[governance] Yesterday Update from Bali - Pre- IGF 21 October, 2013

Mon Oct 21 19:57:09 EDT 2013

*Update from Bali – Pre- IGF*

This year’s Pre-Internet Governance Forum which was held yesterday set the
tone for this week. Today is Day 1 of the IGF! It’s finally here!!!
Yesterday was like a barometer testing how stakeholders generally would be
engaging in the discussions and dialogue on the diverse issues on Internet
Governance.

Remote participation is available over IPv6! :)

*About Indonesia*

It was also great to hear the CTO of Telecom Indonesia give a general
update on ICT and the Internet in Indonesia. By the way Indonesia is also
the world’s second largest biodiversity and the fourth largest country on
the earth being home for 250, 588, 688 people. If you are curious about
their resource allocations visit: http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html

In 2011, Indonesia ranked 95 on the ICT Development Index, see:
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf

*IGF Schedule*

* *

To see today’s Schedule, visit: http://igf2013.or.id/schedule/**

* *

*Snippets from Yesterday*

* *

*High Level Leaders Meeting*

It was a great meeting for testing the mercury levels of how institutions
were feeling about Internet Governance. There seemed to be consensus that
there needs to be improvement when it comes to Internet Governance. The
meeting was hosted by the Indonesian Government where representatives of
public sector, civil society and private sector were invited.

*What I Heard*

* *

*[There were many speakers but am picking that which stood out]*

The nature of improvement is at this stage ambiguous except for the
Japanese Government making calls for increased functionality of the
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN. Brazil’s Government
representative wants more democracy on the Internet and advised the
delegates that they would be hosting and Internet Governance meeting in
Brazil next year. There was overwhelming consensus by governments that
cyber security is critical in the wake of vulnerabilities and threats. The
US Government representative pointed out those unlawful non state
activities that threaten the Internet should be addressed. The Chinese
Government advocated social and economic rights. APNIC CEO Paul Wilson,
Chair of the Number Registry Organisation (NRO) and MAG member emphasized
the need to rebuild trust and leaders to collaborate and have aggressive
cooperation. Citizen’s Lab advised that there should be caution in terms of
the reaction of stakeholders to recent revelations by Edward Snowden and
the threats of excessive regulation by governments. Google representative
said that Surveillance was nothing new and done by all and not just the US
government.

Jovan Kurbalija, Director of Diplo Foundation said, “Make no mistake,
Internet Governance is in crisis”. Kurbalija suggested that there are
challenges and there needs to be change and empathy.

*What I Observed [How I interpreted what they were saying]*

I won’t go into all of the speakers but just some key snippets that in my
view helps set the tone and context for the IGF this year.

*US*

When the US government made comments about unlawful activity by non-state
actors which in my view canvasses stakeholders within the private sector
such as when Google had to pay $22.5million in fines for Safari tracking.
The US government has to be commended for having machinery that allows for
redress when it comes to corporate surveillance. However not countries have
policies and laws that enable regulators to address breaches. Google has
come under fire by Australian Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand Police –
Cyber Crime Unit. There are other commercial stakeholders who exploit big
data for commercial purposes. VeriSign reports in its recent quarterly
update that Transparency Market Research highlighted that Global Big Data
market was worth USD $6.3 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD
$48.3 billion by 2018, at a compound annual growth rate of 40.5 percent
from

2012 to 2018.

I would have preferred if the US Government representative sat next to
other country representatives rather than ICANN and ISOC CEO to be less
clique and more global. In diplomacy, even seating arrangements speaks
volume.

*China*

They are probably relieved to have the spotlight on government surveillance
shift from them to the US (tongue in cheek). They highlighted social and
economic aspects of human rights over the internet. To me this is
diplomatic speak for increase in access and empowering communities to build
stronger IP backbones and would include things like culture such as
multilingualism and diversity on the Internet in forms of expression as
well as through Internationalized Domain Names.

* *

*Japan*

The suggestion to increase GAC functionality is a cry for more robust
representation from governments into the policy processes. Indirectly they
were saying that they are happy to have institutions carry on with their
administration functions except to instill incremental changes.

*Brazil*

I am assuming that Brazil wants increased participation and to have forums
more democratic. It remains unclear whether they are referring to
administration or meaningful participation from other nation states and
stakeholders in the coordinating bodies.

It is helpful to separate this core issue from the other notion that they
alluded to in their speech and increasing local Internet Exchange points to
avoid local traffic getting routed offshore and being exposed. From an end
user perspective having local IXPs have a direct correlation to greater
room for increasing local content, lower costs and increasing
infrastructure which is in sync with building a vibrant and open internet
community.

* *

*Civil Society***

It would be great for the two speakers from civil society to have invited
comments from the rest of civil society as they were developing their
speeches. Whilst they identified the security and vulnerabilities, I felt
that they could have done more to clearly and concisely highlight the
solutions. Throughout this week as, civil society engages in the various
workshops, it is critical that we not only raise the issues and
vulnerabilities but also suggest solutions.

Today, the IGC is meeting during lunch hour where we will discuss a few
things, one of which is how we can coordinate civil society input into
workshops aside from administrative matters. For those who wish to skype
into the session let us know by emailing: coordinators at igcaucus.org

* *

*GigaNet*

Apparently for much of the day, there was standing room only. I attended
two sessions at the Giganet where a Panelist presented a Study on
Transferring Blocks and Routing Information. The other session that I
attended was on Surveillance and Snowden.

*Final Thoughts and Wish List***

I am personally not worried about the future of the Internet Governance.
However, I feel that we need to create a culture where we can openly
discuss concerns without retreating into our caves. I find that in the
8thInternet Governance stakeholders need to zero into the core
critical issues
rather than skirting superficially over the issues. For me, my list is
clear:

1.     Meaningful participation:

a.     In Policy processes, representations into various administration

b.    Capacity Building

c.     Multilingualism – Freedom of Expression, IDNs

2.     Strengthening Integrity of National and Global Standards bodies and
building trust in light of the following situations

a.     Patenting things which are RFCs eg.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/

b.    Compromised Algorithms
http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101013

(I have been told that the issue was not the standard but the
implementation of the standard)

3.     Increasing Accountability and Transparency in the way things are
governed and administered both on a global, regional and national scale.

4.     Deliberate and Conscious Strategic Engagement on Shifting Away from
Territorialism of Actors and stakeholders in Internet Governance to
aggressive collaboration, coordination of resources and energy to create a
robust and open internet.

5.     Pursue dialogue using the Internet Governance Human Rights
principles as a base for complex policy discussions.

6.     Bug the MAG to arrange for a sports side event where people can just
learn to relax and disagree on certain issues and not take it personally
where constituencies become insulated instead of porous.

*What is your wish list?*

* *

* *

*Social Media*

As per Anriette’s email:

For everything: #IGF2013

Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D

Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR

Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC

Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS

Internet Governance Principles: #IGP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131022/2570c111/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t