UK-IGF workshop reports

Posted on April 12, 2012 by Laura Hutchison

The reports from the UK-IGF workshops at the recent Nominet Annual Internet Policy Forum have been added to the Resources section of the UK-IGF website.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IGF Open Consultations and MAG meeting

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Laura Hutchison

The next IGF Open Consultations and MAG meeting will be held from 14-16 February 2012 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.

The IGF have issued a call for contributions.  Stakeholders are invited to submit comments and inputs in writing to the IGF Secretariat (igf@unog.ch) by 27 January 2012. These comments will be put into a synthesis paper, which will act as an input into the discussions at the meeting outlined above.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UK-IGF videos from P&I

Posted on November 16, 2011 by Laura Hutchison

Videos from this year’s Parliament & Internet (P&I) conference are now available on Youtube:

Mark Carvell speaking during the UK-IGF workshop slot: http://youtu.be/jgAQK0UP_g4

Eric Joyce MP reporting back on the workshop:  http://youtu.be/84ps7M7x96k

Ed Vaizey speech:  http://youtu.be/tKBRH_6Olac

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Deeper and wider: dialogue at the Internet Governance Forum

Posted on October 18, 2011 by Tim Davies

The challenge faced by the Internet Governance Forum is a big one: to convene open multi-stakeholder dialogue on extremely diverse Internet issues in order to help shape global Internet policy and practice. Sometimes it can feel like an event of fragmented workshops, repeating year-on-year without making progress: but within the packed agenda are discussions and insights and ideas that really can move the dialogue forward.

Deeper dialogue on youth

This year I had my first experience convening an IGF workshop, benefiting from the open agenda setting process to see my suggestion of a workshop on ‘Challenging Myths about Young People and the Internet’ (#92) make it onto the programme. The workshop, involving young people, young adults and adults from across the world dug into common claims about young people and the Internet, such as ‘young people don’t care about privacy’, or ‘young people consider the Internet to be a free, anarchic spaces where they can do what they want’, and ‘young people are addicted to the Internet’. Rather than reject these myths out of hand, the panellists and participants in the workshop sought to show how both the myths, and their opposites, hide the subtle realities of young people’s lives in a digital world: and how the continued use of simplistic myths harms policy making. Instead of making bald claims about young people’s lack of belief in privacy, panellists argued we should look at how young people act in practice, and should offer education that supports young people to improve their privacy protection, rather than running ‘messaging campaigns’ that assume young people need to be scared into acting on privacy. And instead of over-using phrases like ‘Internet addiction’, we should understand the Internet as a space where young people are engaged in many different activities (to paraphrase one participant: ‘The Internet gives you access to just about anything, so you’re going to use it a lot!’), and where any critique needs to be more targeted and nuanced. The ‘chilling effects’ of online monitoring on young people’s online freedoms; the prejudice young nigerians face because of perceptions about nigerian cybercrime; and the need to avoid basing our understanding of young people on claims about ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital naiveté’ were also addressed.

Although many of the myths addressed in this workshop will, I’m sure, turn up as claims in other transcripts from this years IGF (mostly because of misunderstandings, but also because simplistic emotive claims about ‘youth’ are used by some to further their own interests and agendas), members of the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance will be collaboratively writing up the outcomes of the Challenging Myths workshop as a resource for future IGF discussions with the hope of helping to shape a deeper dialogue about youth and the Internet.

Widening access to the IGF

The dialogue in Workshop 92 also reached wider than I’d anticipated: with e-Participation allowing remote Panellists to join the workshop from Pakistan, and a remote-hub joining the discussion from Syracuse University in the USA. If the 2010 IGF was when remote participation came of age with over 30 remote hubs, 2011 was the year that e-Participation was recognised as a fundamental part of the way IGF does business. A workshop on e-Participation principles identified the need to build on existing platforms like the volunteer-developed Remote Participation through webcasts and WebEx, and on the social media aggregation on the platform I’ve been experimenting with over the past few years with the support of Diplo, to work towards year-round e-Participation in the IGF that continues to improve the inclusiveness and accessibility of forum discussions to all. The potential of ‘data mining’ the rich transcript and report archives that have built up over the years of the IGF, to help visualise the changing discourse, was also raised in workshops and the closing plenary: highlighting a continued drive towards institutional innovation to support better dialogue on key Internet policy issues.

Emerging issues: open data

A number of worshops in Nairobi developed an IGF focus on the growing areas of ‘open data’. I participated in one panel on ‘Privacy and Security in a Linked/Open/Realtime data world’ that took a wide-ranging look at emerging issues around open data, from open government data like the International Aid Transparency Initiative data I spoke on, to the data from citizens sourced by Ushahidi explored by Eric Hershman, and data aggregated from social media and other sources addressed by Robet Kirkpatric talking about UN Global Pulse. With the need to critically explore open data initiatives, their technical and policy frameworks, and their social impacts, becoming more pressing, I’m sure an IGF thread on open data will return in 2012.

So: time to start looking forward to IGF2012? Well, yes and no. As Ginger Paque reminded us a in a number of sessions, IGF doesn’t just talk place once a year. With online networks like the Diplo Internet Goverance Community, and regional IGFs taking place across the world, the IGF process is going on year round – and the wider, deeper dialogue is needed year round too.

Tim Davies is co-director of Practical Participation, an independent consultancy focussing on technology for civic participation and social change. Tim is also a PhD student in Web Science and Social Policy at the University of Southampton, looking at the governance of open government data.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Thoughts on IGF Nairobi by Dr Louise Bennett

Posted on October 18, 2011 by Laura Hutchison

My main take away impressions of the 6th IGF were:

That the European view, as expressed by the Council of Europe via EuroDIG, that puts human rights and net neutrality, as absolutes, at the top of the agenda, without due consideration of the proportionality between security and privacy was not a governance model accepted widely. The reality is that users expect their data to retain domestic levels of protection (whatever these may be) whatever jurisdiction they are in on the Internet. Common principles and compromises are needed, but these will be very hard to achieve.

For individual users the Internet is “experiential”. Trust increases with use and depends on the national and individual starting points. In developing countries trust rested largely with major companies, such as Google, Microsoft and Facebook. In relation to privacy rights, it was widely accepted that there needed to be an internationally agreed definition of what comprised “sensitive personal data”.

Only a small number of principles are key to Internet Governance: open architecture; multi-national, multi-stakeholder dialogue to develop good governance and an understanding of conceptual meta-level approaches to complex networking with the adoption of interoperability standards.

Governments need to have a policy to ensure their citizens have access to a safe and secure Internet, to encourage social interaction, access to content and development. Outside the EU, our data protection laws are seen as a protectionist device and not a strongly held principle, because the key for users in developing countries is that the Internet is cheap and flexible.

There was also resentment about blocking of certain country domain names on fraud grounds. Domain Name System filtering and blocking was seen by many as an excessive focus on illegal on line content that impeded creativity, fostered criminal activity and damaged the Internet. By attacking the content via ISP addresses, law enforcement agencies were blocking consumption, driving services underground and bringing only short term relief as the content just reappeared elsewhere. If content was illegal, law enforcement should find and prosecute the perpetrators.

Ways forward on Internet Governance were suggested via: CSR reporting in company accounts; suitable International Conventions that countries could sign up to; Consumer Protection Agencies, as most countries had these and many countries already had bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements across borders that could be developed for Internet trading.

The 6th IGF saw the resurrection of a Dynamic Coalition for The Internet of Things to develop understanding of governance issues (if they differ from current issues) and take them forward.  There is an opportunity for UK to be influential from an early stage in this developing global initiative.

Posted by the UK-IGF on behalf of Dr Louise Bennett, Vivas Ltd

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on IGF Nairobi by Mark Carvell

Posted on October 18, 2011 by Laura Hutchison

The final official figures are not yet in but the level of stakeholder participation in the Nairobi IGF from the world over is expected to break all records:  over 2000 in person and a further 1000 connecting via remote hubs in all geographical regions.  Overwhelming testimony to the value of multi-stakeholder dialogue:  the IGF is now indisputably proving its worth.

Moreover, as a representative of government with more years’ experience of multilateral conferences, seminars and workshops relating to the ICT sector than I care to recount, one thing at the IGF in Nairobi really struck me, something that I had never witnessed before on such a large scale, be it in Paris at the OECD, in Geneva at the ITU or in New York at the UN. This was the extent to which government policymakers were willing to raise their heads and expose their positions and views to immediate expert scrutiny, be it on a panel or at the floor microphone.  At every IGF session and workshop event that I was able to get to in Nairobi, there they were: government policymakers – presenting, listening, responding, arguing, asking questions, learning, reflecting and taking notes to write up, for their ministers, technical or legal advisors, and for team colleagues back in capitals to digest and take into account in their policy development.

Sure there were many familiar faces, diehard advocates of the IGF model we know well from Vilnius, Sharm el Sheikh or the earliest post-WSIS days of IGF trial and experiment. But there were also many new contacts to make in Nairobi – from developing countries, not only from Africa as you would expect, but from all regions, all relishing the opportunity to engage in dialogue on the issues at the heart of their policy agendas. This I thought was the vision of the IGF truly realised at last.

In the absence of a critical negotiating agenda, it has always proved a challenge for many of us in government administrations to secure a minister’s presence in this continually expanding forum.  Not easy and the record of ministerial presence has indeed been decidedly patchy. However, thanks primarily to Kenyan ingenuity in devising a pre-IGF high level event, I believe that the IGF’s political profile has markedly increased – and positively so. This was not an event exclusively for ministers but it did afford an unprecedented opportunity for them to scope out their Internet remits and fly some issues for the wider stakeholder community to consider and react to. In this way it did not overshadow the IGF itself as some may have feared. Furthermore, the participating ministers would have the opportunity to meet many business, civil society, academic and technical experts in the process.

As a result I think the Kenyan hosts achieved another major turning point for the IGF that had more ministers booking flights to the IGF than at any previous event. For the UK, this was third time lucky: Ed Vaizey’s predecessors as UK ministers with responsibility for Internet governance policy, Stephen Carter and Stephen Timms had both committed to attend previous IGFs. Alas our ambitions for them to turn up and tune into this unique convergence of expertise were ultimately thwarted by now long-forgotten domestic political pressures on the day. Not so with Ed Vaizey: in between rushing from one planned (or spontaneous) meeting to the next, as well as speaking in the opening session of the IGF, there he was, in a rooftop workshop getting stuck into a profoundly informative  discussion about the impact of social networks, with views and reactions crossing the table from all quarters. That was a very satisfying moment for this particular government representative!

Posted by the UK-IGF on behalf of Mark Carvell, Department for Culture Media and Sport

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on IGF Nairobi by Dr Vicki Nash

Posted on October 18, 2011 by Laura Hutchison

Sitting watching Egyptian activist Wael Khalil debate with UK Minister Ed Vaizey at one of Nominet’s IGF workshops I suddenly realised how far we’ve come since the early WSIS meetings in 2003 when it seemed like an extraordinary idea that Internet policy could be discussed at the international level with equal voice given to less-wired states and the active involvement of industry and civil society groups. Access and digital divides may still be a key concern, particularly within nations, but countries like Kenya are now at the vanguard of innovation, and the role of civil society actors in shaping not just internet policy but also international politics and regime change could not be more clear. For this reason, and perhaps because there has been some uncertainty about the future of the IGF, events in Nairobi really brought it home to me why this forum is so valuable, and why it must continue:

  • No one country, company or individual ‘owns’ the Internet; so discussions about its future MUST be inclusive
  • One of the Internet’s greatest strengths is its openness; more regulation risks damaging that.
  • Despite the widespread fears about ‘balkanisation’ of the Internet, most of the greatest challenges and opportunities relating to the Internet’s future affect all of us equally.

So key points to take to Baku? I would argue we ought to have an IGF that really focuses on the Internet’s great potential. We spend a great deal of time balancing risks, identifying potential harms or assessing trade-offs in key values which does little to convince those who are ambivalent about getting online. Isn’t it time we redressed the balance?

Posted by the UK-IGF on behalf of Dr Vicki Nash, Oxford Internet Institute

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on IGF Nairobi by David Souter

Posted on October 18, 2011 by Laura Hutchison

The sixth IGF, and the sixth that I’ve attended.  How does it compare?

I thought it followed the positive trend of the last four meetings.  Participants from different stakeholder groups are now very comfortable with one another and with the meeting’s tone.  Debates each year seem better-informed, more interesting and constructive.  Some (but by no means all) workshops are useful, and a few really insightful.  The lack of pressure to reach conclusions depoliticises the IGF and enables the open and constructive discourse which is absent from traditional UN meetings I attend (including much of WSIS).  The importance of this should not be underestimated by those who are frustrated by its lack of powers to make decisions or even recommendations.

But there is a flipside.  There is something of a comfort zone about the IGF today, and there is insufficient outreach beyond the internet community.  The same personalities tend to dominate debates year on year.  It deals well with controversial issues within the internet community, but has not reached out successfully beyond it.  Governments are represented by ICT ministries, the private sector by internet-focused businesses, civil society by academics and activists who are personally interested in the internet.

If internet debate is to be owned by the world community, as it should be, debates at the IGF need to embrace internet outsiders as well as insiders – government departments that manage e-government services, businesses that use the internet but don’t provide it, the civil society organisations that are found in other UN fora (development and environmental agencies, faith groups, trades unions, etc.) but are absent from the IGF.  They need to be brought in and listened to.

And one small plea.  By far the best workshop I attended was one so crowded that people had no room to do their emails: they had to listen to what was being said instead, and so were properly engaged.  Too many workshops consist of platform speakers talking at roomsful of people who are typing into laptops oblivious to what is being said.  Proper debate requires full attention, and the IGF would be better still if people were prepared to give it that.

Posted by the UK-IGF on behalf of David Souter.

 

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on IGF Nairobi by Raf Fatani

Posted on October 10, 2011 by Laura Hutchison

Over 2,000 participants from more than 100 countries descended on Nairobi for the 2011 United Nations Internet Governance Forum, to engage in discussions and knowledge sharing. The increasing attendance at the IGF meetings demonstrates that the Forum continues to be useful and of value to attendees. One of the fundamental characteristics of the IGF is that  it is an open, non-binding, multi-stakeholder and bottom up forum. The Forum is unique due to its non-decision making format and its open and inclusive participatory structure, which continuously grows. This format is the fundamental basis of the Forum’s success, and this unique character of the IGF should be maintained.

The ‘no central authority’ and ‘self regulated’ approach in the Internet’s management has always been a key to its success and growth. This has allowed the Internet to become among many things, a vital tool and catalyst for exercising human rights and empowering citizens around the globe. In light of the Arab Spring developments, supporting the openness of the Internet management structure, among many things, empowers the democratisation of societies. Thus support for IGF in its current form is vital.

What is its value of the IGF and why is it relevant?

The old argument that various stakeholders; governments, the private sector, the civil society and NGOs, and the technical and academic communities provide resources, knowledge sharing and innovation under one roof, is still relevant today. However as technology continues to evolve, so do the discussions at all levels. The unique aspect of this Forum is its all encompassing discussions of Internet governance and Internet public policy- related topics, addressing the opportunities and challenges created by the rapid development of the Internet.

Further, the more developed argument addresses one of the most deep routed issues associated with the IGF – ‘IGF formal outcomes’. in the closing session,Dr Vincent Cerf raised his concern; “I am a little uncomfortable with any attempt to produce a consensus document, not because they are bad, but the time it takes away from rich exploration of issues.” Dr Cerf is right. Not only does negotiated text hinder the success of the current format but more importantly, whilst the current system makes it difficult to coordinate legislation targets Spam (for example), it plays a more important role in stopping rogue states from having any say in what and how the data on Internet flows. This in its self is a HUGE success, and needs applauding.

The current decentralised governance system of the Internet means many stakeholders are involved, with each party playing a specific role. This enables the Internet’s data flow without fear of sovereignty and borders, and more importantly guaranteeing a diversity of views (from both elected and unelected governments).

It is important to highlight that the IGF in its current format has the ability for self-improvement through its own bottom-up mechanisms, with each annual meeting building on  the achievements from previous meetings. This self-improvement mechanism has continued in an era of dwindling and limited financial and human resources to the IGF secretariat. This year the Secretariat must be congratulated for managing with only one full-time member staff (Mr Chengetai Masango) and a handful of valuable interns. Whilst this highlights the power harnessed by the bottom-up approach, it also rings alarm bells for future support.

Support for the secretariat is not only required in the form of finance, but also in the form of broadening the base of attendance. This can only be achieved if various stakeholders in their respective countries, and more importantly we in the UK, outline the importance of the IGF through our networks. Without the IGF, a world with the Internet managed by an international body of bureaucracy is highly likely, and all parties who are currently benefiting from the Internet will wish they had pledged their supporting for the IGF sooner.

Posted by the UK IGF on behalf of Raf Fatani, sasiconsult.com

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on IGF Nairobi by Nick Thorne

Posted on October 7, 2011 by Laura Hutchison

From the talking shop we created at WSIS in 2005, the Forum has developed into a really useful platform both for the practical exchange/dissemination of ideas and a sounding board for all parties in the overall governance debate.  We still need more genuinely Multi-stakeholder input from Business and Industry; and despite the excellent and admirably consistent contributions from Rt Hon Alun Michael and his colleagues; more parliamentary input would be immensely valuable. Much of the governance debate is about keeping Governments honest. Who better to do this than their own parliamentarians?

If this was probably the most useful IGF yet, it is primarily because it clarified the ambitions of those who wish directly to subvert the multi-stakeholder model, or who through the pursuit of their own limited ambitions risk undermining it in the longer term.

Three key elements emerged in Nairobi:

  1. ITU Secretary General Toure made clear his ambition to replace the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR’s) at the forthcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) scheduled for November 2012. He will have a lot of support for this view. There were rumours in Nairobi that the African group will propose new rules designed to regulate modern communications networks; including the Internet. Are we prepared to counter such unwelcome proposals?
  2. Commissioner Kroes left little room for doubt as to her insistence upon a more international mechanism to control the “IANA” contract, which lies at the heart of operating the Root of the Internet. A reasonable longer term objective perhaps, but with the contract due for renewal next March; and in a US Presidential election year, is this realistic, or indeed helpful? Some would say Europeans are doing the Chinese work for them. Is Kroes really speaking to policy agreed among all EU member states?
  3. ICANN has long been at the core of the Internet governance debate and has always acted as a lightning rod for community criticism. Now is an unfortunate time for that organisation to appear rudderless, and apparently fixated upon the still controversial introduction of new generic top-level domains. But it is the Multi-stakeholder model which suits the needs of those who wish to see a light touch governance model.  The model needs our support. Are we prepared actively to defend it?

We need a truly international and multistakeholder plan to deal with these and other issues/threats over the next 18 months . I’m not sure I yet see much sign of one…….

(Posted by the UK-IGF on behalf of Nick Thorne.  Nick Thorne was UK Ambassador to the UN in Geneva from 2003-08 and led for the EU Presidency at the 2005 WSIS conference in Tunis.)

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment