.

- Youth should be recognized as one of the leading users and not end users.

IANA functions: NTIA’s stewardship transition and ICANN’s accountability

process:

- Generating input from broad stakeholder groups is challenging due to

deadlines.

- Opening up the scope of the process to engage stakeholders and deal with

issues will bring in more legitimacy and trust.

- Community needs to consider how this topic and this theme will be addressed

next year.

18



BEST PRACTICE FORUMS (BPFS)

Five best practice forums which had been discussed during the MAG meetings in the lead-up to IGF 2014 were held on the following topics:

Developing Meaningful Multistakeholder Mechanisms

Regulation and Mitigation of Unwanted Communications (Spam)

Establishing and Supporting CERTS for Internet Security

Creating an Enabling Environment for the Development of Local Content

Online Child Safety and Protection

Highlights

Participants representing the five sessions discussed during the wrap-up session

in the main room, some of the challenges with using the term “best practices”,

and came to an agreement that the IGF process moving forward could use

instead “best practices to date” or “lessons learned to date”. This will reflect that

the IGF needs to be very forward looking and very flexible in the development of

any recommendation for best practices, because those will continue to evolve

with the Internet.

There was also agreement that to make the exercise more effective, there is a

need for both more time and more resources to support the efforts. The process

definitely needs to be an iterative collaborative process, working for consensus,

not negotiating final outcome text.

Finally there was also agreement that in the future there needs to be more effort

to understand the situation in developing countries, what kind of practices would

be useful to people from those countries, and also to bring in youth.

Executive summaries of the best practice forums sessions were distributed on

the last day.

YOUTH WORKSHOPS AND SESSION

Approximately 40 youth and student participants attended the IGF 2014. Several

of them participated in the sessions, and some volunteered to help arrange main

19



sessions and workshops. The youth held their final session in the main room with

two members of the MAG in attendance.

The youth emphasized the need for strengthening mechanisms that empower the

youth in attending and participating in the Internet Governance Forum and

ecosystem.

Youth also sought to gain a full stakeholder level participation at the IGF through

the MAG, to be better organized. They expressed a strong desire to participate

in the policy dialogue as the intense users of Internet and related technologies.

20



OPENING AND CLOSING SESSION

Opening session overview

Thomas Gass, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency

Affairs of United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA),

formally opened the ninth IGF. Gass stressed that the United Nations Secretary

General was committed to the multistakeholder model for Internet governance

championed by the IGF and the long-term sustainability of the IGF.

Tayfun Acarer, Chairman of the Board and President of the Information and

Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) of the Republic of Turkey, expressed

his appreciation for the opportunity to host the ninth IGF in Istanbul and stressed the

importance of enabling access to information resources in helping to bridge the

digital divide.

Closing session overview

In keeping with IGF tradition, several speakers, representing all stakeholder groups,

addressed the closing session. Gratitude to the host country and all those who had

participated and made the ninth IGF a success was expressed by everyone.

Speakers reaffirmed the importance of the multistakeholder process and

cooperation, and emphasized the importance of dialogue.

In his concluding address, the Chair of the ninth IGF, Tayfun Acarer, Chairman of the

Board and President of Information and Communication Technologies Authority of

Turkey, reiterated the call of His Excellency Lütfi Elvan, Minister of Transport,

Maritime Affairs and Communication of Turkey regarding an “Internet Universal

Declaration”, expressing that details related to this important issue needed to be

studied in due course. He highlighted the high levels of interest and participation in

the ninth IGF.

IMPORTANT ANNONCEMENTS REGARDING IGF IN 2015 AND 2016

IGF 2015: the Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Hartmut Glaser came to the stage to invite participants to the 10th IGF, 10-13 November 2015, in Joao Pessoa, Brazil.

21



IGF 2016: The representative of the United States of Mexico extended an invitation to all participants to attend the eleventh IGF meeting in the United States of Mexico in 2016, subject to the extension of the IGF mandate.

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF IGF 2014

A human rights roundtable was held, in addition to 47 workshops directly or indirectly focused on human rights issues, at IGF 2014.

National and regional IGF roundtable. The 2014 national/regional IGF session was arranged as an interactive session bringing together coordinators and participants from national and regional IGFs.

A Feminist principles of Internet session was arranged as a pre-event by the Association for Progressive Communications.

ICANN held a town hall meeting on “Enhancing ICANN’s Accountability and Governance”.

A WSIS+10 high-level event was held.

UNESCO invited contributions to its comprehensive study on Internet.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) released a version of updated guidelines for the industry on child online protection.

INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM SUPPORT ASSOCIATION

The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) was officially

launched to support the IGF. The goal of IGFSA is to provide stable and sustainable

support for the IGF secretariat and to fund related activities. IGFSA will be the

channel for additional funding from individuals, companies, and foundations to keep

the IGF, the “Go To” event, for everyone who is interested in Internet governance

issues.

Recommendations

We strongly recommend that future host countries make every effort to ensure

that the date and location of the IGF are confirmed early and that comprehensive

arrangements are made for visas well in advance of the IGF, to be issued as well.

22



This will help to ensure the broadest participation from a diverse range of

stakeholders will be possible for future IGFs just as in case of IGF 2014.

Equally, we recommend that potential IGF host destinations in developing

countries are easily accessible, preferably served by direct international flights,

and provide a range of hotel accommodations, thus reducing cost and travel time.

This was the case for 2014 IGF in Istanbul, Turkey, which was very successful in

attracting unprecedented levels of stakeholder participation.

For future IGFs, we recommend that building locations should be chosen that are

particularly user friendly for people with disabilities/special needs. In addition,

hosts should be encouraged to provide multilingual staff who can work with

session/workshop organizers, especially with regard to technical, administrative,

seating, and audio visual requirements, especially before and during the

sessions/workshops.

Finally sufficiently large spaces for lunch, tea and coffee should be made

available to ensure to ensure fast and efficient service.

23



PART II: LOOKING FORWARD TO IGF 2015 IN

BRAZIL

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A STRONGER INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM IN 2015

As the global business community reflects on the 2014 Internet Governance Forum

(IGF), we are also considering the key areas of improvement as we build a path

toward the 2015 IGF. Based on business’ participation in past IGFs, the

multistakeholder advisory group (MAG), and various other multistakeholder forums,

we submit this paper which provides our recommendations regarding the evolution of

the IGF, how intersessional work at the IGF may move forward, and how the IGF

should be structured moving forward.

I. THE EVOLUTION OF THE IGF

A. The Tunis Agenda mandate

The IGF’s mandate is contained in the 2005 Tunis Agenda of the World Summit

on the Information Society (WSIS). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda outlines

the IGF’s principal structure as a discussion forum intended to facilitate dialogue

between the IGF’s participants. The Tunis Agenda states that the IGF may

"identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and

the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations." Within the

boundaries of this mandate, different stakeholders are encouraged to strengthen

engagement, capacity building for developing countries and the drawing out of

local resources.

At its sixty-fifth session, the United Nations General Assembly decided to extend

the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF “with a view to

linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance”, and decided that

specific consideration should be given to “inter alia, enhancing participation from

developing countries, exploring further voluntary options for financing the forum,

and improving the preparation process modalities, and the work and functioning

of the forum’s secretariat.

Several of these recommendations and new innovative measures were

implemented at the IGF in Istanbul in September 2014.

24



Substantive improvements at IGF 2014 on which further progress can be

made

1. The broader dialogue on global Internet governance was linked to the IGF

through discussion about the NETMundial process, achievements, and

challenges it presented. The IGF continued to foster this discussion through

a special event on Monday, 1 September. Such initiatives could be further

expanded to include more breath of representation.

2. In a departure from dealing with established themes and sub-themes,

IGF 2013 in Bali embraced and dealt with the issue of surveillance in a

main plenary session. More significantly, IGF 2014 in Istanbul held a

full multistakeholder main session on net neutrality, one of the key

outcomes of the NETmundial document, thus demonstrating the

potential of the IGF to complement and move forward work begun in

other important Internet governance platforms.

3. A main session on IANA Stewardship transition was organized to gather

inputs from a wide range of Internet governance community members on the

process for replacing the current US Government National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) stewardship

arrangement. This was both timely and important. The issues were

discussed in an open and transparent manner, notwithstanding the

complexities involved.

4. The community has actively expanded participation, especially from

developing country governments, and civil society. Business made a

concerted effort in this regard, reaching out to our partners in developing

countries. Developing country representatives, especially governments,

played a substantive role in several of the main sessions.

5. IGF embraced the idea of best practices based on community inputs. For

the first time, IGF 2014 had five best practice sessions, involving wide

multistakeholder participation. Importantly, work resulting from these

sessions continues even after the IGF 2014.

6. Two new voluntary methods of contributing to the IGF were created: (1) the

Tides Fund, launched by Google, and (2) the IGF Support Association

(IGFSA), created by the Internet Society (ISOC). These were created to

http://www.igfsa.org/

25



provide funding alternatives that will broaden the IGF support base. There

are ongoing discussions on ways in which to improve the preparation

process modalities and the strengthening of the IGF Secretariat’s office.

7. The MAG Chair issued a call for input from the Internet governance

community, concerning actions taken by stakeholders as a result of

participation in IGF.

8. Enhancing “Digital Trust” which first emerged as a discussion topic at IGF

2013 in Bali, was further strengthened at IGF 2014 in Istanbul. The theme

was reinforced in several sessions, specific workshops, and best practice

sessions. A main plenary session and several workshops focused on the

importance of including youth and students in Internet governance

discussions. Youth and students emphasized their need to be recognized as

full IGF stakeholders, freely contributing to the dialogue. This represented

another first for the IGF.

9. Human rights was a major subtheme. This topic attracted the largest

number of workshops, nearly 45, which were directly or indirectly linked to

the issue of human rights in a digital environment.

10. IGF 2014 saw a record total of 3,537 registrations, of which 2,374 were on

onsite and 1,163 were remote. This was 50% higher than IGF 2013. Civil

society was the largest stakeholder group with 30 % representation.

Contrary to the impression that government participation at the 2014 IGF

was weak, governments represented the second largest set of participants

(23%) alongside business. Further, over 65% of the participants represented

Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean Islands, Eastern Europe

and host country. Western Europe and others contributed 31%.

As the Internet governance community works to further improve the IGF,

business believes it is important that we not lose sight of nor diminish the

importance of its original mandate. The IGF was designed to be a forum where

multistakeholder policy dialogue could best be advanced among the various

stakeholder groups. The fact that the IGF is not a decision making body, and

does not involve the negotiation of documents, has allowed for the broadest

participation and the most candid dialogue among stakeholders. The free flow of

information, sharing of best practices, and development of a knowledge agenda

has largely benefitted the global community’s understanding of difficult policy

issues, influenced the adoption of policies that promote the growth and usage of

the Internet by governments, and assisted businesses in addressing emerging

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/contributions/call-for-information

26



issues as they continue to innovate to improve the Internet experience of users

across the globe.

To change the IGF into a forum where text is negotiated would not only fall

outside of the Tunis Agenda’s mandate, it would fundamentally undermine the

value of the free flow of discussion, exchange of best practices, focus on a

knowledge agenda, and commitment to capacity building and strengthened

engagement for developing countries, which the current structure supports. As

we focus on IGF in 2015, on improvements and structure, we must ensure that

the value we intend to add does not subtract the unique current value the forum

affords and that our improvements are sustainable and take into account funding

requirements.

It is important to ensure that any changes and continued improvement to the IGF

contribute to enhancing the security, stability, privacy, resiliency, and

interoperability of the global Internet, while also ensuring the rule of law and

economic and social benefits. The IGF’s focus on the exchange of best practices,

policy approaches and experiences is its strength, as it maximizes the time all

relevant stakeholders spend on substantive exchanges instead of negotiated

texts.

Business believes that a range of possibilities exists for IGF improvement, but

that these are not uniform across all topics. The IGF is more complex and varied

than a set of principles or a road map, making a unitary outcome impossible. The

needs of the IGF must be responsive to both the needs of the participants and

the nature of the topic at issue. Some topics will lend themselves to toolkits,

others to references to existing work; some to existing or emerging best

practices, while still others are only at the stage of conversation. In each of these

cases, we must work collectively to improve the portability of the learning from

the IGF. Capacity building and the unique potential of IGF value add cannot

occur if the lessons learned are limited to an annual meeting in a far off location.

Better communication with regional and national IGFs is one important element of

possible improvement, and this communication has to be bi-directional in relation

to needs, opportunities, diffusion of knowledge, and capacity building. One of the

most important improvements and most valuable roles of the IGF remains

enabling conversation outside of a negotiated text, which may become the

stepping stones to understanding and consensus. A good example of this was

the main session on net neutrality. The dialogue among the panellists was

valuable, and should be considered an outcome even though a specific

conclusion was not reached. It helped to clarify issues and provided new areas

for research and consideration. Better management and documentation of these

27



conversations is required so that they have complementary effects that can build

across successive conversations. Thus, BASIS believes that to ‘improve’ the IGF

is not to remake it in the image of other successful meetings but to strengthen the

present value of IGF to advance several solutions over multiple topics.

B. Knowledge agenda

Under the Tunis Agenda, the IGF is intended to discuss public policy issues on

key elements of Internet governance to foster the sustainability, robustness,

security, stability, and development of the Internet. The IGF adds tremendous

value, particularly to developing countries and emerging economies, through its

focus on a knowledge agenda. This educational component should be further

advanced by a strong focus on developing country issues, emerging global

issues, and continued support of a “laboratory” type of structure that allows for

the ready exchange of best practices and the sharing of related research on key

Internet issues around the world. By definition, a laboratory is a place that

provides opportunity for experimentation, observation, teaching, or practice in a

field of study. As the IGF continues to explore emerging issues, advancing this

laboratory environment and knowledge agenda will be a strong foundation for the

intersessional work that the IGF may undertake in the future.

C. IGF outputs

Another important improvement for the 2015 IGF will be the strengthening,

cataloguing, and sharing of IGF outputs. Based on the Tunis Agenda’s mandate,

IGF outputs cannot be binding or negotiated, but as the IGF prepares to conduct

intersessional work for 2015 the idea of developing a compendium of inputs to

produce policy menus could serve as a valuable output. The intention should be

to create outputs in a more concrete way. In order to further foster the

connection between the global IGF and the regional and national IGFs, this

compendium should primarily consist of contributions from these national and

regional initiatives in addition to the online discussions. Each national IGF would

represent a section in these inputs, and the aim to create such inputs could

further assist in the bottom up capacity building of these IGFs. This would be

entirely consistent with IGF’s mandate. The new knowledge, information, and

research presented in the various workshops and other sessions should be

captured and catalogued appropriately, as the dialogue itself is an important

output of the IGF.

28



D. Extension of the IGF

Global business supports the continued improvement and strengthening of the

IGF and joins other stakeholder groups in urging a more stable and predictable

mandate of authorization. We believe that an extended authorization longer than

the present five year renewal cycle would facilitate the strengthening of IGF

procedures, enable participants to secure long-term funding for projects, and

support the IGF trust fund.

E. Influence and coordination with other multistakeholder models

The IGF has also inspired the creation of other, similar types of multistakeholder

fora. In 2014, Brazil launched NETmundial, a new type of multistakeholder

meeting focused around the creation of Internet Principles and a Roadmap for

Internet Governance. NETmundial was what many consider a successful

experiment that fulfilled a specific need to bring stakeholders together around

principles and a roadmap at a complex point in time. The study of the format and

processes of the IGF and NETmundial show that they are complimentary, yet

different, as both are structured to achieve different goals. The fact that the IGF

has influenced the evolution of new multistakeholder models is a positive

development. However, we must not let these new models supplant the IGF or its

mandate under the Tunis Agenda. Rather, we should continue to find ways where

these different models continue to complement each other and build broader,

global support for the multistakeholder approach.

II. INTERSESSIONAL WORK AT THE IGF

Developing a formal process in which intersessional work may be undertaken at

the IGF will be a challenging new part of the forum’s evolution in 2015. As the

community considers how such work should be structured, business believes it

is important that the issues of transparency, consensus-based decision-making,

process, and topic selection are thoroughly vetted. In order for the

intersessional work to be a successful improvement, without turning into an

exercise in reproducing a negotiated document or binding recommendations,

we must develop a workable and transparent structure with clear parameters so

that the full Internet governance community can best participate and understand

how the work will progress. The private sector supports the call by the Chair of

the MAG to consider intersessional work during 2015.

29



A. Transparency and consensus-based decisions

Transparency must be a key aspect of how the intersessional work is

structured, both in process and substance. It will be important for the global

Internet governance community to understand who can participate in the

intersessional work, how they can participate, where they can participate, and

the specific timing involved in various steps of the process. It is important that

the online work and onsite meetings be open to the public, and that the rules

related to the intersessional work be clear and available for review. In order to

maintain the bottom up multistakeholder nature of the IGF, it is critical that any

intersessional work follow this same bottom up multistakeholder model. The

process should utilize a consensus based decision making structure, and the

definition of what consensus means in this context should be clear and

understandable to the Internet governance community.

B. Process

In structuring the process by which the intersessional work will move forward,

there are several questions that must be considered. First, are there other

similar processes that have been successful and can inform the creation of this

new process, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force’s intersessional

work? Second, thought must be given to the role the MAG will play in this

process, as well as the role of the broader Internet governance community.

Much of the intersessional work will need to be conducted both online and

offline or onsite, at the annual MAG consultations. Particularly for the online

discussion, certain norms and online etiquette should be established up front by

the Secretariat’s office, so that all participants understand the expectations for

how the work needs to progress. In order to ensure quality of discussion and to

encourage participants to make substantive submissions, a moderator type

structure should be chosen to oversee the online work flow in order to move it

forward in a positive, efficient, and effective manner. This structure should not

represent any particular group with a specific goal or agenda related to the

topic, but rather represent a neutral and unbiased management that will

facilitate the collaboration among all stakeholder groups. The structure would

also serve in a consultative role to all of the participants and their respective

stakeholder groups.

C. Topic selection

The selection of the topic that the intersessional work will focus on should have

clear parameters. First, in selecting the topic, it should meet the Tunis Agenda

objectives. The topic should represent a significant, global, unresolved

30



challenge that has scope for wide scale international cooperation. It should not

be an issue that is so controversial or unclear that no meaningful or substantive

work can be advanced through the intersessional process. Finally, the topic

should also advance the best practice work successfully launched at the 2014

IGF. In deciding how topics are selected thought should also be given to the

role of the MAG in the topic selection, as well as the role of the broader Internet

governance community. The private sector supports the MAG Chair’s clarion

call “to consider concentrating intercessional activities around themes of a

developmental nature”. Some relevant questions with regards to the approach

and selection of both process and substance have been recommended in

Annexure I. Also, engaging in this work via the regional and national IGFs is

important, to ensure that the work is omnidirectional.

D. Dynamic coalitions

The concept of dynamic coalitions and a number of coalitions was established

as a result of the first IGF in Athens. These coalitions are informal, issue-

specific groups comprising members of various stakeholder groups. The

requirements for forming a dynamic coalition are simple, and involve a first

meeting, and a written statement outlining the necessity of the coalition, an

action plan, mailing list, contact person, and representatives from at least three

stakeholder groups. Currently, there are 12 dynamic coalitions that cover a

broad range of Internet policy issues. Whether and how these dynamic

coalitions should contribute to or support the IGF’s intersessional work should

be further explored and a more structured process should be developed, even

with regards to their engagement with the MAG/IGF. This would be helpful for a

wider and more pluralistic engagement.

III. STRUCTURE OF THE IGF

A. Multistakeholder structure

We must preserve the IGF’s essential character as a bottom up, all inclusive

multistakeholder mechanism for participation. It should remain a forum that not

only includes, but also is managed and organized by stakeholders from

business, government, civil society, the technical community, and academia on

an equal footing. The IGF has served successfully as a laboratory for the

exchange, discussion, and dissemination of best practices, technical expertise,

and capacity-building initiatives among these stakeholder groups. The flexibility,

transparency, and inclusiveness of the IGF’s multistakeholder model has

31



enabled the Internet to flourish as a platform for innovation and economic

development, and advanced the WSIS goals of expanded connectivity and

inclusiveness. It is imperative that this model be retained going forward.

B. IGF 2015 program structure

Some discussion should be held with regards to the actual structure of IGF

2015. While the main sessions in 2014, saw nearly full houses, and in some

cases the three hour limit seemed less than what was needed, there is a need

to further improve the effectiveness of main sessions. Perhaps a discussion

regarding the timing of workshops and other sessions, vis-á-vis the main

sessions, needs to be discussed to examine how inputs from the workshops

can contribute to the deliberations of the main sessions. This is a difficult and

complex exercise which might demand compromises and more work from the

MAG and the Secretariat.

Other ideas such as engaging communities, organizations and businesses that

may not be directly involved with Internet governance but either impact it or are

impacted by it, may be considered, while discussing structure and programme

for 2015.

C. Secretariat’s office and funding

Moving forward, as we seek to enact improvements to the IGF, it will be even

more important to ensure the Secretariat’s office is properly staffed and can

continue to adequately support the new workload associated with certain

changes. A key component in securing the proper structural support is the

IGF’s long-term financial support. With many new suggested improvements

and an evolving menu of policy issues ahead, the IGF now finds itself at an

important inflexion point. Although the IGF has matured during the past nine

years as the Internet has expanded, the IGF now requires more stable,

sustainable, and substantial funding, to enable institutional improvements that

better address the evolving needs of the global community. The unpredictable

five year mandate impedes long-range planning and investment in the IGF.

D. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)

As the MAG continues to grow, and its responsibilities continue to increase, the

role of the MAG will be even more important in 2015 than in past years. It is

important that the criteria for the selection of MAG members is clear and

reflective of the duties they will be expected to undertake once selected. While

diversity of gender, region, race, and stakeholder group should always be a

32



measure used to create a diverse and dynamic MAG, diversity of specific policy

positions on issues should also be considered as the IGF attempts to address

new and emerging Internet policy issues. In addition, the contributions of

specific MAG members to their stakeholder groups, to the sustainability and

improvements of the IGF, and to the broader Internet governance community

should be considered in selecting and renewing MAG members.

E. Global IGF

Moving forward, the global IGF must continue to find ways to increase

participation among stakeholders from developing countries, and expand

awareness of the Internet policy discussions taking place at the IGF in 2015.

The IGF needs to focus on youth inclusion and participation, as well as a make

a stronger effort to explore issues related to access and the disabled

community. In addition, an honest effort to bring new voices to various panels,

workshops, flash sessions and main sessions would greatly add to the IGF’s

growing diversity. For example, while 2014 IGF was extremely well attended

and featured an excellent mix of new, relevant and expert voices, the main

sessions represented a high level, yet sufficiently detailed and dynamic

discussion on key issues. Its success however, will always depend upon

ensuring relevant speakers who can substantively contribute, especially when

the issues are complex and difficult. Continuing to diversify the sessions and

develop engaging discussions on tough issues is important to increasing

participation in the global forum, and to evolving the dialogue on emerging

issues in new and productive ways.

F. Regional and national IGFs

More than 30 regional and national IGF initiatives have developed in all

continents, enabling new forms of open and inclusive participation in Internet

governance. Moving forward, these initiatives will be critical in supporting the

IGF’s knowledge agenda and enhancing any future intersessional work. The

diversity of national Internet policy issues warrants an increased focus on these

national and regional IGFs, and how these initiatives are further engaged and

financially supported should be examined. The private sector supports the call

by the MAG chair to bring forward the work underway in the best practice

forums and proposed intersessional initiatives through national and regional

IGF initiatives.

33



IV. SUGGESTED INTERSESSIONAL THEMES FOR 2015

The business community would like to offer and support the idea of discussing

additional themes for 2015. The first one could be titled “Policy Menus for

Connecting the Next Billion”. This theme should be put to a discussion, along

with any other recommendations with regards to:

A. Criteria which need to be developed for selecting a theme for intersession

work. Some questions provided as Annexure I.

B. Its consistency vis-á-vis the broader mandate of the Tunis Agenda.

C. Its ability to not only attract a bottom up multistakeholder inputs, but

specifically allow national and regional IGFs to contribute substantively,

while in turn ensuring a robust dialogue with capacity building exercise in

those venues.

A brief document which evaluates theme submitted above vis-á-vis section 72

of the Tunis Agenda (broadly defining the IGF mandate) is attached as

Annexure II.

The second theme could be titled the “Impact of Internet on jobs and skills”.

This year in Istanbul two workshops on this topic were successfully held.

There was a strong request from the participants from developed and

developing countries and representatives of all stakeholder groups for

continuing the discussion on this topic as one of the most relevant in the near

future.

V. CONCLUSION

The global business community views the year ahead as one where great

progress can be made in strengthening the IGF, building stronger linkages

between the global IGF and the national initiatives, and developing a process

for future intersessional work. We remain committed to working closely with all

other stakeholder groups to ensure that we continue to support and improve the

IGF as a valuable and evolving multistakeholder forum. Attached please find a

series of questions that can further assist in thinking through the structure of the

future intersessional work.

34

TAKING STOCK & LOOKING FORWARD

(ICC BASIS- 27-Oct-2014)

ANNEXURE I

Suggested questions and parameters for approaching intersessional work / topic

selection for 2015

1. What is the goal for intersessional work? We should be explicit about the objective,

and ensure that this objective is consistent with the IGF mandate and format.

2. Should intersessional work be organized around themes (subjects) for 2014-15? One

or two?

3. If so, what should be the process of selecting the themes? Can be mapped to one of

IGF’s main themes.

4. What should be the qualifying substantive parameters for a theme to be accepted for

intersessional work?

(i) A significant, globally, unresolved Internet governance challenge.

(ii) Has scope for wide scale international cooperation.

(iii) Qualifies for sharing international best practices and experiences.

(iv) Global but particularly important from developing country perspective.

(v) Relevant for comprehensive multistakeholder contributions.

(vi) Country and regional IGF inputs can contribute substantively.

(vii) Basic, credible and usable data or experiences available.

(viii) Others?

5. What should be the process of intersessional work on a substantive topic?

(a) Who should be consulted? For how long? And how should the MAG reach out?

(b) How will documentation of intersessional discussions be structured, so that it

does not become a negotiation of policy text or otherwise dominate the ability of

other work processes to progress across and between meetings of the IGF and

national and regional IGFs?

(c) How can bottom up, multistakeholder consultation which represents both

regional and stakeholder diversity of views be ensured?

35



(d) Once the intersessional theme(s) is finalized, what should be the rules of

engagement for online discussions? Is there a need for creating a platform

dedicated to online intersessional discussions, specifically for IGF? How would

that work? A new dedicated list?

(e) What should be the rules of engagement for face to face meetings? Frequency

of meetings? Dedicated time within the three MAG meetings scheduled for

December 2014, February 2015 and May 2015? At other global Internet

governance forums?

(f) How should MAG structure the intersessional work within MAG? A working

group within the MAG or the entire MAG? Or some other structure? A Chair or

coordinators? Or both?

(g) What should be the period of consultation/seeking inputs?

(h) How should we ensure a prominent role and engagement for national IGFs and

regional IGFs in the overall intersessional work plan?

(i) What will be the process to better enable conversations and exchanges of

information across and between the IGF and national and regional IGFs

specifically with regards to intersessional theme(s)? How will the intersessional

work be treated during IGF 2015? A dedicated main session? A session on the

day before the IGF? Other ideas? Is there a need to identify a neutral, credible

and experienced knowledge partner, to develop the initial draft for comments?

Or can this be done within the MAG?

(j) What would be the process of including or rejecting inputs? Will opposing

views be mentioned side by side?

(k) Is there a need to appoint a substantive rapporteur to capture the discussions at

IGF 2015? What would their obligations be?

(l) Are there any accountability, transparency and inclusiveness related

parameters that must be identified early in the process before initiating

intersessional work?

6. Are there any other issues that are relevant to pursue intercessional work in the run-

up to IGF 2015?

36



ANNEXURE II

Policy Menus for Connecting the Next Billion

Proposed theme for IGF Intersessional Work (IW) in 2015

Comparison vis-á-vis Section 72 of the Tunis Agenda

Section Text of Tunis Agenda Match with the proposed theme

(a) Discuss public policy issues

related to key elements of

Internet governance in order

to foster the sustainability,

robustness, security,

stability and development of

the Internet

Affordable access to the four billion

unconnected citizens, especially the next

billion, goes to the core of Internet

governance dialogue, since the

establishment of IGF in 2006. Access

allows the possibility of discussion on a

range of issues within the ambit of Internet

governance including its key elements.

(b) Facilitate discourse between

bodies dealing with different

cross-cutting international

public policies regarding the

Internet and discuss issues

that do not fall within the

scope of any existing body.

While access for the next billion is linked to

the work of several existing multilaterals,

including the millennium development goals

(http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home

/mdgoverview.html), there is no

international body within whose scope it

falls entirely. Yet it provides for sufficient

scope for cross cutting public policy

dialogue and inputs.

(c) Interface with appropriate

intergovernmental

organizations and other

institutions on matters under

their purview

Several Intergovernmental organizations

and platforms e.g. ITU, UNESCO,

Broadband Commission for Digital

Development, WSIS and other regional

platforms such as OECD, etc., deal with

“access” issues. The theme will allow for

sufficient interface with and within such

bodies.

(d) Facilitate the exchange of

information and best

A “menu of policies” will facilitate exchange

of information and best practices, with

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html

37




practices, and in this regard

make full use of the expertise

of the academic, scientific

and technical communities

specific inputs from academic, scientific and

technical communities. It will neither be

prescriptive nor a binding recommendation,

and yet be relevant and contemporary, since

emerging technologies are in the core of

driving affordability and faster access to

Internet.

(e) Advise all stakeholders in

proposing ways and means

to accelerate the availability

and affordability of the

Internet in the developing

world

Connecting the next billion requires

multistakeholder cooperation and dialogue

as a condition precedent. The focus will be

on “affordable access” rather than “access”

alone. Thus making it relevant, especially to

the developing world, where the average

Internet penetration remains at a low of 32%

as compared to the global average of 40%

and developed country penetration of 78%

in 2014, as per ITU.

(http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-

D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigur

es2014-e.pdf)

(f) Strengthen and enhance the

engagement of stakeholders

in existing and/or future

Internet governance

mechanisms, particularly

those from developing

countries.

A mainstay of the intersessional work (IW)

could be the engagement of regional and

especially national IGFs in two ways. First,

encouraging national IGFs to discuss the

theme while assisting them with capacity

building tools. And second, provide short

summary inputs into the IW proceedings,

which will constitute the core of the “policy

menus” depicting the state of Internet

access in countries and regions, along with

policy options and emerging issues

(g) Identify emerging issues,

bring them to the attention of

the relevant bodies and the

general public, and, where

appropriate, make

In the course of discussing the theme and

including inputs from national/regional IGFs,

“Emerging Issues” are expected to become

important constituents of the discourse. As

per IGF practice, all outputs including results

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2014-e.pdf



38




recommendations of IW are expected to be placed in the public

domain as ready reference by relevant

stakeholders.

(h) Contribute to capacity

building for Internet

governance in developing

countries, drawing fully on

local sources of knowledge

and expertise.

Promote and assess, on an

ongoing basis, the

embodiment of WSIS

principles in Internet

governance processes

Engaging developing countries by first

seeking their inputs (national IGFs and

others) and providing the “policy menus” as

a reference document can become the core

objective of IW. The “menus” will be aimed

at building capacity in developing countries.

The theme is consistent with and advances

WSIS principles on Internet governance

processes - Section B “An Information

Society for All Key Principles”.

(http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/d

op.html)

(i) Discuss, inter alia, issues

relating to critical Internet

resources.

The theme allows sufficient discussion

relating to critical Internet resources (CIRs)

in the context of connecting the next billion.

It will also allow international bodies such as

ICANN, and regional Internet registries

(RIRs) as well as national governments and

national registries to play an active role, in

addition to their constructive participation

and support of national/regional IGFs.

(j) Help to find solutions to the

issues arising from the use

and misuse of the Internet, of

particular concern to

everyday users

While “policy menus” is the overarching

theme it allows sufficient leeway to discuss

issues and solutions arising from use and

misuse of Internet, especially as the theme

is directed at increasing affordable access

for everyday users and common citizens,

who are currently unconnected to the

Internet.

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

39




(k) Publish its proceedings The range of “policy menus” and inputs

received during the IW, especially from the

regional and national IGFs, will certainly

make for a “compendium” which can be

made available online for ready reference.

It can also be sent at reference material to

stakeholders at national and international

levels.

**** **** ****

TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 2015 Internet ... · September 2014. The title of this year’s...

Documents

Transcript of TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 2015 Internet ... · September 2014. The title of this year’s...