The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 19.
IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability Process and India' s Position
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/iana-transition-icann-accountability-process-indian-position
<b>Jyoti Panday participated in the workshop organized by CCAOI on "IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability Process and India' s Position" on May 30, 2015. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dr Ajay Kumar launched the IANA Transition Report and set the context for the workshop. Dr Mahesh Uppal was the moderator of the panel and other participants included Mr Samiran Gupta, ICANN providing an overview of the current status on the transition, Mr Parminder Singh, IT for Change and Mr Rahul Sharma, DSCI sharing concerns of different stakeholders.<br /><br />The panel also saw discussion on issues in the transition process that are of relevance to India and what should their position going forward including ensuring the efficiency of ICANN Functions included in the CWG draft proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS raised issues around financial accountability and the role of ICANN in shaping markets therefore the urgent need for improving transparency and accountability measures.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The report launched at the workshop is <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwresearch/Study%20on%20the%20Indian%20Perspective%20on%20IANA%20transition.pdf">available here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/iana-transition-icann-accountability-process-indian-position'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/iana-transition-icann-accountability-process-indian-position</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiICANNIANAInternet GovernanceIANA Transition2015-08-23T09:26:06ZNews ItemCIS Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability
<b>On May 6, 2014, ICANN published a call for public comments on "Enhancing ICANN Accountability". This comes in the wake of the IANA stewardship transition spearheaded by ICANN and related concerns of ICANN's external and internal accountability mechanisms. Centre for Internet and Society contributed to the call for comments.</b>
<h3><strong>Introduction:</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">announced its intent</a> to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder Internet governance community. ICANN was tasked with the development of a proposal for transition of IANA stewardship, for which ICANN subsequently <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/draft-proposal-2014-04-08-en">called for public comments</a>. At NETmundial, ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé acknowledged that the IANA stewardship transition and improved ICANN accountability were <a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/issuance-of-netmundial-multistakeholder-statement-concludes-act-one-of-2014-internet-governance-trifecta/">inter-related issues</a>, and <a href="http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/icanns-accountability-in-the-wake-of-the-iana-functions-stewardship-transition/">announced</a> the impending launch of a process to strengthen and enhance ICANN accountability in the absence of US government oversight. The subsequent call for public comments on “Enhancing ICANN Accountability” may be found <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en">here</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Suggestions for improved accountability:</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the event, Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) wishes to limit its suggestions for improved ICANN accountability to matters of reactive or responsive transparency on the part of ICANN to the global multi-stakeholder community. We propose the creation and implementation of a robust “freedom or right to information” process from ICANN, accompanied by an independent review mechanism.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article III of ICANN Bye-laws note that “<i>ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness</i>”. As part of this, Article III(2) note that ICANN shall make publicly available information on, <i>inter alia</i>, ICANN’s budget, annual audit, financial contributors and the amount of their contributions, as well as information on accountability mechanisms and the outcome of specific requests and complaints regarding the same. Such accountability mechanisms include reconsideration (Article IV(2)), independent review of Board actions (Article IV(3)), periodic reviews (Article IV(4)) and the Ombudsman (Article V).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”) sets forth a process by which members of the public may request information “<i>not already publicly available</i>”. ICANN <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">may respond</a> (either affirmatively or in denial) to such requests within 30 days. Appeals to denials under the DIDP are available under the reconsideration or independent review procedures, to the extent applicable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While ICANN has historically been prompt in its response to DIDP Requests, CIS is of the view that absent the commitments in the AoC following IANA stewardship transition, it would be desirable to amend and strengthen Response and Appeal procedures for DIDP and other, broader disclosures. Our concerns stem from the fact that, <i>first</i>, the substantive scope of appeal under the DIDP, on the basis of documents requested, is unclear (say, contracts or financial documents regarding payments to Registries or Registrars, or a detailed, granular break-up of ICANN’s revenue and expenditures); and <i>second</i>, that grievances with decisions of the Board Governance Committee or the Independent Review Panel cannot be appealed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, CIS proposes a mechanism based on “right to information” best practices, which results in transparent and accountable governance at governmental levels.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>First</i>, we propose that designated members of ICANN staff shoulder responsibility to respond to information requests. The identity of such members (information officers, say) ought to be made public, including in the response document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Second</i>, an independent, third party body should be constituted to sit in appeal over information officers’ decisions to provide or decline to provide information. Such body may be composed of nominated members from the global multi-stakeholder community, with adequate stakeholder-, regional- and gender-representation. However, such members should not have held prior positions in ICANN or its related organizations. During the appointed term of the body, the terms and conditions of service ought to remain beyond the purview of ICANN, similar to globally accepted principles of an independent judiciary. For instance, the Constitution of India forbids any disadvantageous alteration of privileges and allowances of judges of the <a href="http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p05125.html">Supreme Court</a> and <a href="http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p06221.html">High Courts</a> during tenure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Third</i>, and importantly, punitive measures ought to follow unreasonable, unexplained or illegitimate denials of requests by ICANN information officers. In order to ensure compliance, penalties should be made continuing (a certain prescribed fine for each day of information-denial) on concerned officers. Such punitive measures are accepted, for instance, in Section 20 of India’s Right to Information Act, 2005, where the review body may impose continuing penalties on any defaulting officer.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Finally</i>, exceptions to disclosure should be finite and time-bound. Any and all information exempted from disclosure should be clearly set out (and not merely as categories of exempted information). Further, all exempted information should be made public after a prescribed period of time (say, 1 year), after which any member of the public may request for the same if it continues to be unavailable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS hopes that ICANN shall deliver on its promise to ensure and enhance its accountability and transparency to the global multi-stakeholder community. To that end, we hope our suggestions may be positively considered.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Comment repository</strong>:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All comments received by ICANN during the comment period (May 6, 2014 to June 6, 2014) may be found <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/">at this link</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundialICANNAccountability2014-06-10T13:03:57ZBlog EntryNETmundial Day 2
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-2
<b>Fadi Chehade, the ICANN boss, closed NETmundial 2014 with these words "In Africa we say if you want to go first, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together." He should have added: And if you want to go nowhere, go multi-stakeholder.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For all the talk of an inclusive global meeting, there was exactly <span><a href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/map_no_contrib_govt.html">one governmental submission from the African continent</a></span>, and it was from Tunisia; and the overall rate of submissions from Africa and West Asia were <a href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/map_no_contrib.html">generally very low</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The outcome document perfectly reflects the gloss that the "multi-stakeholder" model was designed to achieve: an outcome that is celebrated by businesses (and by all embedded institutions like ICANN) for being harmless, met with relief by governments for not upsetting the status quo, all of it lit up in the holy glow of "consensus" from civil society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course there was no consensus. Civil society groups who organised on Day 0 put up their <a href="http://pastebin.com/3uK9KbR0%20">position</a>: the shocking omission of a strong case for net neutrality, ambiguous language on surveillance, weak defences of free expression and privacy. All valid points. But it's striking that civil society takes such a pliant position towards authority: other than exactly two spirited protests (one against the data retention in Marco Civil, and the other against the NSA's mass surveillance program) there was no confrontation, no provocation, no passionate action that would give civil society the force it needs to win. If we were to compare this to other international struggles, the gay rights battle, or its successor, the AIDS medicines movement, for instance - what a difference there is. People fought to crush with powerful, forceful action. Only after huge victories with public and media sympathy, and only after turning themselves into equals of the corporations and governments they were fighting, did they allow themselves to sit down at the table and negotiate nicely. Internet governance fora are marked by politeness and passivity, and perhaps - however sad - it's no wonder that the least powerful groups in these fora always come away disappointed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It's also surprising that there is no language in the outcome document that explicitly addresses the censorious threat posed by the global expansion of a sovereign application of copyright, as seen most vividly in the proposed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA">SOPA/PIPA</a> legislation in the United States. The outcome document has language that seems to more or less reflect the <a href="http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/">civil society proposal</a>, and it's possible that a generous interpretation of the language could mean that it opposes the selective, restrictive and damaging application of what the intellectual property industries want to accomplish on the Internet. But it's puzzling that the language isn't stronger or more explicit, and even more puzzling that civil society doesn't seem to want to fight for such language.</p>
<p>This seems like an appropriate time to end the multi-stakeholder diaries. <a href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/track_multistakeholder.html">Hasn't the word been used enough?</a> Here is one last instalment. We thank the kind folks who gave us their time.</p>
<p>Q: What does "multi-stakeholder" mean? What is "multi-stakeholderism"?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>A large part of the discourse prior to the NETmundial conference has been centered around the issue of what is the best structural system to regulate a global network – this has commonly been portrayed as a choice between a multistakeholder system – which broadly speaking, aims to place ‘all stakeholders’ on equal footing – against multilateralism – a recognized concept in International law / the Comity of Nation States, where a nation state is recognized as the representative of its citizens, making decisions on their behalf and in their interests.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>In our opinion, the issue is not about the dichotomy between multilateralism and multistakeholderism; it is about what functions or issues can legitimately be dealt with through each of the processes in terms of adequately protecting civil liberties and other public interest principles – including the appropriate enforcement of norms. For instance, how do you deal with something like cyber warfare without the consent of states? Similarly, how do we address regulatory issues such as determining (and possibly subsidizing) costs of access, or indeed to protect a right of a country against unilateral disconnection?</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>.....The crux of the matter rests in deciding which is the best governance ‘basket’ to include a particular issue within – taken from both a substantive and enforcement perspective. The challenge is trying to demarcate issues to ensure that each is dealt with effectively by placing it in an appropriate bucket.</i> <i>(The full post can be accessed </i><a href="http://www.knowledgecommons.in/brasil/en/multilateral-and-multistakeholder-responsibilities/">here</a><i>).</i><br /><b>Rishab Bailey</b> from the Society for Knowledge Commons (India)</p>
<p class="PreformattedText" style="text-align: justify; "><i>If I would have signed the campaign </i><a href="http://wepromise.eu/">http://wepromise.eu</a><i> as a candidate to the European Parliament I would have made it an election promise to defend "the principle of multistakeholderism".</i></p>
<p class="PreformattedText" style="text-align: justify; "><i>That means that I "support free, open, bottom-up, and multi-stakeholder models of coordinating the Internet resources and standards - names, numbers, addresses etc" and that I "support measures which seek to ensure the capacity of representative civil society to participate in multi-stakeholder forums." Further, I "oppose any attempts by corporate, governmental or intergovernmental agencies to take control of Internet governance."</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>My very rudimentary personal view is basically that it's a bad idea to institutionalise conflicting competences.</i><br /><b>Erik Josefsson</b>, Adviser on Internet policies for the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament</p>
<hr />
<p>And so it <a href="http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf">ends</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-2'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-2</a>
</p>
No publisherachalICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-25T04:58:26ZBlog EntryNETmundial: Tracking *Multistakeholder* across Contributions
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-tracking-multi-stakeholder-across-contributions
<b>This set of analysis of the contributions submitted to NETmundial 2014 is part of the effort by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, to enable productive discussions of the critical internet governance issues at the meeting and elsewhere.</b>
<div><iframe frameborder="0" height="500px" src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/charts/cis_netmundial_track_multistakeholder.html" width="750px"></iframe></div>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Created by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a> using <a href="https://developers.google.com/chart/" target="_blank">Google Charts</a>.<br /> Google <a href="https://developers.google.com/terms/" target="_blank">Terms of Use</a> and <a href="https://google-developers.appspot.com/chart/interactive/docs/gallery/treemap.html#Data_Policy" target="_blank">Data Policy</a>.<br /> Data compiled by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a> and Jyoti.<br /> Download the <a class="external-link" href="https://github.com/ajantriks/netmundial/blob/master/data/cis_netmundial_track_multistakeholder.csv">data</a><a href="https://github.com/ajantriks/netmundial/blob/master/data/cis_ig_vis_track_multistakeholder.csv" target="_blank"></a>.</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This scatter plot shows the number of times the word *multistakeholder* (including *multi-stakeholder* and *multistakeholderism*) appears across contributions submitted to NETmundial.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">X axis (horizontal) gives the serial number of contributions and Y axis (vertical) gives the number of times the word appears on a contribution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Click on the types of organisation below the chart to highlight the corresponding organisations on the chart.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The visualisations are done by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro Chattapadhyay</a>, based on data compilation and analysis by Jyoti Panday, and with data entry suport from Chandrasekhar.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Built on <a href="http://getbootstrap.com/" target="_blank">Bootstrap</a> by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a></td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">All code, content and data is co-owned by the author(s) and <a href="https://cis-india.org/" target="_blank">Centre for Internet and Society</a>, Bangalore, India, and shared under Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/in/" target="_blank">Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 India</a> license.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-tracking-multi-stakeholder-across-contributions'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-tracking-multi-stakeholder-across-contributions</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-25T09:53:37ZBlog EntryBrazil passes Marco Civil; the US-FCC Alters its Stance on Net Neutrality
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality
<b>Hopes for the Internet rise and fall rapidly. Yesterday, on April 23, 2014, Marco Civil da Internet, the Brazilian Bill of Internet rights, was passed by the Brazilian Senate into law. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Marco Civil</i>, on which we <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet">blogged</a> previously, includes provisions for the protection of privacy and freedom of expression of all users, rules mandating net neutrality, etc. Brazil celebrated the beginning of NETmundial, a momentous first day about which Achal Prabhala <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-0">blogs</a>, with President Rousseff’s approval of the<i> Marco Civil</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At about the same time, news <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/568be7f6-cb2f-11e3-ba95-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zmtOMMj0">broke</a> that the US Federal Communications Commission is set to propose new net neutrality rules. In the wake of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/14/net-neutrality-internet-fcc-verizon-court">Verizon net neutrality decision</a> in January, the proposed new rules will <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147520/report-us-fcc-to-allow-payments-for-speedier-traffic.html">prohibit</a> Internet service providers such as Comcast from slowing down or blocking traffic to certain websites, but permit fast lane traffic for content providers who are willing to pay for it. This fast lane would prioritise traffic from content providers like Netflix and Youtube on commercially reasonable terms, and result in availability of video and other content at higher speeds or quality. An interesting turn-around, as <i>Marco Civil</i> expressly mandates net neutrality for all traffic.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundialICANNMarco Civil2014-04-24T10:05:32ZBlog EntryNETmundial Day 1
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-1
<b>Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's speech at the opening of NETmundial in São Paulo was refreshingly free of the UN-speak that characterised virtually every single other presentation this morning. The experience of sitting for five hours in a room where the word "multi-stakeholder" is repeated at the rate of five mentions per minute is not for the faint-hearted; it almost makes you wish for more of the straight-talking tough-love of people like Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Surveillance was mentioned by a few brave souls. Two peaceful, silent - and rather effective - protests broke out during the opening speeches; one, against the data retention clause in Brazil's otherwise path-breaking and brand-new law for civil rights on the Internet, Marco Civil, and another for honouring US NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and urging <a href="https://twitter.com/Lhunthendrix/status/458975285049053184/photo/1">action against surveillance</a>. Sadly for Brazilian civil society, the Marco Civil protestations went unheard, and Rousseff signed the bill into law in full.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were lots of speeches. Lots. If you missed them, here's a handy <a href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/word_freq_org_type.html">visualisation</a> you can use to catch up quickly: just add some prepositions and conjunctions, and you'll have a perfectly anodyne and universally acceptable bureaucrat/politician keynote address.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The afternoon was given over to assimilating previously received comments on the <a href="http://document.netmundial.br/">outcome</a> document and adding new ones from people in the room. Much contention, much continuity, lots of hard work, lots of nitpicking (some of it even useful) and lots of ambiguity; after more consultation - the slog goes on until tomorrow afternoon - the outcome document will be laid to rest. Lunch was excellent: there's a reason the Grand Hyatt São Paulo costs as much as it does.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our quest to plumb the depths of multi-stakeholderism continued: we thank the kind folks who gave us their time and allowed us to record them.</p>
<p>Q: What does "multi-stakeholder" mean? What is "multi-stakeholderism"?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Multi-stakeholderism to me is the ability to engage with every stakeholder and have them in the room, and have them understand that it is not an equal opportunity for all. I also understand that civil society and academia will never be at the same place as business, which has far more resources, or governments, which have the sovereign right to make laws, or even the technical community, which is often missing from the policy dialogue. There are three things which are important to me: (1) Will I be able to make interventions not just in the dialogue but in the decision making process? For me, that is key. (2) Do I have recourse in a process which might be multilateral or inter-governmental - do I have recourse when international treaties are ratified or signed, because they become binding national laws? and (3) What is it that happens to dissent in a process that is not multi-stakeholder? I think even the ITU (the International Telecommunications Union) has taken cognizance of multi-stakeholderism. So it's not new, but it's also not old or accepted, which is why we contest it. We will never have equal stakeholders. And who gets to represent the stakeholder communities? I don't think power imbalances get resolved, and I think it's a deeply flawed process. It's not perfect. But what worries me is the alternative. So give me a better alternative.</i><br /><b>Subi Chaturvedi</b>, Media for Change/ Lady Shriram College (India)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Simply put, multi means many components, and stakeholders are people who have the stakes. So multi-stakeholder means many people who are informed to take the process forward. The process is still on: it's evolving. The idea is that everyone who has an interest should bring it forward, and the dialogue must be balanced. Proof of concept is important - it's not about taking a dogmatic position but a scientific position. Business is concerned about the justification around return on investment.</i><br /><b>Jimson Olufuye</b>, Africa ICT Alliance (Nigeria)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Everyone who has a stake in the use and operation of the Internet should have a stake in the way it is managed. I think we shouldn't be considering this as a power game - it's not winner takes all. Decision making should be as much as possible consensual, where no one has a veto power.</i><br /><b>Getachew Engida</b>, Deputy Director-General, UNESCO (France)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>It is very simple. I think people are complicating matters. It's not a power game. The Internet is fundamentally a global network of interconnected computers. People have become not only consumers of information but providers of information, so the stakes in the media/ICT world are massive. Unprecedented. Therefore, around major issues confronting the Internet, decision making should be as participatory as possible.</i><br /><b>Indrajit Banerjee</b>, Director, UNESCO (France)</p>
<hr />
<p><b>Additional Links</b></p>
<ul>
<li><a class="external-link" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KemK8YbHrI">Watch Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's speech at the opening of NETmundial</a></li>
<li>Follow Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt on <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/458996103162376193">Twitter</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-1'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-1</a>
</p>
No publisherachalICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-24T09:02:49ZBlog EntryNETmundial Roadmap: Defining the Roles of Stakeholders in Multistakeholderism
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-roadmap-defining-roles-of-stakeholders-in-multistakeholderism
<b>NETmundial, one of the most anticipated events in the Internet governance calendar, will see the global community convening at Sao Paolo, with an aim to establish 'strategic guidelines related to the use and development of the Internet in the world.' This post analyses the submissions at NETmundial that focused on Roadmap, towards an understanding of stakeholder roles in relation to specific governance functions and highlighting the political, technical and architectural possibilities that lie ahead. </b>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Introduction</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A technically borderless Internet, in a world defined by national boundaries, brings many challenges in its wake. The social, ethical and legal standards of all countries are affected by technical standards and procedures, created by a few global players. This disparity in capacity and opportunities to participate and shape Internet policy, fuelled by Edward Snowden's revelations led to the development of the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance or <a href="http://netmundial.br/">NETmundial</a>. Set against, an urgent need for interdisciplinary knowledge assessment towards establishing global guiding principles with respect to the technological architecture and the legal framework of the Internet–NETmundial is seen as a critical step in moving towards a global policy framework for Internet Governance (IG). As stakeholder groups from across the world come together to discuss future forms of governance, one of the most widely discussed issues will be that of Multistakeholderism (MSism).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Multistakeholderism</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The governance structure of the Multistakeholder model is based on the notion, that stakeholders most impacted by decisions should be involved in the process of decision making. The collaborative multistakeholder spirit has been widely adopted within the Internet Governance fora, with proponents spread across regions and communities involved in the running, management and use of the Internet. So far, MSism has worked well in the coordination of technical networking standards and efforts to set norms and best practices in defined areas, in the realm of technical governance of the Internet. However, the extension of MSism beyond truly voluntary, decentralized and targeted contexts and expanding its applicability, to other substantive areas of Internet Governance is proving a challenge. Beyond defining how the process of policymaking should be undertaken, <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/networks-and-states">MSism does not provide any guidance on substantive policy issues of Internet governance</a>. With the increasing impact of Internet technology on human lives and framed against the complexity of issues such as security, access and privacy, the consensus on MSism is further rendered unattainable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The need for contextualizing the model aside, as with most policy negotiations certain open concepts and words have also prevented agreement and adoption of MSism as the best way forward for IG. One such open and perhaps, the most contentious issue with respect to the legitimacy of MSism in managing Internet functions is the role of stakeholders. A key element of MSism is that decisions will be made by and including all relevant stakeholders. Stakeholder groups are broadly classified to include governments, technical community and academia, private sector and civil society. With each stakeholder representing diverse and often conflicting interests, creating a consensus process that goes beyond a set of rules and practices promising a seat at the negotiation table and is supportive of broad public interest is a challenging task that needs urgent addressing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This post aims to add to the discourse on defining the role and scope of stakeholders' decision-making powers, towards a better understanding of the term "in their respective role". Addressing the complexity of functions in managing and running the Internet and the diversity of stakeholders that are affected and hence should be included in decision making, I have limited the scope of my analysis to cover three broad internet management functions:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Technical: Issues related to infrastructure and the management of critical Internet resources</li>
<li>Policy: Issues relating to the developmental aspects, capacity building, bridging digital divide, human rights</li>
<li>Implementation: Issues relating to the use of the Internet including jurisdictional law, legislation spam, network security and cybercrime </li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While this may be an oversimplification of complex and interconnected layers of management and coordination, in my opinion, broad categorisation of issues is necessary, if not an ideal starting point for the purpose of this analysis. I have considered only the submissions categorised under the theme of Roadmap, seeking commonalities across stakeholder groups and regions on the role of stakeholders and their participation in the three broad functions of technology, policy and implementation<b>. </b></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Towards a definition of respective roles: Analysis NETmundial submissions on Roadmap</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were a total of 44 submissions specific to Roadmap with civil society (20) contributing more than any other group including academia (7), government (4), technical community (5), private sector (3) and other (5). MSism sees support across most stakeholder groups and many submissions highlight or agree on participation and inclusion in decision making processes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Regionally, submissions from North (24) were dominated by USA (10) with contributions cutting across academia (4), civil society (2), technical community (2) and other (2). Brazil (5) contributed the most to submissions from South (15), followed by Argentina (3). The submissions were consistent with the gender disparity prevalent in the larger technology community with only 12 females contributing submissions. An overwhelming number of submissions (38), thought that the multistakeholder (MS) model needs further definition or improvements, however, suggestions on how best to achieve this varied widely across stakeholders and regional boundaries. Only 16 submissions referenced or suggested Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in its present capacity or with an expanded policy role as a mechanism of implementing MSism on the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many submissions referred <b>to issues related to the management of critical internet resources (CIRs)</b>, the role of ICANN and US oversight of IANA functions. A total of 11 submissions referred to or specified governance processes with respect to technical functions and issues related to critical resources with civil society (5) and academia (3) contributing the most. In an area that perhaps has the most direct relevance to their work, the technical community was conspicuous with just two submissions making any concrete recommendations. The European Commission was the only governmental organisation that addressed this issue, recommending an expansion of the role of IGF. There were no specific recommendations from the private sector.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The suggestions on oversight and decision making mechanism were most conflicted for this category of Internet functions and included:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>setting up a technical advisory group, positioned within a new intergovernmental body <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/files/305.pdf">World Internet Organization (WIO)</a> framework;</li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96">splitting IANA functions</a> into protocol parameters, that Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) will be responsible for and IP address-related functions retained by ICANN </li>
<li>expanding the role of IGF, possibly creating an <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/cybersecurity-related-international-institutions-an-assessment-and-a-framework-for-nations-strategic-policy-choices/264">IGF Secretariat</a></li>
<li>expanding the role of <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-icann/109">Government Advisory Committee (GAC)</a> to mainstream government representatives participation within supporting organisations, in particular the Generic Name Supporting Organisation (GNRO)</li>
<li>expanding the role of <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/cybersecurity-related-international-institutions-an-assessment-and-a-framework-for-nations-strategic-policy-choices/261">private sector</a> </li>
<li>expanding the role of ICANN with multistakeholder values</li>
<li>expanding the role of <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-ecosystem-naming-and-addressing-shared-global-services-and-operations-and-open-standards-development/243">all stakeholders</a> </li>
<li>implementing changes that <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-and-the-future-of-the-internet/291">do not necessarily require legislative acts</a> or similar hard law approaches and implementation does not necessitate international treaties or intergovernmental structures</li>
<li>establishing a new non-profit corporation <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96">DNS Authority (DNSA)</a> combining the IANA Functions and the Root Zone Maintainer roles in </li>
<li>improving <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/evolution-and-internationalization-of-icann/263">transparency and accountability of current bodies</a> managing CIRs</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">16 submissions referred to <b>issues related to policy development and implementation </b>including developmental aspects, capacity building, bridging digital divide and human rights. All submissions called for a reform or further definition of MSism and included recommendations from civil society (5), academia (4), technical community (2), governments (2), private sector (1) and Other (2). All stakeholder groups across regions, unanimously agreed that all stakeholders within their respective role should have a role in decision making and within public policy functions. There was however, no broad consensus on the best way to achieve this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specific recommendations and views captured on who should be involved in policy related decision making and what possible frameworks could be developed included:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>improving <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/bottom-up-oversight-in-multistakeholder-organizations/237">existing intergovernmental organizations</a></li>
<li>creating <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65">Internet Ad Hoc Group</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65">modularization of ICANN’s functions</a> </li>
<li>creating a <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution/153">stewardship group IETF, ICANN and the RIRs</a></li>
<li>creating an <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution/153">independent IANA</a> as an International NGO with host country agreements governed by its MOUs-defined by the IANA Stewardship Group prior to the signing of MOUs with IANA Partners</li>
<li>creating a <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164">'new body'</a> to develop international level public policies in concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies; and facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements</li>
<li>responsibility of the definition of these policies rests within the <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-future-development-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/196">States as an inalienable right</a></li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/bottom-up-oversight-in-multistakeholder-organizations/237">continuity of bottom-up oversight</a> enables a better view of an organization and thus better accountability as government oversight will destroy multistakeholder character</li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/dsci-submission-on-roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-internet-governance-ecosystem/256">evolving global governance norms</a> that separate DNS maintenance from policies on TLDs, as well as public policies that intersect with nations’ rights to make them</li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/cybersecurity-related-international-institutions-an-assessment-and-a-framework-for-nations-strategic-policy-choices/261">policy makers incrementally develop formal and informal relationships</a></li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/apc-proposals-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/280">dealing with conflict of interest and ensuring pluralism</a></li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/iis-contribution-on-internet-governance-ecosystem-and-roadmap/288">full multi-stakeholder framework</a> including possible establishment of Working Groups where all parties concerned are represented</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">18 submissions referred to <b>issues related to the implementation of standards </b>including issues relating to the use of the Internet including jurisdiction, law, legislation, spam, network security and cybercrime. All submissions called for a reform or further definition of MSism values and included recommendations from civil society (8), academia (3), technical community (3), governments (2), private sector (1) and other (1). Stakeholders from academia (5), civil society (3) and government (1) collectively called for the reform of ICANN guided by multistakeholder values, but did not specify how this reform would be achieved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specific recommendations on the improvements of institutional frameworks and arrangements for issues related to implementation of standards included:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>establishment of double system of arbitrage/settlement placed under <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-next-best-stage-for-the-future-of-internet-governance-is-democracy/305">World Internet Forum (WIF)</a> scrutiny and under the neutral oversight and arbitrage of the UN general secretariat</li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/from-forum-to-net-nations/292">new legal instruments</a> in establishing MS model need to be adopted</li>
<li>establishment of the <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164">Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board (ITOAB)</a> replace the US government's current oversight role </li>
<li>multilateral frameworks with <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/dsci-submission-on-roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-internet-governance-ecosystem/256">oversight role of governments</a> </li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In summation, the classification of Internet functions discussed above, presents a very broad view of complex, dynamic and often, interrelated relationships amongst stakeholder groups. However, even within these very broad categories there are various interpretations of how MSism should evolve.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To come back to the very beginning of this post, NETmundial is an important step towards a global policy framework for Internet governance. This is the first meeting outside formal processes and it is difficult to know what to expect, partly as the expectations are not clear and range widely across stakeholders. Whatever the outcome, NETmundial's real contribution to Internet Governance has been sparking anew, the discourse on multistakeholderism and its application on the Internet through the creation of a spontaneous order amongst diverse actors and providing a common platform for divergent views to come together.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-roadmap-defining-roles-of-stakeholders-in-multistakeholderism'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-roadmap-defining-roles-of-stakeholders-in-multistakeholderism</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-28T12:51:40ZBlog EntryNETmundial and Suggestions for IANA Administration
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-and-suggestions-for-iana-administration
<b>Following NTIA's announcement to give up control over critical Internet functions, the discussion on how that role should be filled has gathered steam across the Internet governance space.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This post maps the discussion across the NETmundial submissions and presents six emerging evolution scenarios related to the IANA functions:</p>
<ol>
<li>Separation of IANA from policy/ICANN, control of IANA to a multilateral body</li>
<li>Separation of IANA from policy/ICANN, control of IANA to a non-multilateral body</li>
<li>No separation of IANA from policy/ICANN, control of IANA to a multilateral body</li>
<li>No separation of IANA from policy/ICANN, control of IANA to a non-multilateral body</li>
<li>Multiplication of TLD registries and root servers</li>
<li>Maintenance of status quo</li>
</ol><ol> </ol>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">I. Separation of IANA from policy/ICANN, control of IANA to a multilateral body</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposal under this category demands for the separation of IANA function from technical policy making, and suggests that the IANA function be transferred to an intergovernmental body.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Such proposal is listed below:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Sl.No.</th><th>Proposal No.</th><th>Name of Proposal</th><th>Organization</th><th>Sector</th><th>Region</th><th>Link</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>186</td>
<td>The Next Best Stage for the Future of Internet Governance is Democracy</td>
<td>Global Geneva</td>
<td>Civil Society</td>
<td>Geneva, Switzerland</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-next-best-stage-for-the-future-of-internet-governance-is-democracy/305">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-next-best-stage-for-the-future-of-internet-governance-is-democracy/305</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This proposal by Global Geneva seeks the establishment of an intergovernmental organisation called World Internet Organisation (WIO), under which IANA (which is understood to be essentially technical and concerning safety and security of the Internet would be located. WIO would additionally have a special link/status/contract with IANA to avoid unwanted interference from governments. A 75% majority at WIO would be requested to act/modify/contest an IANA decision, making it difficult for governments to go beyond reasonable and consensual demands. WIO would act in concert with World Internet Forum, under which ICANN would be located, whereby it would make policy decisions regarding gTLDs apart from its other present functions.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">II. Separation of IANA from policy/ICANN, control of IANA to a non-multilateral body</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are certain proposals whereby it is proposed that IANA function should be separated from technical policy making, or ICANN, and IANA function, which is perceived to be a purely administrative one in such submissions, should be handed over to some sort of non-multilateral organisation, which take different forms in each proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most such submissions have emerged from the civil society or the technical community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet Governance Project submission envisions the creation of a DNS Authority under whose umbrella IANA would function. The DNS Authority would be separate from ICANN. This proposal has been endorsed by the submissions of InternetNZ as well as Article 19 and Best Bits. Avri Doria’s submission, along with the submission of APC, envisions the establishment of an independent IANA, separate from the technical policy function. Such independence is sought to be preceded by a transition period by a body called IANA Stewardship Group which would be constituted mostly by members from the technical community. IANA is sought to be governed via MoUs with all stakeholders, on the same lines as the MoU between ICANN and the IETF, as described in RFC2860, RFC6220. The focus of these MoUs would not be policy but will be on performance and adherence to service level agreements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These submissions are listed below:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Sl. No.</th><th>Proposal No.</th><th>Name of Proposal</th><th>Organisation</th><th>Sector</th><th>Region</th><th>Link</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>Roadmap for Globalising IANA: Four Principles and a Proposal for Reform</td>
<td>Internet Governance Project</td>
<td>Civil Society</td>
<td>North America</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>26</td>
<td>Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem- ICANN</td>
<td>Article 19 and Best Bits</td>
<td>Civil Society<br /></td>
<td>Global</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-icann/109">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-icann/109</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>Content Contribution to NetMundial on the Roadmap for the Futher Evolution of the IG Ecosystem regarding the Internationalisation of the IANA Function</td>
<td>InternetNZ</td>
<td>Technical Community</td>
<td>New Zealand</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/content-contribution-to-netmundial-on-the-roadmap-for-the-futher-evolution-of-the-ig-ecosystem-regarding-the-internationalisation-of-the-iana-function/130">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/content-contribution-to-netmundial-on-the-roadmap-for-the-futher-evolution-of-the-ig-ecosystem-regarding-the-internationalisation-of-the-iana-function/130</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>One Possible Roadmap for IANA Evolution</td>
<td>Avri Doria, Independent Researcher</td>
<td>Other</td>
<td>USA</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution/153">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution/153</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>162</td>
<td>APC Proposals for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem</td>
<td>Association for Progressive Communications (APC)</td>
<td>Civil Society</td>
<td>APC is an international organisation with its executive director's office in South Africa</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/apc-proposals-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/280">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/apc-proposals-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/280</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">III. No separation of IANA from policy/ICANN, control of IANA to a multilateral body</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These submissions propose that the IANA function should come under a multilateral body. However they do not suggest the separation of IANA function from policymaking, or from ICANN; or they are at least silent on this latter issue. 2 such proposals come from the civil society and 2 from the government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A list of these submissions is provided below:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Sl. No.</th><th>Proposal No.</th><th>Name of Proposal<br /></th><th>Organisation</th><th>Sector</th><th>Region</th><th>Link</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>Roadmaps for Further Evolution of Internet Governance</td>
<td>Association for Proper Internet Governance</td>
<td>Civil Society</td>
<td>Switzerland</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>45</td>
<td>Russian Parliament Submission to NET mundial</td>
<td>State Duma of the Russian Federation (Parliament of the Russia)</td>
<td>Government</td>
<td>Russian Federation</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/themes/133">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/themes/133</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>121</td>
<td>Contribution from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Global Multiskaeholder (sic) Meeting for the Future of the Internet, 23-24 April 2014 Sao Paulo, Brazil</td>
<td>Cyber Space National Center, Iran</td>
<td>Government</td>
<td>Islamic Republic of Iran</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-from-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-to-the-global-multiskaeholder-meeting-for-the-future-of-the-internet-23-24-april-2014-sao-paolo-brazil/236">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-from-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-to-the-global-multiskaeholder-meeting-for-the-future-of-the-internet-23-24-april-2014-sao-paolo-brazil/236</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>125</td>
<td>Towards Reform of Global Internet Governance</td>
<td>The Society for Knowledge Commons</td>
<td>Civil Society</td>
<td>India and Brazil</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-reform-of-global-internet-governance/240">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-reform-of-global-internet-governance/240</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IV. No separation of IANA from policy/ICANN, control of IANA to a non-multilateral body</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These submissions do not consider the issue of separation of IANA function from policymaking, or ICANN, or at least do not state an opinion on the separation of IANA function from ICANN. However, they do suggest that the control of IANA should be held by a non-multilateral body, and not the US Government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many of these submissions also suggest that the oversight of ICANN should be done by a non-multilateral body, therefore it makes sense that the IANA function is administered by a non-multilateral body, without its removal from the ICANN umbrella.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A list of such submissions is provided below:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Sl.No.</th><th>Proposal No.</th><th>Name of Proposal</th><th>Organisation</th><th>Sector</th><th>Region</th><th class=" tt_icon_asc">Link</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>46</td>
<td>Norwegian Contribution to the Sao Paulo Meeting</td>
<td>Norwegian government</td>
<td>Government</td>
<td>Norway, Europe</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/norwegian-government/137">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/norwegian-government/137</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>Contribution from the GSM Association to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance</td>
<td>GSMA</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>Global</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-from-the-gsm-association-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/141">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-from-the-gsm-association-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/141</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>Contribution of Telefonica to NETmundial</td>
<td>Telefonica, S.A.</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>Spain</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-of-telefonica-to-netmundial/143">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-of-telefonica-to-netmundial/143</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>56</td>
<td>ETNO Contribution to NETmundial</td>
<td>ETNO [European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association]</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>Belgium</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/etno-contribution-to-netmundial/148">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/etno-contribution-to-netmundial/148</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>61</td>
<td>French Government Submission to NETmundial</td>
<td>French Ministry of Foreign Affairs</td>
<td>Government</td>
<td>France</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/french-government-submission-to-netmundial/154">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/french-government-submission-to-netmundial/154</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6</td>
<td>63</td>
<td>Nominet Submission on Internet Governance Principles and the Roadmap</td>
<td>Nominet</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>UK</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/nominet-submission-on-internet-governance-principles-and-the-roadmap/156">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/nominet-submission-on-internet-governance-principles-and-the-roadmap/156</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7</td>
<td>64</td>
<td>Submission by AHCIET to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. NETmundial</td>
<td>AHCIET</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>Latin America</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/submission-by-ahciet-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance-netmundial/157">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/submission-by-ahciet-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance-netmundial/157</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>8</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>Spanish Government Contribution to the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance</td>
<td>Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, Spain</td>
<td>Government</td>
<td>Spain</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/multistakeholder-human-rights-stability-gac/165">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/multistakeholder-human-rights-stability-gac/165</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem</td>
<td>European Commission</td>
<td>Government</td>
<td>Europe</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>Roadmap for the Future Development of the Internet Governance Ecosystem</td>
<td>Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina</td>
<td>Government</td>
<td>Argentina</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-future-development-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/196">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-future-development-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/196</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>Orange Contribution for NETmundial</td>
<td>Orange Group</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>Deputy to the Chief Regulatory Officer Orange Group</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/orange/199">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/orange/199</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12</td>
<td>106</td>
<td>Submission on Internet Governance Principles and Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem</td>
<td>Kuwait Information Technology Society</td>
<td>Civil Society</td>
<td>Kuwait</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/kuwait-information-technology-society-kits-submission-on-internet-governance-principles-and-roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/214">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/kuwait-information-technology-society-kits-submission-on-internet-governance-principles-and-roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/214</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13</td>
<td>111</td>
<td>Content Submission by the Federal Government of Mexico</td>
<td>Secretara de Comunicaciones y Transportes, Mexico</td>
<td>Government</td>
<td>Mexico</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/content-submission-by-the-federal-government-of-mexico/219">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/content-submission-by-the-federal-government-of-mexico/219</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14</td>
<td>114</td>
<td>Better Understanding and Co-operation for Internet Governance Principles and Its Roadmap</td>
<td>Japan Internet Service Providers Association</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>Japan</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/better-understanding-cooperation-for-internet-governance-principles-its-roadmap/222">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/better-understanding-cooperation-for-internet-governance-principles-its-roadmap/222</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15</td>
<td>116</td>
<td>Deutsche Telekom’s Contribution for to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance</td>
<td>Deutsche Telekom AG</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>Germany / Europe</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/deutsche-telekom-s-contribution-for-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/225">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/deutsche-telekom-s-contribution-for-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/225</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>16</td>
<td>148</td>
<td>NRO Contribution to NETmundial</td>
<td>NRO (for AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE-NCC)</td>
<td>Technical Community</td>
<td>Mauritius</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/nro-contribution-to-netmundial/259">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/nro-contribution-to-netmundial/259</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>17</td>
<td>146</td>
<td>Evolution and Internationalisation of ICANN</td>
<td>CGI.br- Brazilian Internet Steering Committee</td>
<td>Other</td>
<td>Brazil</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/evolution-and-internationalization-of-icann/263">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/evolution-and-internationalization-of-icann/263</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>18</td>
<td>176</td>
<td>Addressing Three Prominent “How To” Questions on the Internet Governance Ecosystem Future</td>
<td>Luis Magalhes, Professor at IST of University of Lisbon, Portugal; Panelist of ICANN’s Strategy Panel on the Role in the Internet Governance System</td>
<td>Academia</td>
<td>Portugal</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/addressing-three-prominent-how-to-questions-on-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-future/294">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/addressing-three-prominent-how-to-questions-on-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-future/294</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>19</td>
<td>183</td>
<td>NETmundial Content Submission- endorsed by NIC Mexico</td>
<td>NIC Mexico</td>
<td>Technical Community</td>
<td>Mexico</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/netmundial-content-submission-endorsed-by-nic-mexico/302">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/netmundial-content-submission-endorsed-by-nic-mexico/302</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">V. Multiplication of TLD registries and Root Servers</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These submissions are based on the assumption that reform in the current ICANN/IANA administrative structure is impossible as the US government is unlikely to give up its oversight role over both. Instead, these submissions suggest that multiple TLD registries and root servers should be created as alternatives to today’s IANA/ICANN so that a healthy market competition can be fostered in this area, rather than fostering monopoly of IANA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A list of such submissions is provided below:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Sl.No.</th><th>Proposal No.</th><th>Name of Proposal</th><th>Organisation</th><th>Sector</th><th>Region</th><th>Link</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>41</td>
<td>Internet Governance: What Next?</td>
<td>EUROLINC</td>
<td>Civil Society</td>
<td>France, Europe</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-what-next/129">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-what-next/129</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>175</td>
<td>The Intergovernance of the InterPLUS</td>
<td>INTLNET</td>
<td>Civil Society</td>
<td>France</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-intergovernance-of-the-interplus/293">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-intergovernance-of-the-interplus/293</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>VI. Maintenance of status quo</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These submissions are based on the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” principle, and are of the opinion that there is no need to change the administration of IANA function as it functions efficiently in the current system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A list of such submissions is provided below:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Sl.No.</th><th>Proposal No.</th><th>Name of Proposal</th><th>Organisation</th><th>Sector</th><th>Region</th><th>Link</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>United Kingdom Government Submission</td>
<td>Department For Culture Media and Sport, United Kingdom Government</td>
<td>Government<br /></td>
<td>Government</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/united-kingdom-government-submission/79">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/united-kingdom-government-submission/79</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>133</td>
<td>Perspectives from the Domain Name Association</td>
<td>Domain Name Association</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td>Private Sector</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/perspectives-from-the-domain-name-association/249">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/perspectives-from-the-domain-name-association/249</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p>Read more on <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-iana-role-structures" class="internal-link">ICANN/IANA: Role and Structural Considerations</a> (PDF Document, 1215 Kb)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-and-suggestions-for-iana-administration'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-and-suggestions-for-iana-administration</a>
</p>
No publishersmarikaICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-23T04:00:49ZBlog EntryCIS Statement at ICANN 49's Public Forum
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement
<b>This was a statement made by Pranesh Prakash at the ICANN 49 meeting (on March 27, 2014), arguing that ICANN's bias towards the North America and Western Europe result in a lack of legitimacy, and hoping that the IANA transition process provides an opportunity to address this.</b>
<p>Good afternoon. My name is Pranesh Prakash, and I'm with the Yale Information Society Project and the Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p>I am extremely concerned about the accountability of ICANN to the global community. Due to various decisions made by the US government relating to ICANN's birth, ICANN has had a troubled history with legitimacy. While it has managed to gain and retain the confidence of the technical community, it still lacks political legitimacy due to its history. The NTIA's decision has presented us an opportunity to correct this.</p>
<p>However, ICANN can't hope to do so without going beyond the current ICANN community, which while nominally being 'multistakeholder' and open to all, grossly under-represents those parts of the world that aren't North America and Western Europe.</p>
<p>Of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars, 624 are from the United States, and 7 from the 54 countries of Africa. In a session yesterday, a large number of the policies that favour entrenched incumbents from richer countries were discussed. But without adequate representation from poorer countries, and adequate representation from the rest of the world's Internet population, there is no hope of changing these policies.</p>
<p>This is true not just of the business sector, but of all the 'stakeholders' that are part of global Internet policymaking, whether they follow the ICANN multistakeholder model or another. A look at the boardmembers of the Internet Architecture Board, for instance, would reveal how skewed the technical community can be, whether in terms of geographic or gender diversity.</p>
<p>Without greater diversity within the global Internet policymaking communities, there is no hope of equity, respect for human rights -- civil, political, cultural, social and economic --, and democratic funtioning, no matter how 'open' the processes seem to be, and no hope of ICANN accountability either.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIANAIG4allInternet GovernanceAccountabilityICANNNorth vs South2014-06-04T05:31:44ZBlog Entry