The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 42.
Solutions for Enabling Cross-border Data Flows
https://cis-india.org/news/solutions-for-cross-border-data-flows
<b>ICC BASIS and the Internet Society are co-organising a workshop at the IGF (Baku - 7 November 2012 - 14:30 to 16:00) to explore solutions for enabling cross-border data flows. Malavika Jayaram is a panelist.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was published by<a class="external-link" href="http://www.internetsociety.org/solutions-enabling-cross-border-data-flows-igf2012"> Internet Society</a>. For details published on the IGF website, see <a class="external-link" href="http://http//wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no86-solutions-enabling-cross-border-data-flows">here</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>BRIEF OVERVIEW</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet has revolutionised our ability to communicate and share data beyond national boundaries, thereby facilitating cross-border social and commercial interactions. Enabling cross-border data flows, however, raises a number of important Internet governance policy considerations for a broad range of stakeholders, such as business, intermediaries, users, law enforcement agencies, governments, policymakers and the wider Internet technical community. In this context, the workshop will explore policy issues, from various stakeholder perspectives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The dynamic panel of experts will provide a wide range of perspectives for this discussion and explore concrete solutions and options for enabling cross-border data flows. This is an important opportunity to raise awareness about the practical and the policy realities raised by these issues. It will also be an opportunity to share concrete issues, experiences, possible approaches and solutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MODERATOR</b><br /> Jeff Brueggeman, Vice President-Public Policy & Deputy Chief Privacy Officer, AT&T</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>PANELLISTS</b><br /> Joseph Alhadeff, Chief Privacy Strategist, Vice President, Global Public Policy, Oracle<br /> Maria Häll, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, Sweden<br /> Malavika Jayaram, Partner, Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore<br /> Christine Runnegar, Senior Policy Advisor, Internet Society<br /> Ivan Sanchez Medina, Member of the Columbian National Telecommunications Commission, CRC</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>LEAD DISCUSSANTS</b><br /> Olga Cavalli, Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina<br /> Christoph Steck, Chief Regulatory Officer, Telefonica (TBC)<br /> Kevin Bankston, Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director, Center for Democracy & Technology</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>REMOTE MODERATOR</b><br /> Constance Weise, ICC BASIS</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>SUBSTANTIVE RAPPORTEUR </b><br /> Karen Mulberry, Policy Advisor, Internet Society</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/solutions-for-cross-border-data-flows'>https://cis-india.org/news/solutions-for-cross-border-data-flows</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-12-07T22:42:35ZNews ItemBest Bits 2012
https://cis-india.org/news/best-bits
<b>Best Bits organized a workshop at the IGF. It was held on November 3 and 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash and Elonnai Hickok participated in the event.</b>
<h2>Agenda</h2>
<h3>Day 1, Saturday, November 3, 2012</h3>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>9.00 - 10.45</td>
<td><b>Internet governance history and review</b>
<ul>
<li>Mapping Internet governance – institutions and actors</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Last 20 years of Internet governance: ITU, ISOC, WSIS and IGF</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> Last 2 years – ACTA, SOPA/PIPA and online activism eg. StopTheMeter.ca, government assertions of sovereignty over IG</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> Southern perspectives on global Internet governance</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.00 - 12.45</td>
<td>
<p><b>The ITU and the International Telecommunications Regulations</b></p>
<ul>
<li>What are the real dangers of the proposed ITR revisions?</li>
<li>Remaining opportunities for input into the WCIT process</li>
<li>How to engage with your national delegation to the ITU</li>
<li>Beyond WCIT – WTPF, WTSA, IMPACT, and the Dedicated Group</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12.45 - 14.00</td>
<td><b>Lunch and networking break</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12.00 - 17.30</td>
<td>
<p><b>Drafting a civil society statement to WCIT</b></p>
<div id="magicdomid51">
<ul>
<li>Draws together points of consensus</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid52">
<ul>
<li>Defines the legitimate role of the ITU</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid53">
<ul>
<li>Judges it against the WSIS criteria</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid54">
<ul>
<li>Refers to statement on IG principles</li>
</ul>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Day 2, Sunday, November 4, 2012</h3>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>9.00 - 10.30</td>
<td>
<p><b>Declarations of Internet rights and Internet governance principles</b></p>
<div id="magicdomid59">
<ul>
<li>Background to Internet principles declarations 1999 to 2012</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid60">
<ul>
<li>Declaration of Internet Freedom – first and second iterations</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid61">
<ul>
<li>Other current initiatives – “rival” Declaration, Marco Civil, etc.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid62">
<ul>
<li>Respective advantages of consolidation and maintaining diversity</li>
</ul>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10.45 - 12.15</td>
<td>
<p><b>Process towards enhanced cooperation on Internet public policy issues</b></p>
<div id="magicdomid66">
<ul>
<li>If not the ITU, then what?</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid67">
<ul>
<li>The global vacuum on Internet-related public policy issues</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid68">
<ul>
<li>Likely scenarios (favourable or not) if the vacuum is not filled</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid69">
<ul>
<li>Discussion of reform proposals – Committee on Internet Related Policies, Enhanced Cooperation Task Force</li>
</ul>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12.15 - 13.00</td>
<td><b>Lunch and networking break</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.00 - 16.00</td>
<td>
<p><b>Drafting civil society IG principles for the IGF</b></p>
<div id="magicdomid75">
<ul>
<li>Development of existing statements</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid76">
<ul>
<li>Reinforces multi-stakeholder approach</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid77">
<ul>
<li>Suggests roadmap for improved implementation of enhanced cooperation</li>
</ul>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>16.15 - 17.45</td>
<td>
<p><b>Next steps</b></p>
<div id="magicdomid81">
<ul>
<li>Making an inclusive civil society network on IG issues sustainable</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid82">
<ul>
<li>Other existing civil society+ networks – Internet Defence League, Internet Governance Caucus, Global Network Initiative, CSISAC, OpenMedia network, Internet Progress Administration</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="magicdomid83">
<ul>
<li>Recap of upcoming events and campaigns for possible joint action</li>
</ul>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Participants</p>
<ul>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-11">Alejandro Pisanty <a href="http://pisanty.blogspot.com"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Professor at UNAM, Mexico. Chair of ISOC Mexico. Former member of WGIG, IGF MAG, ISOC Board of Trustees, ICANN Board of Directors."></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-32">Andrew Puddephatt <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Global Partners"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-51">Anja Kovacs <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Internet Democracy Project"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-47">Anna Orlova <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Humboldt Universität zu Berlin"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-40">Anriette Esterhuysen <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Association for Progressive Communications"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-37">Antonio Medina Gomez <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Gobernanza de Internet Colombia"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-38">Arthit Suriyawongkul <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Thai Netizen Network"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-44">Ashnah Kalemera <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-16">Avri Doria <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="dotgay"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-74">bdelachapelle </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-18">Brett Solomon <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Access (accessnow.org)"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-55">Carlos Alberto Afonso <a href="http://www.nupef.org.br"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-2">Claudio Ruiz <a href="http://www.derechosdigitales.org/"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-31">Deborah Brown <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Access (www.Accessnow.org)"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-25">Dixie Hawtin <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Global Partners & Associates"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-78">Donny B U </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-35">Elonnai Hickok <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Centre for Internet and Society"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-7">Emma Llanso <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Policy Counsel, Center for Democracy & Technology"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-61">Fouad Bajwa <a href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Public Policy Analysis, Research and Advocacy."></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-22">Gene Kimmelman <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Global Partners & Associates"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-27">Iarla Flynn <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Google"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-36">Imran Ahmed Shah <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-1">Jeremy Malcolm <a href="http://A2Knetwork.org/"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Senior Policy Officer, Consumers International"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-43">Joana Varon Ferraz <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV)"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-29">Jochai Ben-Avie <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Access (AccessNow.org)"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-28">Joonas Mikael Mäkinen <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Electronic Frontier Finland"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-6">Joy Liddicoat <a href="http://rights.apc.org"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-30">Katitza Rodriguez <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="EFF"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-20">Kevin Bankston <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Center for Democracy & Technology"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-65">LAURA ABBA </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-23">matthew shears <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="CDT - Center for Democracy and Technology"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-48">Mawaki Chango <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Association for Progressive Communications"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-39">Michael Gurstein <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-15">Nnenna Nwakanla </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-8">Norbert Bollow <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Swiss Open Systems User Group /ch/open"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-24">Parminder Jeet Singh <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="IT for Change, India"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-34">Pranesh Prakash <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Centre for Internet and Society"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-21">Premila Kumar <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Consumer Council of Fiji"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-26">Raquel Gatto <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="NIC.br"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-17">Rashmi Rangnath <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Public Knowledge"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-62">Sanja_Kelly </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-53">Shahzad Ahmad <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Bytes for All, Pakistan"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-52">Shita Laksmi <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Hivos"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-66">STEFANO TRUMPY </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-49">Stephanie Borg Psaila <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="DiploFoundation"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-77">Sylwia Rudnik <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="ISOC Poland Chapter Ambassador"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-33">Tapani Tarvainen <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Electronic Frointier Finland"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-41">Theresa Züger <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Humboldt Inistute for Internet and Society"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-19">Valeria Betancourt <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Association for Progressive Communications"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-9">William Drake <a href="http://williamdrake.org"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="William J. Drake is an International Fellow and Lecturer in the Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research at the University of Zurich, as well as a consultant, based in Geneva. Current activities include serving as co-editor of the MIT Press book series, The Information Revolution and Global Politics; an elected representative of noncommercial users on the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, and on the Board of Directors of the European At Large Organization, in the Internet Corporation for Names and Numbers; a member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum; a member of the Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; a member of the Group of High-Level Advisors of the UN Global Alliance for ICT and Development; a core faculty member in the European and South Schools on Internet Governance; a founding member of Global Internet Governance Academic Network and the civil society Internet Governance Caucus; and an Affiliated Researcher of the Institute for Tele-Information at Columbia University. In December 2012, he will serve on the US delegation to ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications treaty negotiation. Some previous positions held include, Senior Associate of the Centre for International Governance at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva; President of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility; Senior Associate and Director of the Project on the Information Revolution and World Politics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; founding Associate Director of the Communication, Culture and Technology Program at Georgetown University; and Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of California, San Diego. Some previous activities have included serving as a member of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance; Working Group 1 of the UN Information and Communication Technologies Task Force; and the World Economic Forum Task Force on the Global Digital Divide. Drake received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University. Some of his publications include: Editor, Internet Governance: Creating Opportunities for All---The Fourth Internet Governance Forum (United Nations, 2010); Co-Editor, Governing Global Electronic Networks: International Perspectives on Policy and Power (MIT Press, 2008); Editor, Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (United Nations, 2005); and Editor, The New Information Infrastructure: Strategies for US Policy (Century Foundation, 1995)."></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-46">Wolfgang Kleinwächter </li>
</ul>
<h3>Attending Remotely</h3>
<ul>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-50">AHM Bazlur Rahman <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-81">Alex Comninos <a href="http://comninos.org"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Doctoral Candidate, Department of Geography, Justus-Liebig University Giessen"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-68">Baudouin SCHOMBE <a href="http://akimambo.unblog.fr"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-56">chaitanyabd </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-59">cveraq </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-80">De </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-70">encels </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-75">Fatima Cambronero </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-63">ganda <a href="https://me.yahoo.com/a/NT_ueU1w18ryXb5juaCg6wfMhQ--#cbcd9"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-72">Hanane </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-13">Hindenburgo Francisco Pires <a href="http://www.cibergeo.org"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-71">Jorge Gonzalez </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-60">Julian Casasbuenas G. <a href="http://www.colnodo.apc.org"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-67">Lorna Tingu Makuma </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-54">Narine Khachatryan <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Media Education Center, Armenia"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-76">natienciso </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-42">Pitshou Bulembi Ndongala <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="Groupe de Recherche-Action pour le Développement Intégral"></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-58">richaraix </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-73">rohanjay <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-64">Siranush Vardanyan </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-14">Sonigitu Asibong Ekpe <a href="http://www.crossriverstate.gov.ng"><img src="http://bestbits.igf-online.net/wp-content/themes/expo18/img/icons/0093.png" /></a> <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="I am from Nigeria, currently working with the Cross River State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources as a Senior Fisheries Officer with an ad-hoc duty as a Project Support Officer [Agriculturist] in the Cross River Farm Credit Scheme. I hold an M.Sc degree in Forestry and Environmental Management A great advocate for Global Governance, with the Internet serving as a basis to supporting the move from MANIPULATED / GROUPTHINK POWER to COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE POWER and ultimately to PUBLIC WISDOM POWER, from the "></span> </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-79">Susan Coughtrie </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-57">thierrys </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-69">vinsolo </li>
<li class="author-profile" id="user-45">Virginia Paque <span class="add-tooltip with-icon" title="DiplpFoundation"></span> </li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/best-bits'>https://cis-india.org/news/best-bits</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-12-06T06:46:17ZNews ItemCloudy Jurisdiction: Addressing the thirst for Cloud Data in Domestic Legeal Processes
https://cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes
<b>Elonnai Hickok was a panelist at this workshop held at the IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 7, 2012. The workshop was co-organised by Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru) and University of Ottawa.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The use of cloud services is rising globally. Cloud computing and storage are uniquely tailored to take full advantage of our increasingly networked environment. However, a move to the cloud also entails tangible challenges as vast repositories of information once kept within the sacrosanct safety of the home computer are placed on a remote server in the control of a third party. While the protections of home storage and processing can be replicated in the cloud, legal norms have been slow to adopt. Jurisdiction, the classic internet governance question, is raised in particularly stark contrast in the move to the cloud, as placing user data can subject that data to the legal access laws of any (or even many) jurisdictions in the world.</p>
<p>While there are indicators that such data is being accessed at increasing and alarming rates, globally, yet even the dimensions of the problem remain obscure. What is needed is a set of shared international norms relating to transparency, data sovereignty and lawful access to private information. In recent years, however, International forums have appeared much more eager to adopt international standards for data access (be it to combat cybercrime, secure critical infrastructure, or help intellectual property holders uncover alleged infringers of their rights) than for data sovereignty. Standards need to be developed that will provide a basis for the special challenges to cross-jurisdictional privacy that the move to the cloud highlights. This panel will examine the need for such a cross-jurisdictional framework, what one might look like, and, importantly, how one might bring such a framework about where the issue appears to be a low priority for many national governments.</p>
<p><b>Agenda</b><br /> The objective of this panel is to attempt to resolve some of the trans-border threats to civil liberties that are posed by the move to the cloud. If a baseline of privacy protection can be assured at the international level, concerns over limiting data flows on the basis of jurisdiction will be alleviated. This panel will be divided into two parts. The first part will discuss some of the challenges raised by the cloud environment for traditional civil liberties paradigms. The discussion in part two will be solution-driven—what rules can be put in place at the international level to alleviate the heightened risk to privacy and other civil liberties raised by a cloud-centric model.</p>
<p><b>Part 1: Cloud-based threats to cross-border civil liberties</b> (45 mins)<br /> This part will discuss some of the challenges to civil liberties arising from a cross-border cloud-based environment. The panel will be further sub-divided into 25-30 minutes of panelist input, followed by 15-20 minutes of general discussion. Panelists will be asked to spend 3-5 minutes highlighting what they view as the most pressing of these challenges may be.</p>
<p>This might include specific recurring problems that have arisen in many comparable online contexts, as they relate to the cloud such as, for example:</p>
<ul>
<li> legal obligations to build in intercept capacity into Internet services (compare CALEA 2.0 efforts in US, Lawful Access in Canada, and domestic server obligations such as those imposed on RIM by India and others in order to facilitate access to data that is encrypted in transit). </li>
<li> Concerns that many legal regimes permit voluntary conduct without adequate safeguards for political pressure on companies, particularly smaller businesses, to comply with requests. </li>
<li> Inability to challenge surveillance laws because the programs are shrouded in secrecy, because individuals are never made aware they have been surveilled, because of standing issues, etc. </li>
<li> Ability for ‘one-stop access’: cloud centralizes mass amounts of data in one place. This concentration as well as a general erosion of traditional criteria designed to ensure surveillance is targeted in a way that impacts minimally on the general populace. </li>
<li> Nascent suggestions of informal information sharing arrangements through MLATs and less transparent more informal arrangements. </li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Part 2: Adopting protections at the International level</b> (45 mins.)<br /> The discussion in Part 2 will focus on how some of these problems can be addressed at the international level by adoption of a set of principled protections designed to meet the realities of online and specifically cloud services. The focus is on problem resolution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Format for Part 2 will mirror that of Part 1. Panelists will be provided with 3-5 minutes each and asked to present their views on one or two solutions that can be adopted at the international level to the problems presented in part 1. The remainder (20-25 minutes) will be dedicated to general discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is hoped that the discussion will explore specific protections that might be adopted at the international level, how to advance those solutions, and what strategies can generally advance these objectives, on the advocacy front, by use of transparency tools to increase awareness of some of the issues.</p>
<p>Questions to think about:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Historically, interception of communications received the strongest protection at law, but it relied to a great extent on the act of interception coinciding with the communication itself. Should we be expanding this to other means of communications?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Do we have effective mechanisms to immunize private organizations from political pressure to voluntarily share information? Particularly, a lot of small companies can now have a lot of information. Are they well equipped to resist political pressure</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Does the content/traffic data distinction still hold? Do we need a new framework for analysing the types of data produced as a natural byproduct of our online activities?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Can the MLAT regime form the basis for ensuring fundamental rights are respected in legitimate cross-border surveillance activities? If so, what would it take to have it reflect a baseline of protections?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Is it feasible to develop and formally adopt detailed limitations on state access at the international or regional level?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Is cloud-based info susceptible to unauthorized state access in new ways? Is this something the law can fix (mandate encryption in storage or other safeguards)? Social engineering concerns?</li>
</ol>
<p><b>Background Reading:</b></p>
<ul>
<li> The Draft International Principles on Surveillance & Human Rights: <a href="http://necessaryandproportionate.org/">http://necessaryandproportionate.org/</a></li>
<li> Global Network Initiative, "Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy", <a href="http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf">http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf</a></li>
<li> I. Brown & D. Korff, “Digital Freedoms in International Law”, GNI 2012, <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/Digital%20Freedoms%20in%20International%20Law.pdf">http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/Digital%20Freedoms%20in%20International%20Law.pdf</a></li>
<li> J. McNamee, “Internet Intermediaries: The New Cyberpolice?”, GIS Watch, <a href="http://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/gisw_-_internet_intermediaries_-_the_new_cyber_police_.pdf">http://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/gisw_-_internet_intermediaries_-_the_new_cyber_police_.pdf</a></li>
<li> A. Escudero-Pascal & G. Hosein, "The Hazards of Technology-Neutral Policy: Questioning Lawful Access to Traffic Data", (2004) 47(3) ACM 77, <a href="http://web.it.kth.se/%7Eaep/PhD/docs/paper6-acm-1905-reviewed_20021022.pdf">http://web.it.kth.se/~aep/PhD/docs/paper6-acm-1905-reviewed_20021022.pdf</a></li>
<li> HRC, “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights”, April 2008, A/HRC/8/5, <a href="http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf">http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf</a></li>
<li> HRC, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework”, March 2011, A/HRC/7/31, <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf">http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf</a></li>
<li> ACLU, “New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance”, Sept 2012, <a href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase">http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Organiser(s) Name:</p>
<ul>
<li> Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru)</li>
<li> Tamir Israel, Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), University of Ottawa (Canada)</li>
</ul>
<p>Previous Workshop(s):</p>
<ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=66" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=66">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a></li>
<li> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=160" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=160">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Submitted Workshop Panelists:</p>
<p><b>Chair:</b> Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation; (US/Peru) (Civil Society) / Confirmed</p>
<ul>
<li> Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute (EU) (Academic) / Confirmed</li>
<li> Bertrand de la Chapelle, Program Director at International Diplomatic Academy (EU) (Civil Society) / Confirmed</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "> Marc Crandall, Global Compliance, Google (US) (Private Sector)</li>
<li> Elonnai Hickok, Policy Associate, Centre for Internet & Society (India) (Civil Society) /Confirmed</li>
<li> Sophie Kwasny, Head of Data Protection Unit, Data Protection & Cybercrime Division, Council of Europe (IGO) / Confirmed</li>
<li> Bruce Schneier, Chief Security Technology Officer of BT (US) (Private Sector) / Confirmed</li>
<li> Wendy Seltzer, Policy Counsel, W3C (US) (Technical Community) / Confirmed</li>
</ul>
<p>Name of Remote Moderator(s): Paul Muchene, iHub Nairobi (Kenya) (Private Sector) Assigned Panellists: <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/de-la-chapelle-bertrand">de La Chapelle - Bertrand</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/rodriguez-katitza">Rodriguez - Katitza</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/brown-ian">Brown - Ian</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/schneier-bruce">Schneier - Bruce</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/kwasny-sophie">KWASNY - Sophie</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/seltzer-wendy">Seltzer - Wendy</a> <a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/crandall-marc">Crandall - Marc</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes'>https://cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-12-09T01:00:49ZNews ItemThe Privatisation of Censorship: The Online Responsibility to Protect Free Expression
https://cis-india.org/news/privatisation-of-censorship
<b>Pranesh Prakash was a panelist at this workshop organised on November 5, 2012. It was organized by Index on Censorship.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Much is known about state censorship, but increasingly private corporations are implementing censorship either at the behest of governments, or as part of a ‘walled garden’ approach. This censorship takes many guises: whether the proactive take-down of entirely legal material, the blocking of websites by overly zealous ISPs, mobile filters that cut access to websites such as Index on Censorship and the use of surveillance technology on behalf of autocratic states. The combination of state-led censorship with the privatisation of censorship requires a debate on the responsibilities of corporations and the framework needed to protect free expression online.<br /><br />This side session will focus on two key areas:<br />1. Take-down, blocking and filtering of content<br />2. The export of surveillance technology, privacy<br /><br />The panel will explore the ways in which the above can affect free expression online, and how civil society, governments and corporations can and should approach these issues, addressing the following questions:<br /><br />1. Whether, why and in what ways censorship and surveillance is either as or more pervasive, intrusive and chilling than offline, and the impact on free speech and press freedom?<br />2. The inappropriate, intrusive or excessive use of filters and firewalls including how these impact directly and indirectly on access to media and the nature of news provision<br />3. Criminalisation of free speech and free expression – chilling use of takedown requests (impacting on public online debates, on media freedom including investigative journalism), and constraints on comment and debate (twitter, trolls, comment threads etc);<br />4. Excessive and blanket surveillance and data-gathering<br />5. Regulations and laws including intermediary responsibility that curtail digital free speech<br /><br />Chair:<br />Michael Harris, Head of Advocacy, Index on Censorship<br /><br />Panelists:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Dr Hosein Badran, Regional Chief Technology Officer, Cisco Systems International, covering MENA</li>
<li>Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society</li>
<li>Abhilash Nair, Northumbria University, UK</li>
<li>Camino Manjon Sierra, International Relations Policy Officer, Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission</li>
<li>Andrew Puddephatt, Global Partners and Associates</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/privatisation-of-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/news/privatisation-of-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-12-09T01:48:13ZNews ItemNew Trends in Industry Self-Governance
https://cis-india.org/news/new-trends-in-industry-self-governance
<b>Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK and Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland and Nominet, UK is organising this workshop on November 7, 2012 at the seventh annual IGF meeting to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan. This workshop will be held in Conference Room 2, from 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists at this workshop. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Concise description of the proposed workshop</b>:<br />Informal rule setting still plays a significant role in Internet governance. Non-governmental governance can occur at two levels: by shared rules negotiated through bodies like ICANN, and via private ordering by individual firms with significant market power. This panel will explore these two levels drawing on research into ICANN and two recent cases: the Google Books [non-] settlement, and several governments’ demands that service providers such as Research In Motion and Facebook give local law enforcement agencies access to user communications. <br /> <br /> Google’s project to digitize, index, and later to sell access to large numbers of out-of-print books is a leading example of an Internet-triggered shift from public to private regulation and the declining authority of copyright law. It triggered a major international controversy encompassing three class action lawsuits, a proposed and subsequently amended settlement by the litigating parties, more than 400 filings by class-members and "friends of the court" (including the French and German governments), two court hearings, various conferences, innumerous blog entries and articles. A New York federal district court ultimately rejected a proposed settlement between Google and representatives of book authors and publishers, stating that the issues would be “more appropriately decided by Congress than through an agreement among private, self-interested parties."<br /> <br /> While almost all states allow law enforcement agencies to intercept Internet communications, the growing use of encryption has restricted access to in-transit communications and social networking data. The governments of India and several Middle Eastern nations have all pressed Research In Motion to allow police access to BlackBerry encrypted messages, threatening otherwise to shut down services. RIM has installed local servers in several countries to meet these demands. The Indian government is reportedly now looking at encrypted services provided by Google and Skype. These and other online services, often hosted in the US, receive frequent requests from foreign law enforcement agencies for user data. Such requests have no statutory force, but may be voluntarily granted under US law – raising questions about user privacy and the oversight of this access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These cases have much wider implications for other Internet services and users around the world. The proposed workshop will facilitate a multi-stakeholder exploration of these implications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Four researchers will give precise, provocative five-minute opening statements on the key lessons for Internet rule setting from these cases. Each speaker will pose three specific questions on the accountability, viability and efficiency of these governance structures. These questions will kick-off roundtable discussion between the panelists from government, civil society, business and the technical community. The objective will be to draw out further lessons in how the public interest can best be protected in informal Internet governance processes, with contributions and questions from workshop and remote participants.representing official positions.</p>
<p><b>Background Paper</b>:</p>
<p><b>Name of the organiser(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups:</b><br />Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford<br /> William Drake, University of Zurich Business, technical community, Civil Society, government co-sponsors in process (TBD)</p>
<p><b>Have you, or any of your co-organisers, organised an IGF workshop before?</b>: Yes<b><br />Please provide link(s) to workshop(s) or report(s):</b><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=84"><br />http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=84</a></p>
<p><b>Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to invite:</b><br />Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore<br />Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford (Moderator)<br />William Drake, University of Zurich<br />Jeanette Hoffman, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin<br />Emily Taylor, Independent Consultant, UK<br />Rolf Weber, University of Zurich<br />Google representative TBC<br />Government representative TBC</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/new-trends-in-industry-self-governance'>https://cis-india.org/news/new-trends-in-industry-self-governance</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-10-04T11:37:54ZNews ItemGoverning Identity on the Internet
https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet
<b>Security, openness and privacy will be discussed at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 on November 8, 2012 from 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. Malavika Jayaram, a fellow at CIS is one of the panelists confirmed for participation.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Concise Description of Workshop:</b><br />From single-sign-on identifiers for federated websites to Whois data associated with Internet resources, countless individuals, business and government organizations have a stake in Internet identity information and its governance. While territorially-based governments have historically played a central role in their citizens' identity, it is private service providers and individual users that might be considered the de facto managers of Internet identity information. Private, rule-based arrangements (e.g., “trust frameworks”) have emerged in many industry sectors to help manage Internet identity transactions. Nonetheless, many states are actively pursuing digital identity efforts (OECD 2011), including the United States government's National Strategy for Trusted Identity in Cyberspace (NSTIC) which is standing up a governance body and the European Commission's proposed regulation on electronic identification and trusted services for electronic transactions. These efforts seek to promote greater adoption and interoperability of Internet identity solutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What are the appropriate roles of governments, the private sector and individuals in Internet identity? Are there benefits or risks of various Internet identity governance solutions being proposed? How compatible are they with the transnational nature of the Internet? Which stakeholders will determine the standards and policies for how Internet identity information is created, transmitted, utilized, or protected? This workshop, drawing on expertise from business, technical community, civil society and government actors, explores this active yet under examined area of Internet governance. The format of the workshop will include short position statements from the panelists followed by a question and answer session facilitated by a moderator involving the audience.</p>
<p><b>Organiser(s) Name:</b></p>
<ul>
<li>Brenden Kuerbis, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University</li>
<li>Christine Runnegar, Internet Society</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Previous Workshop(s):</b><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9"><br />http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9</a> <a href="http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23" title="http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23">http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23</a> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10">http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10</a> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=76" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=76">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono...</a> <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&wspid=147" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010View&wspid=147">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a></p>
<p><b>Submitted Workshop Panelists:</b><br />The following panelists have been confirmed for participation:</p>
<ul>
<li>Naomi Lefkovitz, Senior Privacy Advisor, National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace National Program Office, NIST, United States Dept of Commerce (government) (bio [1])</li>
<li>Andrea Servida, Head of Task Force "Legislation Team (eIDAS)", European Commission (government) (bio [2])</li>
<li>Robin Wilton, Technical Outreach for Identity and Privacy, Internet Society (technical) (bio [3])</li>
<li>Malavika Jayaram, Fellow, Centre for Internet & Society</li>
<li>Mawaki Chango, Africa Internet Policy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications (academic/civil society) (bio [4])</li>
<li>Marc Crandall, Google (business)</li>
<li>Bill Smith, Technology Evangelist, Paypal (business) (bio [5])</li>
<li>Brenden Kuerbis, Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project (academic/civil society) (bio [6])</li>
</ul>
<p>[1] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88" title="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88</a> [2] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70" title="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70</a> [3] <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton" title="http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton">http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton</a> [4] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki" title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki">http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki</a> [5] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6" title="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6</a> [6] <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis" title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis">http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis</a></p>
<p><b>Name of Remote Moderator(s):</b></p>
<p>Frédéric Donck, European Regional Bureau Director, Internet Society</p>
<p><b>Assigned Panellists:</b><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/crandall-marc"><br />Smith - Bill<br />Servida - Andrea<br />Jayaram - Malavika<br />Lefkovitz - Naomi<br />Wilton - Robin<br />Kuerbis - Brenden<br />Chango - Mawaki<br />Crandall - Marc</a></p>
<p>Read the original published on the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals">IGF website</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet'>https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-10-04T09:06:59ZNews ItemCivil rights in the digital age, about the impact the Internet has on civil rights
https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals
<b>Malavika Jayaram, fellow of CIS is a panelist at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 in Azerbaijan.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The freedom of internet is increasingly causing heated debate . On the one hand the internet is the embodiment of freedom literally crossing all borders, on the other hand governments more and more think of curtailing e.g. social media when these are used to organize criminal activities. Governments in some countries restrict access to the internet or censor information even before their citizens go online. As a matter of fact the internet in Iran and China has already become an ‘intranet’. But also in the UK there is a growing body of public opinion that is in favor of more supervision of social media. When will the influence of this medium have become so strong that it, in certain situations, could be considered a danger to society? Will supervision then be a solution? Unique is the research carried out by D66-member of the European Parliament Marietje Schaake into internet freedom all over the world. The research should lead to a resolution on civil rights in our digital era. The report is expected to be finished sometime around the IGF in November. Subjects treated are trade, human rights, development, safety and the like. The report will contain a number of concrete suggestions both for businesses and for governments, so as on the one hand to expand opportunities with the help of technology, but also to limit possible risks.</p>
<p>Short program:</p>
<ul>
<li>Introduction:</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Each panelist has 2 minutes to introduce him/herself and make one statement on the topic.</p>
<ul>
<li>Open discussion:</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is followed by an open discussion between panelist and the audience, fed and led by moderator Robert Guerra.</p>
<ul>
<li>Recommendations:</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">15 minutes before the end of the workshop, recommendations, emerged from the open discussion, will be put to word.</p>
<p>Organiser(s) Name:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ECP on behalf of the IGF-NL (ECP | Platform for the Information Society wants to take barriers for the implementation and acceptance of ICT away to the benefit of our economy and society, and in order to strengthen our international competitive position. In addition, ECP (also at a political-governmental level) draws attention to a number of specific themes such as growth of productivity, strengthening of competitiveness and the European Digital Agenda. One of it programs is the public-private partnership NL IGF. NL IGF prepairs for the IGF and provides good embedding of the results of the IGF in national policy) Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & innovation Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hivos, the Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation</p>
<p>Previous Workshop(s):</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">NL IGF organized : 2010: Public-private cooperation on Internet safety/cybercrime <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=172" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=172">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a> 2011: Parliamentarian Challenge: a Round Table between Parliamentarians and other Stakeholders <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=125" title="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=125">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...</a></p>
<p>Submitted Workshop Panelists:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Marietje Schaake</b> (Euro parliamentarian D66)<br /> <b>Lionel Veer </b>(Dutch Human Rights Ambassador)<br /> <b>Hanane Boujemi</b> (Diplo Foundation and upward of this autumn she will work for Hivos on it’s program 'Internet Govenance for the Mena region'.)<br /> <b>Malavika Jayaram</b> (Fellow of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (India), assisting on projects and matters relating to IT law, data protection and privacy. She is also working on a Ph.D. on data protection and privacy laws, with a special focus on the new identity project launched in India. Malavika has over 15 years experience as a lawyer with a focus on technology and intellectual property.)<br /> <b>Emin Milli</b> (an Azerbaijani writer)<br /> <b>Moderator: Robert Guerra </b>(a Canadian independent consultant specializing in issues of Internet Freedom, Internet Governance and Human Rights)<br /> Front row: two Dutch students (both male and female)</p>
<p>All speakers mentioned above have confirmed their participation.</p>
<p>Name of Remote Moderator(s):</p>
<p>Sophie Veraart, NL IGF – ECP</p>
<p>Assigned Panellists:</p>
<p><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/veer-lionel">Schaake - Marietje</a><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/boujemi-hanane"><br />Veer - Lionel<br /></a><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/jayaram-malavika">Boujemi - Hanane</a><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/milli-emin"><br />Jayaram - Malavika</a><a href="http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/2012/panellist/guerra-robert"><br />Milli - Emin<br />Guerra - Robert</a></p>
<p>Read the original published on the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals">IGF website</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals'>https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-10-04T08:50:16ZNews ItemIndia's Statement Proposing UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp
<b>This is the statement made by India at the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, in which its proposal for the UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy was presented.</b>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>66th Session of the UN General Assembly</h2>
<h2>New York. October 26, 2011.<br /></h2>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Agenda Item 16: Information and Communications</h2>
<h2>Technologies for Development (ICT): Global Internet Governance</h2>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Statement by India<br /></h2>
<p><br />Mr. Chairman,<br /><br />We thank the Secretary-General for his report on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, contained in document A/66/77, which provides a useful introduction to the discussions under this agenda item.<br /><br />As a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and democratic society with an open economy and an abiding culture of pluralism, India emphasizes the importance that we attach to the strengthening of the Internet as a vehicle for openness, democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, diversity, inclusiveness, creativity, free and unhindered access to information and knowledge, global connectivity, innovation and socio-economic growth.<br /><br />We believe that the governance of such an unprecedented global medium that embodies the values of democracy, pluralism, inclusion, openness and transparency should also be similarly inclusive, democratic, participatory, multilateral and transparent in nature.<br /><br />Indeed, this was already recognized and mandated by the Tunis Agenda in 2005, as reflected in paragraphs 34, 35, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 69 of the Agenda. Regrettably, in the six long years that have gone by, no substantial initiative has been taken by the global community to give effect to this mandate.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the internet has grown exponentially in its reach and scope, throwing up several new and rapidly emerging challenges in the area of global internet governance that continue to remain inadequately addressed. It is becoming increasingly evident that the Internet as a rapidly-evolving and inherently global medium, needs quick-footed and timely global solutions and policies, not divergent and fragmented national policies.<br /><br />The range and criticality of these pressing global digital issues that continue to remain unaddressed, are growing rapidly with each passing day. It is, therefore, urgent and imperative that a multilateral, democratic participative and transparent global policy-making mechanism be urgently instituted, as mandated by the Tunis Agenda under the process of ‘Enhanced Co-operation’, to enable coherent and integrated global policy-making on all aspects of global Internet governance.<br /><br />Operationalizing the Tunis mandate in this regard should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to “take over” or “regulate and circumscribe” the internet. Indeed, any such misguided attempt would be antithetical not only to the internet, but also to human welfare. As a democratic and open society that has historically welcomed outside influences and believes in openness to all views and ideas and is wedded to free dialogue, pluralism and diversity, India attaches great importance to the preservation of the Internet as an unrestricted, open and free global medium that flourishes through private innovation and individual creativity and serves as a vehicle for open communication, access to culture, knowledge, democratization and development.<br /><br />India recognizes the role played by various actors and stakeholders in the development and continued enrichment of the internet, and is firmly committed to multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, both at the national and global level. India believes that global internet governance can only be functional, effective and credible if all relevant stake-holders contribute to, and are consulted in, the process.<br /><br />Bearing in mind the need for a transparent, democratic, and multilateral mechanism that enables all stakeholders to participate in their respective roles, to address the many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by current mechanisms and the need for enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, India proposes the establishment of a new institutional mechanism in the United Nations for global internet-related policies, to be called the United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). The intent behind proposing a multilateral and multi-stakeholder mechanism is not to “control the internet’’ or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve universally acceptable, and globally harmonized policies in important areas and pave the way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and well-functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples’ lives everywhere.<br /><br />The CIRP shall be mandated to undertake the following tasks:</p>
<ol type="i"><li>Develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues;</li><li>Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;</li><li>Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies;</li><li>Address developmental issues related to the internet;</li><li>Promote the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development;</li><li>Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and,</li><li>Crisis management in relation to the Internet.</li></ol>
<p><br />The main features of CIRP are provided in the annex to this statement. In brief, the CIRP will comprise 50 Member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographical representation, and will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva. It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, inter-governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP. The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. CIRP will report directly to the General Assembly and present recommendations for consideration, adoption and dissemination among all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. CIRP will be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations; a separate Fund would be set up by drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies, in order to mainly finance the Research Wing to be established by CIRP to support its activities.<br /><br />Those familiar with the discourse on global internet governance since the beginning of the WSIS process at the turn of the millennium, will recognize that neither the mandated tasks of the CIRP, nor its proposed modalities, are new. The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) set up by the UN Secretary- General had explicitly recognized the institutional gaps in global internet governance and had proposed four institutional models in its report to the UN General Assembly in 2005. The contours of the CIRP, as proposed above, reflect the common elements in the four WGIG institutional models. While the excellent report of the WGIG was much discussed and deliberated in 2005, unfortunately, no concrete follow-up action was taken to give effect to its recommendations on the institutional front. We hope that this anomaly will be redressed at least six years later, with the timely establishment of the CIRP.<br /><br />In order to operationalize this proposal, India calls for the establishment of an open-ended working group under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of all Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek to fill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept of Enhanced Co-operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda.<br /><br />Thank you, Mr. Chairman.<br /><br /> ***<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Annex</h2>
<h3>The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP)</h3>
<p><br />The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) will have the following features:</p>
<p><strong>Membership</strong>: The CIRP will consist of 50 Member States of the United Nations, chosen/elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation. It will provide for equitable representation of all UN Member States, in accordance with established UN principles and practices. It will have a Bureau consisting of one Chair, three Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur.</p>
<p><strong>Meetings</strong>: The CIRP will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva, preferably in May/June, and convene additional meetings, as and when required. The UNCTAD Secretariat will provide substantive and logistical support to the CIRP by servicing these meetings.</p>
<p><strong>Multi-stakeholder participation</strong>: Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups – one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter-Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community - will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP. These Groups would be self-organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP. Their meetings will be held back-to- back with the meetings of the CIRP, so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP.</p>
<p><strong>Reporting</strong>: The CIRP will report directly to the UN General Assembly annually, on its meetings and present recommendations in the areas of policy and implementation for consideration, adoption and dissemination to all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. .</p>
<p><strong>Research Wing</strong>: The Internet is a rapidly-evolving and dynamic medium that throws up urgent and rapidly-evolving challenges that need timely solutions. In order to deal effectively and prudently with these emerging issues in a timely manner, it would be vital to have a well-resourced Research Wing attached to the CIRP to provide ready and comprehensive background material, analysis and inputs to the CIRP, as required.<strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Links with the IGF</strong>: Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the IGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP. An improved and strengthened IGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF.</p>
<p><strong>Budget</strong>: Like other UN bodies, the CIRP should be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations. In addition, keeping in view its unique multi-stakeholder format for inclusive participation, and the need for a well-resourced Research Wing and regular meetings, a separate Fund should also be set up drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the Internet, especially in terms of names and addresses.<br /><br />***</p>
<h3>Excerpts from the Tunis Agenda</h3>
<p><br />Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda defines Internet Governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”.<br /><br />Paragraph 35 reaffirms the respective roles of stakeholders as follows: “(a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues”. (b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical an economic fields. (c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. (d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. (e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.”<br /><br />While delineating the respective roles of stakeholders, Paragraph 56 recognizes the need for an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach by affirming that “The Internet remains a highly dynamic medium and therefore any framework and mechanisms designed to deal with Internet governance should be inclusive and responsive to the exponential growth and fast evolution of the Internet as a common platform for the development of multiple applications”.<br /><br />Paragraph 58 recognizes “that Internet governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, <em>inter alia</em>, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet”.<br /><br />Paragraph 59 further recognizes that “Internet governance includes social, economic and technical issues including affordability, reliability and quality of service”. Paragraph 60 further recognizes that “there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms”.<br /><br />Paragraph 61 of the Tunis Agenda therefore concludes that “We are convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organisations, in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified, thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangements in order to synergize the efforts in this regard”.<br /><br />Paragraph 69 further recognizes “the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues”.<br /><br />***</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2011-10-31T15:28:04ZBlog EntryInternet Governance Forum: Participate Remotely
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/igf-remote-participation
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) invites you to attend the sixth annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a remote participant from Bangalore. The IGF is being held in Nairobi from 27-30 September 2011. CIS has been registered as a remote IGF hub. This will allow many of us who are unable to attend the IGF in person. You can follow the discussion, watch the web cast of the event, follow real-time closed captioning and participate live (via text or video) that will be answered by panelists in the IGF. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum that
addresses public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. The overall
theme of the meeting will be ‘<strong>Internet as a Catalyst for Change: Access, Development,
Freedoms and Innovation</strong>'. The various themes are as follows:</p>
<ul><li>Internet Governance
for Development</li><li>Emerging Issues</li><li>Managing Critical
Internet Resources</li><li>Security, Openness
and Privacy</li><li>Access and Diversity</li><li>Taking Stock and the
Way Forward</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Abraham,
Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, will be
participating in the following workshops:</p>
<ul><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/events/digital-technologies-for-civic-engagement" class="external-link">Use
of Digital Technologies for Civic Engagement and Political Change: Lessons Learned
and Way Forward</a></li><li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=211">The
Impact of Regulation: FOSS and Enterprise</a></li><li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=75">Putting
Users First: How Can Privacy be Protected in Today’s Complex Mobile Ecosystem?</a></li><li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=219">Privacy,
Security, and Access to Rights: A Technical and Policy Analyses</a></li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Shyam Ponappa,
Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, will be presenting remotely for
the following workshop:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshops2011View&wspid=121">Open
Spectrum for Development in the Context of the Digital Migration</a></li></ul>
<p>Nishant
Shah, Director Research at Centre for Internet and
Society, has organized the following workshop:</p>
<ul><li><a>Use
of Digital Technologies for Civic Engagement and Political Change: Lessons
Learned and Way Forward</a></li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We are not limited to following specific workshops. Please follow
the link for more information on
workshops of your interest, program details and the schedule:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/schedule-a-programme-2011">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/schedule-a-programme-2011</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Participation is free. However, we would be grateful if you could
confirm your attendance by emailing Natasha Vaz “n<a href="mailto:atasha@cis-india.org">atasha@cis-india.org</a> or Tom Dane at
“<a class="external-link" href="mailto:tjdane@gmail.com">tjdane@gmail.com</a>”. We hope you will join us to watch the web cast and
contribute your own insights on the various workshops.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Looking
forward to welcoming you at the workshops!</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/igf-remote-participation'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/igf-remote-participation</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2011-09-27T05:09:56ZEventReport on the Fourth Internet Governance Forum for Commonwealth IGF
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-fourth-IGF
<b>This report by Pranesh Prakash reflects on the question of how useful the IGF is in the light of meetings on the themes of intellectual property, freedom of speech and privacy.</b>
<p>The first Internet Governance Forum was held in Athens in 2006, as a follow on to the 2005 Tunis World Summit on the Information Society, and to fulfil the principles drawn up at there. Its explicit objective is to “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes”. Those principles still form the basis of the talks that happen at the IGF, and are frequently referred to by the various groups that attend the IGF as the basis for their positions and claims. Sometimes, some of the values promoted by the principles are claimed by opposing groups (child safety vs. freedom of expression). Thus, in a way the negotiation of those principles were what really set the tone for the IGF, which in and of itself is a process by which those principles could be furthered. The one question that formed part of people’s conversations through the fourth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) at Sharm el Sheik, as it had in third IGF at Hyderabad, and no doubt ever since the first edition, was “How<br />useful is the IGF?” This report shall reflect on that question, particularly based on the workshops and meetings that happened around the themes of intellectual property, freedom of speech, and privacy.</p>
<p>There are not many meetings of the nature of the IGF. It is not a governmental meeting, though it is sponsored by the United Nations. It is not a meeting of civil society groups, nor of academics nor industry. It is a bit like the Internet: large and unwieldy, allowing for participation of all while privileging those with certain advantages (rich, English-speaking), and a place where a variety of interests (government, civil society, academia and industry) clash, and where no one really has the final word. While the transformational potential of the Internet and the World Wide Web have been felt by a great many, the potential of the Internet Governance Forum is still to be felt. This report, in part, seeks to present an apology of the IGF process, though it is the belief of this reporter that it could do with a few modifications.</p>
<h3>DAY 0 (Saturday, November 14, 2009)</h3>
<p>This reporter arrived with his colleagues at Sharm el Sheik late in the afternoon on Saturday, November 14, 2009, with the IGF set to begin the next day. Though we had been advised to register that evening itself, the fatigue of travel (in the case of my colleagues) and the requirement of purchasing new clothes to replace those in the suitcase that had been lost (in my case) kept us from doing so.</p>
<h3>DAY 0 (Sunday, November 15, 2009)</h3>
<p>The IGF began on Sunday, November 15, 2009, with a large delay. The registration desks seemed to have a bit of difficulty handling the number of people who were pouring in for registration that morning. By the time this reporter was done with registration, the first set of workshops were already under way, and nearing completion, leaving not much time before the commencement of Workshop 361 (Open Standards: A Rights-Based Framework), which was being organized by this reporter.</p>
<p>That workshop had as speakers Sir Tim Berners-Lee (World Wide Web Consortium), Renu Budhiraja (Department of IT, Government of India), Steve Mutkoski (Microsoft), Rishab Ghosh (UNU-MERIT), and Sunil Abraham (Centre for Internet and Society), with Aslam Raffee (Sun Microsystems, formerly with the Government of South Africa) chairing the session thus representing government, industry, civil society, and academia. The theme of the workshop (rights-based framework for open standards) was explored in greatest depth by Tim Berners-Lee, Sunil Abraham, and Rishab Ghosh, while Renu Budhiraja and Steve Mutkoski decided to explore the fault-lines, and the practicalities of ensuring open standards (as well as the interoperability, e-governance, and other promises of open standards). Rishab Ghosh pointed out that while a government could not make it a requirement that your car be a Ford to be granted access to the parking lot of the municipality, it often made such arbitrary requirements when it came to software and electronic access to the government.</p>
<p>Open standards, most of the panellists agreed, had to be royalty-free, and built openly with free participation by anyone who wished to. This model, Sir Tim pointed out, was what made the World Wide Web the success that it is today. This would ensure that different software manufacturers could ensure interoperability which would encourage competition amongst them; that all governments -- even the less developed ones -- would have equal access to digital infrastructure; that citizen-government and intragovernment interaction would be made much more equitable and efficient; and that present-day electronic information would be future-proofed and safeguard against software obsolescence.</p>
<p>Renu Budhiraja in a very useful and practically-grounded presentation pointed out some of the difficulties that governments faced when deciding upon definitions of “open standards”, as well as the limited conditions under which governments may justify using proprietary standards. She spoke of the importance of governments not following the path laid out by market forces, but rather working to lead the market in the direction of openness. Governments, she reminded the audience, are amongst the foremost consumers of software and standards, and have to safeguard the interests of their citizens while making such decisions. Steve Mutkoski challenged the audience to not only think about the importance of open standards, but also think of the role it plays in ensuring efficient e-governance. Standards, he contended, are but one part of e-governance, and that often the reason that e-governance models fail are not because of standards but because of other organizational practices and policies. Pointing to academic studies, he showed that open standards by themselves were not sufficient to ensure</p>
<p>Sunil Abraham pointed out examples of citizens’ rights being affected by lack of open standards, and pointed out the concerns made public by ‘right to information’ activists in India on the need they perceived for open standards. He also pointed out an example from South Africa where citizens wishing to make full use of the Election Commission’s website were required to use a particular browser, since it was made with non-standard proprietary elements that only company’s browser could understand. Since that browser was not a cross-platform browser like Firefox, users also had to use a particular operating system to interact with the government. The session ended with a healthy interaction with the audience.</p>
<p>The importance of having this discussion at the IGF was underscored by Rishab Ghosh who noted that issues of defining and choosing technical standards are often left to technical experts, while they have ramifications much further than that field. That, he opined, is the reason that discussing open standards at a forum like the IGF is important. A more complete report of this workshop may be found at <http://cis-india.org/advocacy/openness/blog/dcos-workshop-09>.</p>
<p>Post the workshop was the opening ceremony which had Mr. Sha Zukang, U.N. Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, Tarek Kamel, the Egyptian Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Dr. Ahmed Nazif, the Prime Minister of Egypt, Tim Berners-Lee, and Jerry Yang. The theme of this year’s IGF was the rather unwieldy “access, diversity, openness, security, and critical Internet resources”. The spread of the Internet, as noted by Sha Zukang, is also quite revealing: In 2005, more than 50% of the people in developed regions were using the Internet, compared to 9% in developing regions, and only 1% in least developed countries. By the year 2009, the number of people connecting in developing countries had expanded by an impressive 475 million to 17.5%, and by 4 million in LDCs to 1.5%, while Internet penetration in developed regions increased to 64%. All in all (Jerry Yang pointed out), around 1.6 billion people, or about 25 per cent of the world, is online. Mr. Kamel noted that “the IGF has<br />proved only over four years that it is not just another isolated parallel process but it has rather managed to bring on board all the relevant stakeholders and key players”.</p>
<p>Of importance in many of the speeches were the accountability structures of the Internet due to the Affirmation of Commitment that the U.S. Department of Commerce signed with ICANN, and the growing internationalisation of the World Wide Web due to ICANN’s decision to allow for domain names in multiple languages. Tim Berners-Lee again pointed out the need to keep the Web universal, and in particular highlighted the role that royalty-free open standards play in building the foundations of the World Wide Web. Other than small remarks, privacy and freedom of expression did not really figure greatly in the opening ceremony. Jerry Yang, through his talk of the Global Net Initiative, was the one who most forcefully pointed out the need for both online. The Prime Minister of Egypt, in passing, pointed out the need to safeguard intellectual property rights online, but that note was (in a sense) countered by Sir Tim’s warning about the limiting effect of strong intellectual property would have on the very foundations of the World Wide Web and the Internet.</p>
<h3>DAY 2 (Monday, November 16, 2009)</h3>
<p>On the second day was begun by attending the Commonwealth IGF Open Forum. This open forum was most enlightening as in it one truly got to see Southern perspectives on display. Speakers (both on the dais as well as from the audience) were truly representative of the diversity of the Commonwealth, which presently includes 54 states and around 2.1 billion people (including 1.1 billion from India). Issues of concern included things such as the lack of voice of whole regions like East and West Africa in the international IG policy-making arena. Some of the participants noted that issues such as music piracy, which is a favourite topic of conversation in the West, is of no relevance to most in Africa where the pressing copyright- related issues those of education, translation rights, etc. One participant noted that “Intellectual property issues need developing countries to speak in one voice at international fora; the Commonwealth IGF might allow that.”</p>
<p>A number of people also brought up the issue of youth, and pointing towards children as both the present and the future of the Internet. This attitude also showed up in the session that was held later that day at Workshop 277 (IGF: Activating and Listening to the Voice of Tweens) in which not only were youth and IG issues discussed, but the discussion was also by youth. The formation of the new Dynamic Coalition on Youth and Internet Governance with Rafik Dammak as the coordinator also underlines the importance of this issue which came up at the CIGF open forum.</p>
<p>Other concerns were that of sharing ICT best practices and examples, and the need to urgently bridge the rural-urban divide that information and communication technologies often highlight, and sometimes end up precipitating. This divide is, in many ways, similar to the divide between developing and developed nations, and this point was also highlighted by many of the participants. One strength that the CIGF has as a platform, which the IGF possibly lacks, is the commonality of the legal systems of most of the Commonwealth countries, and hence the possibility that arises of joint policy-making. It was heartening to see that British Parliamentarians, apart from bureaucrats from many countries, were in attendance. This strong focus on developing countries and Southern perspective is, this reporter believes, one of the strengths of the CIGF, which needs to be pushed into the global IGF.</p>
<p>The next workshop attended was Workshop 92: A Legal Survey of Internet Censorship and Filtering, which was organized by UNESCO. A large number of very interesting people presented here, and panellists included IFLA/Bibliotheca Alexandrina (whose Sohair Washtawi was surprisingly critical of the Egyptian government), UNESCO (Mogens Schmidt), Freedom House (Robert Guerra), and Frank La Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression. What came of this workshop was the need to engage with to study the online state of freedom of expression as fully as “offline” state of press freedoms are studied, as an interesting fact that came out of this workshop was that there are currently more online journalists behind bars around the world than traditional journalists. A critique of the Freedom House’s online freedom report, which was not sufficiently voiced at the workshop itself, is that it represents a very Western, state-centric idea of freedom of speech and expression, and often looks at the more direct forms of censorship (state censorship) rather than private censorship (via advertising revenue, copyright law, and “manufactured consent”) and self-censorship. This reporter also intervened from the audience to point out that copyright is often a way of curbing freedom of speech (as was the case with the newspaper scholarly reprints of Nazi-era newspapers in Germany recently, or with the Church of Scientology wishing<br />to silence its critics). The panellists, including Mogens Schmidt and Frank La Rue agreed, and responded by noting that this dimension of copyright requires greater reflection by those groups involved in promoting and safeguarding freedom of speech and expression both online and offline.</p>
<p>The time before the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards was spent listening to Bruce Schneier, Marc Rotenberg, Frank La Rue, Namita Malhotra, and others at the Openness, Security and Privacy Session. Bruce Schneier, one of the most astute and insightful thinkers on issues of security and privacy, focussed on a topic that anyone who reads his blog/newsletters would be familiar with: that openness, security and privacy are not really, contrary to popular perception, values that are inimical to each other. Mr. Schneier instead sees them as values that complement each other, and argued that one cannot ensure security by invading privacy of citizens and users. He noted that “privacy, security, liberty, these aren’t salient. And usually whenever you have these sort of non-salient features, the way you get them in society is through legislation.” On the same note, he held the view that privacy should not be a saleable commodity, but an inalienable fundamental right of all human beings (a position that Frank La Rue agreed with).</p>
<p>Apart from the traditional focus area of states, there was also a lot of focus on corporations and their accountability to their users. On the issue of corporations versus states, Frank La Rue made it clear that he believed the model that some corporations were advocating of first introducing technologies into particular markets, expanding, and then using that to push for human rights, was not a viable model. Human rights, he reiterated, were not alienable, and stated: “You [internet companies] strengthen democracy and democratic principles and then you bring up the technology. Otherwise, it will never work, and it is a self defeating point.”</p>
<p>The meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards was next. This meeting served as a ground to build a formal declaration from Sharm el Sheik for DCOS. The meeting was held in the room Luxor, the seating in which was rectangular, promoting a vibrant discussion rather than making some people “presenters” and the rest “audience”. Many of the members of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability were in attendance, seeing common purpose with the work carried out by DCOS. There was spirited discussion on how best to move from a formulation of open standards as “principles” to more citizen- centric “rights”. This shift, pointed out as an important one because they allow for claims to be made in a way that principles and concessions do not. One of the participants helped re-draft the entire statement, based on suggestions that came from him and the rest of the participants. This was, in a sense, the IGF’s multi-stakeholderism (to coin a phrase) at its best.</p>
<p>Because of the late ending to the DCOS meeting, this reporter arrived late for the Commonwealth IGF follow-up meeting. It seemed that the meeting took its time in finding its raison d’être. It was, for a long while, unclear what direction the meeting was headed in because the suggestions from the audience members were of different types: programmatic actionable items, general thematic focus area suggestions, as well as general wishlists. However, in the end, this came together and became productive thanks to the focus that the chairperson and the rapporteur brought to the discussion. Furthermore, it was a great opportunity to connect with the various young people who had been brought together from various backgrounds to attend the IGF by the CIGF travel bursary. It will be interesting to see the shape that CIGF’s future work takes.</p>
<h3>Day 3 (Tuesday, November 17, 2009)</h3>
<p>The first session attended on the third day was the meeting on “Balancing the Need of Security with the Concerns for Civil Liberties”. The speakers included Alejandro Pisanty (Workshop Chair), Wolfgang Benedek, Steve Purser, Simon Davies, and Bruce Schneier. Once again, the one point that everyone agreed on is that those pitting security against privacy are creating a false dichotomy, and that for security to exist, privacy must be safeguarded. Steve Purser pointed out that common sense takes a long while to develop and that we, as a human collective, have not yet developed “electronic common sense”. Simon Davies’ main point was that accountability must necessarily be appended to all breaches of privacy in the name of security. Indeed, he lamented that oftentimes the situation is such that people have to justify their invocation of privacy, though the state’s invocation of security to trample privacy does not require any such justification. Security, he pointed out, is not something that is justified by the government, judged by the people, and to which the government is held accountable for its breaches of civil liberties.</p>
<p>Bruce Schneier, as usual, was quite brunt about things. He noted that only identity-based security have anything to do with privacy, and that there are a great many ways of ensuring security (metal detectors in a building, locks in a hotel room) that do not affect privacy. At the meeting, this reporter made a comment noting that a lot of debate is happening at a theoretical level, and that while a lot of good ideas are coming out of that discussion, those ideas have to be translated into good systems of governance in countries like India. Some organizations internationally are trying to make human readable privacy signs such as the human readable copyright licences used by Creative Commons. Concerning citizens’ privacy, a lot of systems (such as key escrow) that have been discredited by knowledgeable people (such as Bruce Schneier) are still being considered or adopted by many countries such as India (where this blew up because of a perceived security threat due to RIM BlackBerry’s encryption). National ID schemes are also being considered in many countries, without their privacy implications being explored. In the name of combatting terrorism, unregistered open wireless networks are being made illegal in India. While there have been informed debates on these issues at places like the IGF, these debates need to find actual recognition in the governance systems. That translation is very important.</p>
<p>The next session this reporter attended was the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression of the Media on the Internet. Amongst the other items of discussion during the session, the site Global Voices Online was showcased, and many of the speakers gave their opinions on whether freedom of speech online required a new formulation of the rights, or just new applications of existing rights. The consensus seemed to be that tying up with the Internet Rights and Principles DC would be useful, but that the project need not be one of reformulation of existing rights, since the existing formulations (as found in a variety of international treaties, including the UDHR) were sufficient. One of the participants stressed though that it was important to extend freedom of press guarantees to online journalists (in matters such as defamation, or copyright violation, where news organizations might be granted protection over and above that which an ordinary citizen would receive). Citizen-led initiatives for circumventing censorship were also discussed.</p>
<p>Two very important points were raised during the Openness main session on Day 2 when someone noted that the freedom of expression was not only an individual right but it also a collective right: the right of peoples to express not only ideas but to express their cultures, their traditions, their language and to reproduce those cultures and languages and traditions without any limitation or censorship. This aspect of the freedom of expression finds much resonance in many Southern countries where collective and cultural rights are regarded as being as important as individual and civil-political rights. Secondly, Frank La Rue pointed out that freedom of speech and expression went beyond just giving out information and opinion: it extended to the right to receive information and opinion. Excessively harsh copyright regimes harm this delicate balance, and impinge on the free speech.</p>
<p>One of the issues that was not explored sufficiently was that of the changes wrought by the Internet on the issues raised by the participants. For instance, while there was much talk about defamation laws in many countries and their grave faults (criminal penalties, defamation of ideas and not just persons), there was no talk of issues such as forum-shopping that arises due to online defamation being viewable around the world with equal ease. Thankfully, the coordinators of the Dynamic Coalition urged people to register on the DC’s Ning site (http://dcexpression.ning.com) and keep the conversation alive there and on the DC’s mailing list.</p>
<p>The session held on Research on Access to Knowledge and Development, organized by the A2K Global Academy was most informative. It brought together many recent surveys of copyright law systems from around the world and their provisions for access to knowledge, including the Africa Copyright and Access to Knowledge project with which this reporter is very familiar. The three main focus areas of discussion were Access to Education (A2E), Open Source Software (OSS) and Access to Medicines (A2M). The best presentation of the day was that made by Carlos Affonso of FGV (Brazil) who made an impassioned case for access to knowledge in the developing world, showcasing many practical examples from Brazil. He noted that many of the examples he was showing were plainly illegal under Brazilian laws, which had very limiting limitations and exceptions. He showcased the usage of Creative Commons licensing, Technobrega music, usage of common ICT infrastructure (such as cybercafes), which are often only semi-legal, and the general acceptance of commons-based peer production. The conclusion of the Egyptian study was that more work is needed to expand access to educational materials, including expansion of the limitations and<br />exceptions to copyright law for educational purposes. The overall consensus of all the various studies was that open source software was playing a very useful and crucial role in promotion of access to knowledge, but pointed out that the main barrier that open source software was facing was that of anti-competitive practices and not something related to copyright law.</p>
<h3>Day 4 (Wednesday, November 18, 2009)</h3>
<p>On the last day, this reporter was a presenter in a workshop on the “Global State of Copyright and Access to Knowledge”. This session had the following panellists: Tobias Schonwetter, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town; Bassem Awad, Chief Judge at the Egyptian Ministry of Justice and IP Expert; Perihan Abou Zeid, Faculty of Legal Studies and International Relations, Pharos University; Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager, Centre for Internet and Society; Jeremy Malcolm, Project Coordinator, Consumers International; and Lea Shaver, Associate Research Scholar and Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School.</p>
<p>This workshop was the result of the merger of workshops proposed by the African Copyright and Access to Knowledge project, and by Consumers International (to showcase their IP Watch List). Lea Shaver noted that the purpose of copyright law is to encourage creativity and the diffusion of creative works, and not as an industrial subsidy. If copyright law gets in the way of creativity and access to knowledge, then it is in fact going against its purpose. She asserted that copyright law should be assessed by touchstones of access, affordability and participation. “Copyright shapes affordability and access because as the scope of rights expands, the more control is centralised and the less competition. It also shapes participation, because under current law the amateur who wants to build upon existing works is at a disadvantage, and risks running afoul of others’ rights.” Rent-seeking behaviour is what is driving the expansion that we see globally in the coverage of copyright law, and not the costs of production and distribution (which are ever becoming cheaper).</p>
<p>Dr. Abou Zeid noted that technology grants copyright holders (and even non-holders) great control over knowledge, and that strong safeguards are required against this control in the form of limitations to technological protection methods (TPMs). Further, copyright law must take advantage of the benefits offered by technology, such as distance education, granting access to the disabled, and must extend present day E&L to cover these as well. Tobias Schonwetter presented the findings of the ACA2K project, and noted that most countries granted greater protection to rights holders than international law required. Amongst the survey countries, none dealt with distance and e-learning, and only one (Uganda) dealt with the needs of the disabled. He hoped that the extended dissemination phase would assist other projects to build on ACA2K’s work. Thus, “legal systems worldwide are not meeting consumers’ needs for access to knowledge. A better legal system, the research suggests, would support non-commercial sharing and reuse of material, which in turn would drive down costs and increase sales of licensed material, and could also increase consumers’ respect for the law overall.”</p>
<p>The present reporter started by asking why this abstract phrase “access to knowledge” is so important. A2K actually effects almost all areas of concern to citizens and consumers: education, industry, food security, health, amongst many more areas. Mark Getty notes that “IP is the oil of the 21st century”. By creating barriers through IP, there is less scope for expansion and utilization of knowledge, and this most affect “IP poor” nations of the South. In India, there is a new copyright amendment that will introduce DRMs, even though India is not bound by international law to do so. There is also a very worrisome movement to pass state-level criminal statutes that class video pirates in the same category as “slum lords, drug peddlers and goonda”, which includes measures for preventative detention without warrant.</p>
<p>One tool to help change the mindsets of the public is the Consumers International IP Watch List, which can help policy makers and academics and advocates compare the best and worst practices of various countries. At an earlier session, Carlos Affonso of FGV had used the Watch List to demonstrate the weakness of Brazil’s copyright law on the educational front. Copyright is often characterised as a striking of balance between the interests of creators and consumers, but this rhetoric might be misplaced. In fact creators often benefit from freer sharing by users. Knowledge is an input into creation of works, not just an output from it. Given this, it is important to counter IP expansionism by using laws promoting freedom of speech, competition law, consumer law, privacy law, while framing them within the context of development (as appropriate in various countries), to eventually produce a change in mindsets of people.</p>
<h3>Stock-Taking</h3>
<p>As Jeremy Malcolm of Consumers International notes in his response to the formal stock-taking process, “the IGF is yet to develop from a simple discussion forum into a body that helps to develop public policy in tangible ways.” This reporter, writing for the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards, also voted for the continuation of the IGF, “in order to ensure that the WSIS Declaration of Principles, specifically in the important area of open standards, be realised through a multi-stakeholder process.” The IGF is, in a sense, the least bureaucratic of the UN’s endeavours. But certain rules, evolved in inter-governmental settings, might require careful reconsiderations to suit the multi-stakeholder approach that the IGF embodies. The IGF also needs to reach out from being a conference for a few to becoming a place/process for the many.</p>
<h3>General Reflections</h3>
<p>While this year there were more remote participation hubs (13) than last (11), and the Remote Participation Working Group seems to have done much work and some serious reflection on that work, individual experiences sometimes did not match up with what was perceived as the collective experience (via RPWG’s feedback survey). As a workshop organizer, this reporter was not provided any information about the remote participation tools, nor was there any screening of remote participants’ comments. With the shift from a single (open-source) product DimDim, to two products, WebEx (sponsored by Cisco) and Elluminate, much confusion was created even amongst those in the know since there were two separate tools being used. It is this reporter’s perception that live captioning from the main sessions has been a great success, and will have to be used much more extensively, especially if places where the bandwidth to download streaming video does not exist. Further, they help create very useful quasi-official records of the various workshops and open fora that are held at the IGF. That apart, the suggestions offered by the<br />RPWG (live video feedback from the remote hubs, dedicated remote participation chair in each workshop,<br />etc.) should be worked upon this year to enable those who cannot travel to Vilnius to participate more effectively.</p>
<p>All the sessions that happened around intellectual property rights were highly critical of the present state of IP laws around the world, and were calling for a reversal of the IP expansionism we see from various perspectives (access to knowledge, competition law, etc.) However, it was often felt by this reporter that these workshops were cases of the choir being preached to. Of course, many new people were being introduced to these ideas, but generally there was appreciation but not as much opposition as one is used to hearing outside the IGF. An exception (in the IP arena) was the workshop on open standards, in which there was much heat as well as illumination. Perhaps, a greater effort could be made to engage with people who are critical of the Access to Knowledge movement, those who are critical of privacy being regarded as a fundamental right, and those who believe that cultural relativism (for instance) must find a central place while talking about the right to free speech. After all, when one leaves the IGF, these voices<br />are heard. Those voices must be engaged with at the IGF itself, and a way forward (in terms of concrete policy recommendations, whether at the local level or the international level) must be found. Of course, the problem with the above suggestion is that many of these values are embedded in the WSIS principles, and are taken as a granted. But, still, if such debate is not had at the IGF, it might become something much worse than a ‘talking shop’: a forum where not much meaningful talk happens.</p>
<h3>Appendix I: Tweets and Dents During the IGF</h3>
<p>This is list of some posts made by the reporter on the microblogging sites Twitter<br />(http://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash) and Identi.ca (http://identi.ca/pranesh) during the IGF.<br /># @leashaver: Recording of yesterday’s session by the Access to Knowledge ♺ Global Academy:<br />http://trunc.it/3dldl #a2kga #IGF09 #yaleisp 8:55 PM Nov 18th, 2009<br /># “Great possibilities of #foss, but a disabling, anti-competitive environment has stunted growth of<br />open source software in #Egypt.” #igf09 6:47 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># Excellent set of resources on Access to Knowledge, from @YaleISP: http://tr.im/F8At #igf09 6:37 PM<br />Nov 17th, 2009<br /># “Tecno brega in Brazil can only be bought from street vendors: good relationship between artists<br />and street vendors.” #igf09 6:30 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># “There is not even a private copying exception in Brazil”, but is still part of “axis of IP evil” for<br />rightsholders #igf09 6:26 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># Tobias: “Even though s/w patents are not allowed by SA law, some large MNC s/w comps found<br />ways of bypassing that & getting patents” #igf09 6:19 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># Case studies from SA: CommonSense project, Freedom to Innovate SA, OOXML v. ODF struggle #igf09<br />6:18 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># 2 new studies on #a2k from Brazil (http://tr.im/F8tI)and SA (http://tr.im/F8uJ). Also see ACA2K’s<br />outputs: http://tr.im/F8uQ #igf09 6:13 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># ♺ @sunil_abraham: RT @mathieuweill: #igf09 Dardailler : Internet standards are open standards<br />and that makes a difference! 3:57 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># Oops. Wrong URL. It should be: http://threatened.globalvoicesonline.org/ #igf09 3:46 PM Nov 17th,<br />2009<br /># Mogens Schmidt of UNESCO praises Global Voices Online. Says defamation & libel laws should not<br />be *criminal* offences. #igf09 3:40 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># http://threatened.globalvoices.org/ helps report on FoE issues with bloggers through crowdsourcing.<br />#igf09 3:24 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># “Along with the right to give out information and opinion is the right to receive information and<br />opinion”: Frank La Reu #a2k #igf09 3:13 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># Schneier: “Before we die, we will have a US President who’ll send a lolcat to the Russian PM” #igf09<br />2:06 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># Privacy vs. security is a false dichotomy. But any privacy that is taken away in name of security<br />must be turned into accountability. #igf09 1:50 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># All wireless networks now have to be registered in India, and we talk of privacy? @schneier #igf09<br />1:47 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># RT @rmack Free Expression Online dynamic coalition meeting at 11:30am Egypt time in Siwa Room.<br />http://dcexpression.ning.com #igf09 1:36 PM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># @OWD: E Daniel, (http://bit.ly/3oFYqu), takes on the myth of the Digital Native, ♺ reveals the shallowness<br />of their native knowledge. #igf09 12:05 AM Nov 17th, 2009<br /># Commonwealth IGF’s follow-up meeting took time to find out its raison d’etre, but ended on a productive<br />note. #igf09 11:34 PM Nov 16th, 2009<br /># #schneierfact : Bruce Schneier actually exists! I can see him! 6:53 PM Nov 16th, 2009<br /># @timdavies: You might then be interested at a report by @cis_india on a different take at DNs:<br />http://tr.im/F3tk 3:29 PM Nov 16th, 2009 from Gwibber in reply to timdavies<br /># Estonia & Georgia DDoS are famous, but individual NGOs are also being targetted by DoSes. #igf09<br />3:08 PM Nov 16th, 2009<br /># Now more online journalists are behind bars than offline ones. #freespeech #igf09 3:07 PM Nov 16th,<br />2009<br /># ♺ @aslam: if you get an email from nigeria people will block it because they think that it is spam -<br />reputation #fail #igf09 2:14 PM Nov 16th, 2009<br /># Many are saying: listen to children; document and share best ICT practices and examples; bridge<br />rural-urban divide as also devel’d-devel’g. 1:57 PM Nov 16th, 2009<br /># Several British Parliamentarians in the room at the Commonwealth IGF event #igf09 1:56 PM Nov<br />16th, 2009<br /># CIGF should look at gaps at IGF and speak to them. Our common legal systems allow for focus on legislations<br />(ie, on data protection) #igf09 1:36 PM Nov 16th, 2009<br /># “We need to get to a point where access to the Internet is seen as a human right” #igf09 1:27 PM<br />Nov 16th, 2009<br /># “Intellectual property issues need developing countries to speak in one voice at intl fora. Commonwealth<br />IGF might allow that.” #igf09 1:24 PM Nov 16th, 2009<br /># “Music aspects of the Internet debates, which gets so much focus, doesn’t have as much relevance<br />in W. Africa as education & health.” #igf09 1:21 PM Nov 16th, 2009<br /># Commonwealth covers more than 2 billion people. Some whole regions, like E. & W. Africa “have no<br />voice in Geneva & global IGF” #igf09 1:18 PM Nov 16th, 2009</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-fourth-IGF'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-fourth-IGF</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshInternet Governance ForumInternet Governance2012-02-29T05:42:27ZBlog EntryAddress delivered during the IGF Closing Ceremony
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/address-igf-closing-ceremony
<b>This address was delivered by Dr. Anja Kovacs, as a representative of civil society, to the IGF during its closing ceremony.</b>
<p>Good evening, Mr Chairperson and all the distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this opportunity to address this assembly on behalf of civil society, it is a real honour. And thank you also to the organisers and to the government of Egypt, for the wonderful arrangements and for creating such a excellent environment for us to work in.</p>
<p>I would like to use this opportunity to celebrate, together with you, two very important achievements in particular that we have made collectively during the four days of our intensive deliberations together.</p>
<p>The first one is the progress we are making in terms of recognising the importance of attention for human rights in ensuring a people-centred, development-oriented, non-discriminatory information society. Thus, for example, in the main session on security, openness and privacy, speakers across stakeholder groups couched the debate not any more in terms of security vs. privacy, but in terms of security and privacy. Security or other concerns, it was consistently argued, while obviously deserving our attention, should not be used to justify curtailing longstanding gains made in terms of human rights; rather, it is an improved implementation of already agreed on human rights instruments that we need to reach our goal of an inclusive, people-centred information society. The growing recognition of this fact is an evolution that civil society welcomes with open arms.</p>
<p>Another very hopeful evolution during this IGF was the central attention devoted to the question of where we stand in terms of promoting a people-centred, development-oriented information society more generally. The message that came out of the main session on “Internet governance in the light of the WSIS principles” clearly confirmed the urgent need to pay greater attention to this important issue, and several suggestions were made to address this concern. These include devoting devoting a main session solely to the topic of Internet governance for development in next next year's IGF, and I sincerely hope that these suggestions will be taken up.</p>
<p>While we thus have important reason to celebrate, challenges of course remain. Throughout the existence of the IGF, and perhaps increasingly so, the value of the multistakeholder model has been recognised and stressed by all stakeholder groups. However, at the same time, it has also been acknowledged that we need to continue to work to further strengthen participation from currently underrepresented countries and groups. I would like to note, however, that it is important that we do not restrict our efforts in this regard to capacity building, significant as that may be. Perhaps even more crucial is that the agenda of the IGF consistently talks to the concerns of actors in the developing parts of the world as well. </p>
<p>The reconfirmation of the importance of a development agenda that we have seen in this IGF is thus a very important step forward indeed. At the same time, within this larger development agenda, it is crucial that we also as soon as possible start to discuss some of the specific issues that require our attention on an urgent basis. For example, within the IGF as elsewhere, it is generally acknowledged that access to knowledge is central to development processes; yet the IGF so far has not paid systematic attention to the ways in which the amazing possibilities that the Internet offers in this regard are increasingly threatened by new policies that seem to make intellectual property regimes more stringent day by day. From a developing country perspective, finding a balanced solution that can address these concerns is an urgent priority. Starting the debate on how this can be achieved here, in the IGF, is certain to attract a larger number of developing country participants, including from governments. </p>
<p>Going by the experience of the past years as well as this particular meeting, I have no doubt that if given the opportunity, we will measure up to the challenges before us. Without wanting to preclude the Under-Secretary General's report, the proceedings during this IGF have made clear time and again its crucial significance in Internet governance processes. I hope with all my heart that we will continue to get the opportunity to work together on addressing these important issues and on resolving tensions and contradictions as they emerge, with the support of an independent secretariat that can ensure an environment genuinely inclusive of all stakeholders. Only when such open, inclusive conditions govern our own processes, may we in turn, together be able to create a genuinely inclusive information society which will indeed create opportunities for all.</p>
<p>Thank you. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/address-igf-closing-ceremony'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/address-igf-closing-ceremony</a>
</p>
No publisherradhaInternet Governance Forum2011-08-02T07:18:36ZBlog EntryDCOS Agreement on Procurement
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement
<b>On December 6, 2008, at the closing of the third Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS), of which the Centre for Internet and Society is a member, released an agreement entitled the "Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Agreement on Procurement in Support of Interoperability and Open Standards".</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsInternet Governance ForumWorkshop2011-08-23T02:58:35ZBlog Entry