[Coalition] Fwd: [governance] summary report from II pre-IGF

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Just to let you all know, as announced before, that the full audio (mp3)
and video (mp4 iPod format) transcripts of all panels are online in
www.nupef.org.br/igf. Just choose the "audios/videos" options in the menu.

[]s fraternos

--c.,a.

Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Comments?
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
>> Date: October 19, 2009 4:17:18 AM CEDT
>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: [governance] summary report from II pre-IGF LAC (resending)
>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
>>
>> Resending with a slight revision of the text. Sorry for sending the
>> former msg with an unintended appended dialogue...
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> Dear people,
>>
>> A summary document based on the reports of each panel in the II Latin
>> American and Caribbean Preparatory Meeting for the IGF is attached. The
>> event's Web page is www.nupef.org.br/igf.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Carlos A. Afonso
>> CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
>> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
>> ====================================
>> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
>> ====================================
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> II LAC Pre-IGF Meeting
>> Rio, August 11-13, 2009
>> Summary of recommendations/findings
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>>
>> The second Latin American and the Caribbean preparatory meeting for
>> IGF was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 11 to 13 August, 2009.
>> More than 100 people from fourteen LAC countries attended it in
>> delegation of civil society organizations (49%), governments (17%),
>> private sector (15%), and academic/technical sectors (19%).
>>
>> The proposal of a regional preparatory meeting for IGF 2009 appeared
>> after the identification of the necessity of a greater
>> "regionalization" of the IGF process. Due to that, the idea of
>> specific spaces for the regional contributions was consensus in the
>> preparatory process coordinated by the IGF secretariat in cooperation
>> with the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group).
>>
>> In order to occupy the space dedicated to Latin America and the
>> Caribbean, Nupef / Rits, APC, and LACNIC organized the event, which
>> had the purpose of involving more players from the region in the
>> discussion of the themes and dynamics of global IGF, promote a debate
>> focused on the central themes of IGF 2009 and point out priorities of
>> the region to be taken to the IGF in Egypt in November.
>>
>> Below is the summary of recommendations/findings based on the reports
>> from each panel.
>>
>>
>> 1. Access
>> =========
>>
>> Presentations in the panel brought the views of the several
>> participant countries regarding public policies or specific
>> initiatives contributing to universalization of access. Specific
>> aspects were singled out, such as:
>>
>> (a) Access and capacity building -- Educated users can take advantage
>> of the Internet to seek new opportunities, and this is an aspect of
>> the network as a tool for further social and economic development. One
>> of the perceived challenges is, together with universalization of the
>> infrastructure (including end-user access tools), to universalize the
>> building of capacities to empower as many users as possible, as well
>> as stimulating citizens to learn about the technologies involved and
>> understand its potential for helping to improve the quality of their
>> lives.
>>
>> (b) Adequate infrastructure to provide affordable connectivity -- In
>> most countries of the region there are few international backbone
>> providers, frequently just one. This is reproduced within many
>> countries, where just a few have more than one national  backbone
>> provider. This leads to high international connectivity prices, and
>> within countries to monopoly or cartel pricing practices which make
>> the price of broadband (which is usually available only in higher
>> income areas) many times higher for the final user than, for example,
>> Europe. In the cases where there is more than one national backbone,
>> deployment of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) is necessary. In
>> countries like Brazil, these IXPs are non-profit services which do not
>> add to the cost of bandwidth and, to the contrary, help reduce costs
>> by optimizing national or in-country regional traffic. Broadband ought
>> to be universalized using an optimal combination of fiber and digital
>> radio, as well as regulatory and public policy incentives.
>>
>> c) Harmonization of regulatory practices -- This is mentioned as
>> especially important for the Caribbean -- many small countries with
>> divergent regulatory practices which make difficult the development of
>> a common public policy for developing infrastructure and attracting
>> private investment.
>>
>> d) Appropriate legislation -- This should facilitate planned
>> investments combining market competition with adequate regulation and
>> public policies which ensure effective universalization. It has been
>> verified that the market by itself will not guarantee
>> universalization, while significant restrictions to private initiative
>> or the replacement of state operators by private monopolies might
>> preclude innovation. Governments ought to be proactive regarding the
>> relevance of universalizing ICTs for sustainable human development,
>> and need to develop strategic planning in the deployment of these
>> technologies.
>>
>> (e) International connecvitity costs -- These impact directly in the
>> price of access for the final user, and most countries do not have the
>> leverage to negotiate better terms of trade in international
>> bandwidth. In the Caribbean, for instance, not all countries have
>> access to submarine cables.
>>
>> (f) Local content -- It is recognized that extending access to all
>> requires incentives to develop local content for all. National
>> strategies for producing appropriate local content which add value to
>> the access and connectivity policies are needed. In this sense, the
>> Internet is also an effective medium for social inclusion and
>> citizens' participation in democratic processes, allowing for
>> significant improvements in transparency and efficacy in government.
>> It enables as well new forms of business transactions and national
>> competitivity, thus further stimulating economic development. Finally,
>> access to communicate and exchange information is the basis of
>> realizing the right to communicate, a fundamental right for every
>> citizen.
>>
>>
>> 2. Privacy
>> ==========
>>
>> The three main issues to emerge were: the need for legal and
>> regulatory harmonization generally (within and among countries); the
>> importance of user involvement; the search for appropriate balance
>> between Privacy and Freedom of Expression.
>>
>> The need for regional normative harmonisation, and this concern was
>> echoed through the subsequent presentations.
>>
>> The importance of the individual user, and that the training of
>> stakeholders is more urgently needed than data protection itself.
>>
>> The change from the previous passive view of privacy as control or
>> interference by the state, to the current active approach where the
>> user is personally involved in the protection of his/her privacy. The
>> diversity of cultures and perspectives of privacy on the Internet
>> which will have to be addressed in creating globally acceptable
>> policies should be taken into account.
>>
>> Particular attention needed on privacy issues concerning social
>> networks and e-government. Concern about the locus of responsibility
>> between the company and the individual, and the difficulty where
>> protection of one’s privacy might involve an expensive lawsuit. Users
>> ought to be given tools and organic structures to enable the
>> protection of privacy.
>>
>> Pay attention to potential clashes between privacy and inclusion.
>> Importance of harmonization of traditional rights and
>> responsibilities, of law and reality, and of design.
>>
>> Users need information about the implications of what they are doing
>> in social networks, offered in simple language. Diversity makes it
>> essential that users be educated/empowered to make informed choices.
>>
>> Importance of privacy protection by design, recalling that huge
>> privacy difficulties can arise unexpectedly from tiny personal
>> projects. Taking into account problems of jurisdiction where data is
>> stored in another country (this also points to the issues involving
>> multinationals, global operations and jurisdiction).
>>
>> The Internet does not forget so that there is essentially no privacy.
>> What to do if a single model does not work for everyone.
>>
>> Legally, there is no privacy in Latin America as the concept is not
>> part of the legal tradition. Behaviour is based on personal respect
>> and local custom. This reinforces the value of regional dialogue in
>> creating harmonized policy. There is a need to translate public policy
>> into law, and a need for political decision. However there is also a
>> need for self-regulation.
>>
>> In the context of violence against women –  private spaces must be
>> defended but the Internet is also a powerful voice for victims as the
>> Internet “breaks the silence”. Panel responses supported the use of
>> the Internet to fight exploitation. However, there is also a need for
>> protection. The point was made about users that “no one knows what
>> they’re doing”, a point that recurred through the session.
>>
>> The need for recommendations from regional forums to drive
>> harmonisation projects, a slow but useful process. There is a need for
>> the regulation of conduct rather than of  technology.
>>
>> There is a need to consider enforcement where regulations are agreed.
>>
>> The situation of workers and the possibility of online background
>> checks  requires particular attention.
>>
>> The danger of perceiving technology as natural rather than man-made,
>> because it is opaque to society; the possibility of audit control
>> mechanisms or audit code was suggested.
>>
>> The constitution of Brazil includes an article that specifically
>> prohibits anonymity, in direct contrast to the efforts to protect
>> privacy. Clarification was provided from the floor that this refers to
>> anonymity of those making statements – expression is free but must not
>> be anonymous. However several speakers commented on the need, in
>> several cases, for anonymity to protect privacy and enable expression.
>>
>> One way to achieve harmonization for global governance is to agree on
>> principles rather than regulations and specific guidelines. This
>> allows for adaptation to regional and cultural differences, and for
>> different models.
>>
>> Cloud-computing has potential privacy issues which should be considered.
>>
>> Final comments:
>>
>> The panel reminded us of the need for safer designs to protect
>> fundamental rights; a planned initiative in Madrid to create a global
>> model of standards for privacy protection; the importance of users and
>> the need that they defend their rights; and the importance of user
>> feedback and of intergovernmental collaboration.
>>
>>
>> 3. Critical Resources
>> =====================
>>
>> The panel focused on the governance of the DNS -- domain names, IP
>> addresses, and the root structure which enables the global domain name
>> system. There was a consensus that these resources need to be unique
>> and globally coordinated, and the challenges in this regard are, on
>> the one hand, to legitimize this coordination, and on the other, to
>> identify the best global practices to manage these resources.
>>
>> It was agreed that the panel could not suggest all-embracing solutions
>> and responses to the challenges regarding governance of the critical
>> resources, and therefore it decided instead to bring to the IGF a
>> summary of the main concerns in the region.
>>
>> In this regard, six statements were made and are summarized below:
>>
>> (a) The importance of the Anycast system used to replicate the F root
>> server worldwide and in the region, thus reducing dependency on the 13
>> root servers was stressed; in particular, the "Mis Raices" Program of
>> LACNIC was regarded as quite positive.
>>
>> (b) The positive contribution of the IXP initiatives and local content
>> to help reducing international bandwidth costs.
>>
>> (c) There was agreement that the regional management of IP addresses
>> has been satisfactory while urgency was recommended in deploying IPv6.
>>
>> (d) Strong concern was raised regarding the protracted process leading
>> to the creation of new gTLDs.
>>
>> (e) To dispel all doubts regarding the impacts of IDNs on the
>> stability of the DNS was regarded as essential.
>>
>> (f) It was agreed that, while there might never be a definitive
>> solution to guarantee absolute stability of the DNS, deployment of
>> DNSSec constitutes an extremely positive step in this direction.
>>
>>
>> 4. Openness and Security
>> ========================
>>
>> The balance between the legal and enforcement needs on the one hand,
>> and freedom of expression on the other hand: the panel recognizes that
>> the relationship between security and openness in the Internet is
>> originated in the very open architecture of the network and that this
>> debate will be present at least until a true balance between freedom
>> and individual rights is achieved.
>>
>> There was consensus on focusing the debate on security of the
>> individuals -- who (user or no user of the Internet) are the ones
>> confronting significant threats to their security and privacy. In this
>> sense, the building and maintenance of a reliable environment for the
>> free flow of information and knowledge is crucial, since the network
>> develops as its members feel safe and trust that they will receive
>> social and economic benefits from getting involved in it.
>>
>> However, this reliable environment ought to be made viable at local,
>> regional and global levels, so that the different instances solve the
>> problems within their reach in a form which is acceptable to the
>> community. This requires that the issues are approached in a holistic
>> way, not just a sectoral perspective, seeking agreements based on
>> discussion and consensus building. These agreements ought also to be
>> product of pluralist invovlvement of all sectors of society -- the
>> broader the consensus, the more effective are the activities of
>> information, prevention, awareness raising and eventual repression of
>> delictive practices on or via the Internet.
>>
>> Focusing on the individual also means providing each person with
>> protective tools and methods, while private providers and the
>> government do their part. Actions need to be coordinated and
>> protective tools need to be developed so that the user can rely on the
>> necessary security at the lowest possible burden in terms of time,
>> complexity and costs.
>>
>> There is also a need to strengthen the capacity of the authorities in
>> charge of enforcing legislation against ICT-related offences, so that
>> they are able to properly detect, within the complex delictive chains,
>> the critical areas which may enable criminal practices, and apply the
>> proper legal/preventive measures.
>>
>> In summary, security needs to be approached from a holistic and
>> multistakeholder perspective, strengthening capacities of all players
>> involved (individuals, authorities, providers).
>>
>>
>> 5. Multilingualism and accessibility
>> ====================================
>>
>> The panel sought to set the theme in the context of the Internet as a
>> tool for human development.
>>
>> (a) Universal Access Funds -- It was recommended that these funds,
>> still not used in many countries in the region (in at least one case
>> having accumulated several billion dollars), be effectively and
>> urgently disbursed with a broader vision than at the time they were
>> created.
>>
>> (b) Multilingualism -- In order to achieve extensive multilingualism
>> on the Internet, not only language needs proper representation, but
>> the corresponding knowledge brought by this language needs to be
>> stored, archived, indexed, catalogued, in such a way that users can
>> search, classify and make conversions among formats in their own
>> languages. Standardization of languages, alphabets and scripts should
>> allow for representation in Web pages, e-mail and the myriad of other
>> Internet applications. Representing all idioms in UNICODE is
>> imperative. Standardization of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)
>> is quite advanced, and internationalization of e-mail services is also
>> advancing well. It is important to take into account that the Internet
>> is not just the Web. It is today essential -- with active use of the
>> resources produced in many countries -- to achieve a critical mass of
>> content in every language, and seek strict adherence to standards
>> which ensure interoperability and that content in any idiom can be
>> searched on the Internet. It is also essential to enable users as
>> producers of content in their own idioms. In synthesis, establishing
>> clear directives to achieve compliance with the standards which
>> guarantee interoperability, contributing to the development of an
>> inclusive and diverse Internet is strongly recommended. This leads to
>> a challenging question: what directives can be established to make
>> sure standards are broadly adopted?
>>
>> Accessibility -- Importante of access for people wit special needs,
>> which ought to be thought in a broad perspective, from software and
>> hardware design to the types of access available today besides the
>> traditional computer (PDAs, digital TV). This implies taking including
>> the theme of universal access in all courses related to software and
>> hardware development, as well as user interfaces. Take into account
>> that currently technical resources to facilitate access for people
>> with special needs is far more expensive than standard equipment, and
>> this requires compensatory public policies.
>>
>> Multilingualism -- This is treated in another panel. The
>> recommendation from this panel is that multilingualism is fully
>> considered as a theme transversal to all topics discussed by the IGF.
>>
>> The panel made a general recommendation that all regions and countries
>> should make an effort to maintain or develop national and regional IG
>> processes, similar to this one now culminating in this meeting in Rio,
>> as well similar processes in Europe and other regions, to make sure
>> proposals and eventual recommendations made at or by the IGF really
>> represent the interests and needs of each region.
>>
>>
>> 6. Dialogue on openness
>> =======================
>>
>> The dialogue basically focused on six topics (considered relevant to
>> the region) which require further debate. "Openness" shoudl be a theme
>> in itself, separated from the privacy-security debate. The panel
>> recommeds the IGF approaches the theme with focus on the following
>> topics:
>>
>> 1. Free expression and free flow of information
>>
>> Control vs. freedom of expression. Innovative proposals to enable
>> people who cannot express themselves on the Internet. Freedom of
>> expression on specific themes, such as sexuality, religion, racism.
>> Freedom of expression in social networks, blogs. Limits (or no limits)
>> to freedom of expression on the Internet. Freedom of expression beyond
>> the Internet: radio, open tv, pay-tv etc. Media offences. Presence of
>> traditional media on the Internet and traditional government
>> regulations. Self-regulation codes and codes of ethics for the media
>> seen from the point of view of the Internet. NAPs and censorship. Deep
>> packet inspection and free flow of information.
>>
>> 2. Access to knowledge and access to information
>>
>> Intellectual property on content created with public funds. Creative
>> Commons. Public data. Author rights. Exceptions to intellectual
>> property. Open access. WIPO and the intellectual property regulatory
>> framework: is WIPO the authoritative forum to revise author rights?
>> What would be the needed reform to achieve a better balance? Could
>> WIPO modify regulations on intellectual property? Global policies
>> which enable balancing the IP restrictions with universalization of
>> access to knowledge. Democratizing the Internet and the media, versus
>> appropriation of content by knowledge companies. Patent laws.
>> Knowledge about control mechanisms.
>>
>> 3. Open infrastructure
>>
>> Shared backbones, interconnection and transit costs, net neutrality.
>> ICTs as global assets of the commons. Provision of these assets --
>> roles of the state and the market. Symmetry of media in the context of
>> convergence. Traffic engineering and its possible impact on net
>> neutrality. Arbitrary tolls within the network. Auditability by
>> society of applications and critical resources.
>>
>> 4. Open opportunities
>>
>> Competition environment. Counter-monopoly practices. Market favorable
>> to enabling innovation by new actors. Business models. Possibility of
>> a Latin American and Caribbean Research and Development Fund to
>> stimulate sharing of technology.
>>
>> 5. Open technology
>>
>> Free and open source software. Open standards.
>>
>> 6. Open governance
>>
>> Enabling active, diversified, multisectoral participation. Opening the
>> governance models. Debate on ICANN. Basic standards for a more
>> consistent governance model.
>>
>>
>> 7. Future of the IGF
>> ====================
>>
>> [There was no summary report. Below are the summaries made by some of
>> the panelists of their presentations].
>>
>> Statement by Pablo Hinojosa (ICANN):
>>
>> 1.- ICANN considers that IGF has been established as an inclusive and
>> open forum for all stakeholders and therefore has fulfilled its
>> mandate according to the Tunis Agenda. It considers as well that IGF
>> has appropriately expressed the WSIS principles.
>>
>> 2.- ICANN agrees with continuing the IGF without modification either
>> in the format or in the terms agreed upon in Tunis.
>>
>> 3.- IGF has served as a platform to collect several themes in the
>> broad Internet governance agenda, like Tetris pieces which adjust
>> themselves and build concepts around which the debates will be carried
>> out.
>>
>> 4.- For ICANN the IGF has been a space to exchange information. The
>> Internet ecosystem encompasses many themes, stakeholders and
>> interests, and it is difficult to reduce this concept to a limited
>> agenda. Thus collaboration of everyone is indispensable to better
>> understand the ways of action.
>>
>> Statement by Pablo Accuosto (ITEM, Uruguay):
>>
>> - IGF is contributing to the Tunis Agenda commitments, in particular
>> items a, b, c and d of para 72, but there is much more to be done by
>> this forum regarding its objectives.
>>
>> - IGF has become an innovative public policy discussion space,
>> contributes to the understanding of the IG themes and facilitates a
>> better knowledge and the generation of better confidence and
>> collaboration levels among all stakeholders. Part of the “success” of
>> the IGF is based on the absence of commitments to build consensus
>> statements and the adoption of open and inclusive participation
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> - Because of the above, it is important to keep the IGF going, if
>> understood as an articulation space for multiple venues and processes
>> (MAG, annual meetings, dynamic coalitions, regional meetings,
>> processes related to IG in other fora etc). The annual meeting is
>> important to define in the agenda a venue and moment to debate the IG
>> themes.
>>
>> - There are some components of the IGF mandate which are not being
>> fully carried out. In particular, items e, f, g, h, i, j and k of para
>> 72 of the Tunis Agenda. It is necessary to find ways to fully comply
>> with all items of the Tunis Agenda regarding IG, being specially
>> careful in not losing the richness of the debates when trying to force
>> consensus and, on the other hand, and avoiding debates which lead to
>> nowhere – which end up undermining the relevance of the IGF as a space
>> of political debate.
>>
>> - In the annual IGF meeting it is currently not desirable nor possible
>> to reach consensus proposals. However, in all other fora which are
>> under the IGF “umbrella” recommendations can be formulated, thus
>> complying with part of the IGF mandate. The MAG could be reformulated
>> to take on this role, providing recommendations as inputs to the
>> debates in the annual meetings, and also taking the inputs from the
>> annual meetings as subsidies to its recommendations and proposals. The
>> WGIG is a successful reference in this sense, although it had another
>> mandate and was created in anoter context. WGIG carried out its
>> mandate to formulate recommendations (as inputs to WSIS) in a context
>> more critical than the IGF, and in the cases  in which consensus
>> recommendations were not achieved, the different views were included.
>> This would mean an enhanced MAG, with the autonomy to propose inputs
>> in a true multistakeholder fashion, as well as continuing to carry out
>> its current tasks.
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Coalition mailing list
> Coalition at mailman.thepublicvoice.org
> http://mailman.thepublicvoice.org/listinfo.cgi/coalition-thepublicvoice.org
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
====================================
new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
====================================
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance