The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 4.
Comments on the Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (WSIS+10)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10
<b>Following the comment-period on the Zero Draft, the Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly's Overall Review of implementation of WSIS Outcomes was released on 4 November 2015. Comments were sought on the Draft Outcome Document from diverse stakeholders. The Centre for Internet & Society's response to the call for comments is below.</b>
<p class="Normal1" style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p class="Normal1" style="text-align: justify; ">The WSIS+10 Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, scheduled for December 2015, comes as a review of the WSIS process initiated in 2003-05. At the December summit of the UN General Assembly, the WSIS vision and mandate of the IGF are to be discussed. The Draft Outcome Document, released on 4 November 2015, is towards an outcome document for the summit. Comments were sought on the Draft Outcome Document. Our comments are below.</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>The Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (“<i>the current Draft</i>”) stands considerably altered from the Zero Draft. With references to development-related challenges, the Zero Draft covered areas of growth and challenges of the WSIS. It noted the persisting digital divide, the importance of innovation and investment, and of conducive legal and regulatory environments, and the inadequacy of financial mechanisms. Issues crucial to Internet governance such as net neutrality, privacy and the mandate of the IGF found mention in the Zero Draft.</li>
<li>The current Draft retains these, and adds to them. Some previously-omitted issues such as surveillance, the centrality of human rights and the intricate relationship of ICTs to the Sustainable Development Goals, now stand incorporated in the current Draft. This is most commendable. However, the current Draft still lacks teeth with regard to some of these issues, and fails to address several others. </li>
<li>In our comments to the Zero Draft, CIS had called for these issues to be addressed. We reiterate our call in the following paragraphs.</li>
</ol>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(1) </strong><strong>ICT for Development</strong></h2>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>In the current Draft, paragraphs 14-36 deal with ICTs for development. While the draft contains rubrics like ‘Bridging the digital divide’, ‘Enabling environment’, and ‘Financial mechanisms’, the following issues are unaddressed:</li>
<li>Equitable development for all;</li>
<li>Accessibility to ICTs for persons with disabilities;</li>
<li>Access to knowledge and open data.</li>
</ol>
<h3><i><span>Equitable development</span></i></h3>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>In the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html">Geneva Declaration of Principles</a> (2003), two goals are set forth as the Declaration’s “ambitious goal”: (a) the bridging of the digital divide; and (b) equitable development for all (¶ 17). The current Draft speaks in detail about the bridging of the digital divide, but the goal of equitable development is conspicuously absent. At WSIS+10, when the WSIS vision evolves to the creation of inclusive ‘knowledge societies’, equitable development should be both a key principle and a goal to stand by.</li>
<li>Indeed, inequitable development underscores the persistence of the digital divide. The current Draft itself refers to several instances of inequitable development; for ex., the uneven production capabilities and deployment of ICT infrastructure and technology in developing countries, landlocked countries, small island developing states, countries under occupation or suffering natural disasters, and other vulnerable states; lack of adequate financial mechanisms in vulnerable parts of the world; variably affordable (or in many cases, unaffordable) spread of ICT devices, technology and connectivity, etc. </li>
<li>What underscores these challenges is the inequitable and uneven spread of ICTs across states and communities, including in their production, capacity-building, technology transfers, gender-concentrated adoption of technology, and inclusiveness. </li>
<li>As such, it is essential that the WSIS+10 Draft Outcome Document reaffirm our commitment to equitable development for all peoples, communities and states.</li>
<li>We suggest the following inclusion to <strong>paragraph 5 of the current Draft</strong>:</li>
</ol>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span><span style="text-align: justify; ">“5. We reaffirm our common desire and commitment to the WSIS vision to build </span><i style="text-align: justify; "><span>an equitable,</span></i><span style="text-align: justify; "> people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society…”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3><i><span>Accessibility for persons with disabilities</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">10. Paragraph 13 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles (2003) pledges to “pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society” in the forging of an Information Society. Particularly, ¶ 13 recognises the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">11. Moreover, ¶ 31 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles calls for the special needs of persons with disabilities, and also of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, to be taken into account while promoting the use of ICTs for capacity-building. Accessibility for persons with disabilities is thus core to bridging the digital divide – as important as bridging the gender divide in access to ICTs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">12. Not only this, but the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes</a> (June 2014) also reaffirms the commitment to “provide equitable access to information and knowledge for all… including… people with disabilities”, recognizing that it is “crucial to increase the participation of vulnerable people in the building process of Information Society…” (¶8).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">13. In our previous submission, CIS had suggested language drawing attention to this. Now, the current Draft only acknowledges that “particular attention should be paid to the specific ICT challenges facing… persons with disabilities…” (paragraph 11). It acknowledges also that now, accessibility for persons with disabilities constitutes one of the core elements of quality (paragraph 22). However, there is a glaring omission of a call to action, or a reaffirmation of our commitment to bridging the divide experienced by persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">14. We suggest, therefore, the addition of the following language the addition of <strong>paragraph 24A to the current Draft</strong>. Sections of this suggestion are drawn from ¶8, WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"24A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">Recalling the UN Convention on the rights of people with disabilities, the Geneva principles paragraph 11, 13, 14 and 15, Tunis Commitment paras 20, 22 and 24, and reaffirming the commitment to providing equitable access to information and knowledge for all, building ICT capacity for all and confidence in the use of ICTs by all, including youth, older persons, women, indigenous and nomadic peoples, people with disabilities, the unemployed, the poor, migrants, refugees and internally displaced people and remote and rural communities, it is crucial to increase the participation of vulnerable people in the building process of information Society and to make their voice heard by stakeholders and policy-makers at different levels. It can allow the most fragile groups of citizens worldwide to become an integrated part of their economies and also raise awareness of the target actors on the existing ICTs solution (such as tolls as e- participation, e-government, e-learning applications, etc.) designed to make their everyday life better. We recognise need for continued extension of access for people with disabilities and vulnerable people to ICTs, especially in developing countries and among marginalized communities, and reaffirm our commitment to promoting and ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities. In particular, we call upon all stakeholders to honour and meet the targets set out in Target 2.5.B of the Connect 2020 Agenda that enabling environments ensuring accessible telecommunication/ICT for persons with disabilities should be established in all countries by 2020.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3><i><span>Access to knowledge and open data</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">15. The Geneva Declaration of Principles dedicates a section to access to information and knowledge (B.3). It notes, in ¶26, that a “rich public domain” is essential to the growth of Information Society. It urges that public institutions be strengthened to ensure free and equitable access to information (¶26), and also that assistive technologies and universal design can remove barriers to access to information and knowledge (¶25). Particularly, the Geneva Declaration advocates the use of free and open source software, in addition to proprietary software, to meet these ends (¶27).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">16. It was also recognized in the WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (‘Challenges-during implementation of Action Lines and new challenges that have emerged’) that there is a need to promote access to all information and knowledge, and to encourage open access to publications and information (C, ¶¶9 and 12).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">17. In our previous submission, CIS had highlighted the importance of open access to knowledge thus: “…the implications of open access to data and knowledge (including open government data), and responsible collection and dissemination of data are much larger in light of the importance of ICTs in today’s world. As Para 7 of the Zero Draft indicates, ICTs are now becoming an indicator of development itself, as well as being a key facilitator for achieving other developmental goals. As Para 56 of the Zero Draft recognizes, in order to measure the impact of ICTs on the ground – undoubtedly within the mandate of WSIS – it is necessary that there be an enabling environment to collect and analyse reliable data. Efforts towards the same have already been undertaken by the United Nations in the form of ‘Data Revolution for Sustainable Development’. In this light, the Zero Draft rightly calls for enhancement of regional, national and local capacity to collect and conduct analyses of development and ICT statistics (Para 56). Achieving the central goals of the WSIS process requires that such data is collected and disseminated under open standards and open licenses, leading to creation of global open data on the ICT indicators concerned.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">18. This crucial element is missing from the current Draft of the WSIS+10 Outcome Document. Of course, the current Draft notes the importance of access to information and free flow of data. But it stops short of endorsing and advocating the importance of access to knowledge and free and open source software, which are essential to fostering competition and innovation, diversity of consumer/ user choice and ensuring universal access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">19. We suggest the following addition – of <strong>paragraph 23A to the current Draft</strong>:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"23A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We recognize the need to promote access for all to information and knowledge, open data, and open, affordable, and reliable technologies and services, while respecting individual privacy, and to encourage open access to publications and information, including scientific information and in the research sector, and particularly in developing and least developed countries.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(2) </strong><strong>Human Rights in Information Society</strong></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">20. The current Draft recognizes that human rights have been central to the WSIS vision, and reaffirms that rights offline must be protected online as well. However, the current Draft omits to recognise the role played by corporations and intermediaries in facilitating access to and use of the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">21. In our previous submission, CIS had noted that “the Internet is led largely by the private sector in the development and distribution of devices, protocols and content-platforms, corporations play a major role in facilitating – and sometimes, in restricting – human rights online”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">22. We reiterate our suggestion for the inclusion of <strong>paragraph 43A to the current Draft</strong>:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"43A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We recognize the critical role played by corporations and the private sector in facilitating human rights online. We affirm, in this regard, the responsibilities of the private sector set out in the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011), and encourage policies and commitments towards respect and remedies for human rights.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>(3) </strong><strong>Internet</strong> <strong>Governance</strong></h2>
<h3><i><span>The support for multilateral governance of the Internet</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">23. While the section on Internet governance is not considerably altered from the zero draft, there is a large substantive change in the current Draft. The current Draft states that the governance of the Internet should be “multilateral, transparent and democratic, with full involvement of all stakeholders” (¶50). Previously, the zero draft recognized the “the general agreement that the governance of the Internet should be open, inclusive, and transparent”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">24. A return to purely ‘multilateral’ Internet governance would be regressive. Governments are, without doubt, crucial in Internet governance. As scholarship and experience have both shown, governments have played a substantial role in shaping the Internet as it is today: whether this concerns the availability of content, spread of infrastructure, licensing and regulation, etc. However, these were and continue to remain contentious spaces.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">25. As such, it is essential to recognize that a plurality of governance models serve the Internet, in which the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia play important roles. <strong>We recommend returning to the language of the zero draft in ¶32: “open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet”.</strong></p>
<h3><i><span>Governance of Critical Internet Resources</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">26. It is curious that the section on Internet governance<strong> </strong>in both the zero and the current Draft makes no reference to ICANN, and in particular, to the ongoing transition of IANA stewardship and the discussions surrounding the accountability of ICANN and the IANA operator. The stewardship of critical Internet resources, such as the root, is crucial to the evolution and functioning of the Internet. Today, ICANN and a few other institutions have a monopoly over the management and policy-formulation of several critical Internet resources.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">27. While the WSIS in 2003-05 considered this a troubling issue, this focus seems to have shifted entirely. Open, inclusive, transparent and <i>global</i> Internet are misnomer-principles when ICANN – and in effect, the United States – continues to have monopoly over critical Internet resources. The allocation and administration of these resources should be decentralized and distributed, and should not be within the disproportionate control of any one jurisdiction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">28. Therefore, we reiterate our suggestion to add <strong><span>paragraph 53A</span></strong> after Para 53:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"53A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We affirm that the allocation, administration and policy involving critical Internet resources must be inclusive and decentralized, and call upon all stakeholders and in particular, states and organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet, to take immediate measures to create an environment that facilitates this development.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3><i><span>Inclusiveness and Diversity in Internet Governance</span></i></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">29. The current Draft, in ¶52, recognizes that there is a need to “promote greater participation and engagement in Internet governance of all stakeholders…”, and calls for “stable, transparent and voluntary funding mechanisms to this end.” This is most commendable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">30. The issue of inclusiveness and diversity in Internet governance is crucial: today, Internet governance organisations and platforms suffer from a lack of inclusiveness and diversity, extending across representation, participation and operations of these organisations. As CIS submitted previously, the mention of inclusiveness and diversity becomes tokenism or formal (but not operational) principle in many cases.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">31. As we submitted before, the developing world is pitifully represented in standards organisations and in ICANN, and policy discussions in organisations like ISOC occur largely in cities like Geneva and New York. For ex., 307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory are based in the United States, while 624 of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars are US-based.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">32. Not only this, but 80% of the responses received by ICANN during the ICG’s call for proposals were male. A truly global and open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet must not be so skewed. Representation must include not only those from developing countries, but must also extend across gender and communities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">33. We propose, therefore, the addition of a <strong><span>paragraph 51A</span></strong> after Para 51:</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: justify; "><span>"51A. <span style="text-align: justify; ">We draw attention to the challenges surrounding diversity and inclusiveness in organisations involved in Internet governance, including in their representation, participation and operations. We note with concern that the representation of developing countries, of women, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, is far from equitable and adequate. We call upon organisations involved in Internet governance to take immediate measures to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in a substantive manner.”</span></span></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prepared by Geetha Hariharan, with inputs from Sunil Abraham and Japreet Grewal. All comments submitted towards the Draft Outcome Document may be found <a class="external-link" href="http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/Preparatory-Process-Roadmap/Comments-on-Draft-Outcome-Document">at this link</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICT4DCall for CommentsWSIS+10Access to KnowledgeAccessibilityHuman Rights OnlineInternet GovernanceICANNIANA TransitionOpen SourceOpen Access2015-11-18T06:33:13ZBlog EntryComments on the Zero Draft of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (WSIS+10)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-zero-draft-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10
<b>On 9 October 2015, the Zero Draft of the UN General Assembly's Overall Review of implementation of WSIS Outcomes was released. Comments were sought on the Zero Draft from diverse stakeholders. The Centre for Internet & Society's response to the call for comments is below.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These comments were prepared by Geetha Hariharan with inputs from Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Pranesh Prakash, Sunil Abraham, Japreet Grewal and Nehaa Chaudhari. <b>Download the <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-zero-draft-of-un-general-assembly.pdf" class="internal-link">comments here</a></b>.</p>
<hr />
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>The Zero Draft of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (“Zero Draft”) is divided into three sections: (A) ICT for Development; (B) Internet Governance; (C) Implementation and Follow-up. CIS’ comments follow the same structure.</li>
<li>The Zero Draft is a commendable document, covering crucial areas of growth and challenges surrounding the WSIS. The Zero Draft makes detailed references to development-related challenges, noting the persistent digital divide, the importance of universal access, innovation and investment, and of enabling legal and regulatory environments conducive to the same. It also takes note of financial mechanisms, without which principles would remain toothless. Issues surrounding Internet governance, particularly net neutrality, privacy and the continuation of the IGF are included in the Zero Draft.</li>
<li>However, we believe that references to these issues are inadequate to make progress on existing challenges. Issues surrounding ICT for Development and Internet Governance have scarcely changed in the past ten years. Though we may laud the progress so far achieved, universal access and connectivity, the digital divide, insufficient funding, diverse and conflicting legal systems surrounding the Internet, the gender divide and online harassment persist. Moreover, the working of the IGF and the process of Enhanced Cooperation, both laid down with great anticipation in the Tunis Agenda, have been found wanting.</li>
<li>These need to be addressed more clearly and strongly in the Zero Draft. In light of these shortcomings, we suggest the following changes to the Zero Draft, in the hope that they are accepted. <br />A. ICT for Development</li>
<li>Paragraphs 16-21 elaborate upon the digital divide – both the progresses made and challenges. While the Zero Draft recognizes the disparities in access to the Internet among countries, between men and women, and of the languages of Internet content, it fails to attend to two issues.</li>
<li><b><i>First</i>, accessibility for persons with disabilities continues to be an immense challenge</b>. Since the mandate of the WSIS involves universal access and the bridging of the digital divide, it is necessary that the Zero Draft take note of this continuing challenge.</li>
<li>We suggest the insertion of <b>Para 20A</b> after Para 20:<br />“20A. We draw attention also to the digital divide adversely affecting the accessibility of persons with disabilities. We call on all stakeholders to take immediate measures to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities by 2020, and to enhance their capacity and access to ICTs.”</li>
<li><b><i>Second</i>, while the digital divide among the consumers of ICTs has decreased since 2003-2005, the digital production divide goes unmentioned</b>. The developing world continues to have fewer producers of technology compared to their sheer concentration in the developed world – so much so that countries like India are currently pushing for foreign investment through missions like ‘Digital India’. Of course, the Zero Draft refers to the importance of private sector investment (Para 31). But it fails to point out that currently, such investment originates from corporations in the developed world. For this digital production divide to disappear, restrictions on innovation – restrictive patent or copyright regimes, for instance – should be removed, among other measures. <b>Equitable development is the key</b>.</li>
<li><i>Ongoing negotiations of plurilateral agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) go unmentioned in the Zero Draft</i>. This is shocking. The TPP has been criticized for its excessive leeway and support for IP rightsholders, while incorporating non-binding commitments involving the rights of users (see Clause QQ.G.17 on copyright exceptions and limitations, QQ.H.4 on damages and QQ.C. 12 on ccTLD WHOIS, https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf). Plaudits for progress make on the digital divide would be lip service if such agreements were not denounced.</li>
<li>Therefore, we propose the addition of <b>Para 20B</b> after Para 20:<br />“20B. We draw attention also to the digital production divide among countries, recognizing that domestic innovation and production are instrumental in achieving universal connectivity. Taking note of recent negotiations surrounding restrictive and unbalanced plurilateral trade agreements, we call on stakeholders to adopt policies to ensure globally equitable development, removing restrictions on innovation and conducive to fostering domestic and local production.”</li>
<li>Paragraph 22 of the Zero Draft acknowledges that “school curriculum requirements for ICT, open access to data and free flow of information, fostering of competition, access to finance”, etc. have “in many countries, facilitated significant gains in connectivity and sustainable development”.</li>
<li>This is, of course, true. However, as Para 23 also recognises, access to knowledge, data and innovation have come with large costs, particularly for developing countries like India. These costs are heightened by a lack of promotion and adoption of open standards, open access, open educational resources, open data (including open government data), and other free and open source practices. These can help alleviate costs, reduce duplication of efforts, and provide an impetus to innovation and connectivity globally.</li>
<li>Not only this, but <b>the implications of open access to data and knowledge (including open government data), and responsible collection and dissemination of data are much larger in light of the importance of ICTs in today’s world</b>. As Para 7 of the Zero Draft indicates, ICTs are now becoming an indicator of development itself, as well as being a key facilitator for achieving other developmental goals. As Para 56 of the Zero Draft recognizes, in order to measure the impact of ICTs on the ground – undoubtedly within the mandate of WSIS – it is necessary that there be an enabling environment to collect and analyse reliable data. Efforts towards the same have already been undertaken by the United Nations in the form of “Data Revolution for Sustainable Development”. In this light, the Zero Draft rightly calls for enhancement of regional, national and local capacity to collect and conduct analyses of development and ICT statistics (Para 56). Achieving the central goals of the WSIS process requires that such data is collected and disseminated under open standards and open licenses, leading to creation of global open data on the ICT indicators concerned.</li>
<li>As such, we suggest that following clause be inserted as <b>Para 23A</b> to the Zero Draft: </li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“23A. We recognize the importance of access to open, affordable, and reliable technologies and services, open access to knowledge, and open data, including open government data, and encourage all stakeholders to explore concrete options to facilitate the same.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">15. Paragraph 30 of the Zero Draft laments “the lack of progress on the Digital Solidarity Fund”, and calls “for a review of options for its future”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">16. The Digital Solidarity Fund was established with the objective of “transforming the digital divide into digital opportunities for the developing world” through voluntary contributions [Para 28, Tunis Agenda]. It was an innovative financial mechanism to help bridge the digital divide between developed and developing countries. This divide continues to exist, as the Zero Draft itself recognizes in Paragraphs 16-21.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">17. <b>Given the persistent digital divide, a “call for review of options” as to the future of the Digital Solidarity Fund is inadequate to enable developing countries to achieve parity with developed countries</b>. A stronger and more definite commitment is required.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">18. As such, we suggest the following language in place of the current <b>Para 30</b>:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“30. We express concern at the lack of progress on the Digital Solidarity Fund, welcomed in Tunis as an innovative financial mechanism of a voluntary nature, and we <i>call for voluntary commitments from States to revive and sustain the Digital Solidarity Fund</i>.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">19. Paragraph 31 of the Zero Draft recognizes the importance of “legal and regulatory frameworks conducive to investment and innovation”. This is eminently laudable. However, a <b>broader vision is more compatible with paving the way for affordable and widespread access </b>to devices and technology necessary for universal connectivity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">20. We suggest the following additions to <b>Para 31</b>:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“31. We recognise the critical importance of private sector investment in ICT access, content and services, <i>and of legal and regulatory frameworks conducive to local investment and expansive, permissionless innovation</i>.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">B. Internet Governance</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">21. Paragraph 32 of the Zero Draft recognizes the “general agreement that the governance of the Internet should be open, inclusive, and transparent”. Para 37 takes into account “the report of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF”. Para 37 also affirms the intention of the General Assembly to extend the life of the IGF by (at least) another 5 years, and acknowledges the “unique role of the IGF”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">22. The IGF is, of course, unique and crucial to global Internet governance. In the last 10 years, major strides have been made among diverse stakeholders in beginning and sustaining conversations on issues critical to Internet governance. These include issues such as human rights, inclusiveness and diversity, universal access to connectivity, emerging issues such as net neutrality, the right to be forgotten, and several others. Through its many arms like the Dynamic Coalitions, the Best Practices Forums, Birds-of-a-Feather meetings and Workshops, the IGF has made it possible for stakeholders to connect. <br /> <br /> 23. However, the constitution and functioning of the IGF have not been without lament and controversy. Foremost among the laments was the IGF’s evident lack of outcome-orientation; this continues to be debatable. Second, the composition and functioning of the MAG, particularly its transparency, have come under the microscope several times. One of the suggestions of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF concerned the structure and working methods of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The Working Group recommended that the “process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented” (Section II.2, Clause 21(a), Page 5 of the Report).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">24. <b>Transparency in the structure and working methods of the MAG are critical to the credibility and impact of the IGF</b>. The functioning of the IGF depends, in a large part, on the MAG. The UN Secretary General established the MAG, and it advises the Secretary General on the programme and schedule of the IGF meetings each year (see <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/44-about-the-mag>). Under its Terms of Reference, the MAG decides the main themes and sub-themes for each IGF, sets or modifies the rules of engagement, organizes the main plenary sessions, coordinates workshop panels and speakers, and crucially, evaluates the many submissions it receives to choose from amongst them the workshops for each IGF meeting. The content of each IGF, then, is in the hands of the MAG.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">25. <i>But the MAG is not inclusive or transparent</i>. The MAG itself has lamented its opaque ‘black box approach’ to nomination and selection. Also, CIS’ research has shown that the process of nomination and selection of the MAG continues to be opaque. When CIS sought information on the nominators of the MAG, the IGF Secretariat responded that this information would not be made public (see <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">26. Further, our analysis of MAG membership shows that since 2006, 26 persons have served for 6 years or more on the MAG. This is astounding, since under the MAG Terms of Reference, MAG members are nominated for a term of 1 year. This 1-year-term is “automatically renewable for 2 more consecutive years”, but such renewal is contingent on an evaluation of the engagement of MAG members in their activities (see <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/175-igf-2015/2041-mag-terms-of-reference>). MAG members ought not serve for over 3 consecutive years, in accordance with their Terms of Reference. But out of 182 MAG members, around 62 members have served more than the 3-year terms designated by their Terms of Reference (see <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis>). <br /> <br /> 27. Not only this, but our research showed 36% of all MAG members since 2006 have hailed from the Western European and Others Group (see <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis>). This indicates a lack of inclusiveness, though the MAG is certainly more inclusive than the composition and functioning of other I-Star organisations such as ICANN.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">28. Tackling these infirmities within the MAG would go a long way in ensuring that the IGF lives up to its purpose. Therefore, we suggest the following additions to <b>Para 37</b>:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“37. We acknowledge the unique role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multistakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues, <i>and take note of </i>the report and recommendations of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF, which was approved by the General Assembly in its resolution, and ongoing work to implement the findings of that report. <i>We reaffirm the principles of openness, inclusiveness and transparency in the constitution, organisation and functioning of the IGF, and in particular, in the nomination and selection of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)</i>. We extend the IGF mandate for another five years with its current mandate as set out in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. We recognize that, at the end of this period, progress must be made on Forum outcomes and participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">29. Paragraphs 32-37 of the Zero Draft make mention of “open, inclusive, and transparent” governance of the Internet. <b>It fails to take note of the lack of inclusiveness and diversity in Internet governance organisations – extending across representation, participation and operations of these organisations</b>. In many cases, mention of inclusiveness and diversity becomes tokenism or formal (but not operational) principle. In substantive terms, the developing world is pitifully represented in standards organisations and in ICANN, and policy discussions in organisations like ISOC occur largely in cities like Geneva and New York. For example, the ‘diversity’ mailing list of IETF has very low traffic. Within ICANN, 307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory are based in the United States, while 624 of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars are US-based. Not only this, but 80% of the responses received by ICANN during the ICG’s call for proposals were male. A truly global and open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet must not be so skewed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">30. We propose, therefore, the addition of a <b>Para 37A</b> after Para 37:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“37A. We draw attention to the challenges surrounding diversity and inclusiveness in organisations involved in Internet governance, and call upon these organisations to take immediate measures to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in a substantive manner.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">31. Paragraphs 36 of the Zero Draft notes that “a number of member states have called for an international legal framework for Internet governance.” <b>But it makes no reference to ICANN or the importance of the ongoing IANA transition to global Internet governance</b>. ICANN and its monopoly over several critical Internet resources was one of the key drivers of the WSIS in 2003-2005. Unfortunately, this focus seems to have shifted entirely. Open, inclusive, transparent and <i>global</i> Internet are misnomer-principles when ICANN – and in effect, the United States – continues to have monopoly over critical Internet resources. The allocation and administration of these resources should be decentralized and distributed, and should not be within the disproportionate control of any one jurisdiction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">32. Therefore, we suggest the following <b>Para 37A</b> after Para 37:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“37A. We affirm that the allocation, administration and policy involving critical Internet resources must be inclusive and decentralized, and call upon all stakeholders and in particular, states and organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet, to take immediate measures to create an environment that facilitates this development.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">33. Paragraph 43 of the Zero Draft encourages “all stakeholders to ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data”. <b>But the Zero Draft inadvertently leaves out the report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on digital privacy, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ (A/HRC/27/37)</b>. This report, adopted by the Human Rights Council in June 2014, affirms the importance of the right to privacy in our increasingly digital age, and offers crucial insight into recent erosions of privacy. It is both fitting and necessary that the General Assembly take note of and affirm the said report in the context of digital privacy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">34. We offer the following suggestion as an addition to <b>Para 43</b>:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“43. We emphasise that no person shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence, consistent with countries’ applicable obligations under international human rights law. <i>In this regard, we acknowledge the report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ (A/HRC/27/37, 30 June 2014), and take note of its findings</i>. We encourage all stakeholders to ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">35. Paragraphs 40-44 of the Zero Draft state that communication is a fundamental human need, reaffirming Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with its attendant narrow limitations. The Zero Draft also underscores the need to respect the independence of the press. Particularly, it reaffirms the principle that the same rights that people enjoy offline must also be protected online.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">36. Further, in Para 31, the Zero Draft recognizes the “critical importance of private sector investment in ICT access, content, and services”. This is true, of course, but corporations also play a crucial role in facilitating the freedom of speech and expression (and all other related rights) on the Internet. As the Internet is led largely by the private sector in the development and distribution of devices, protocols and content-platforms, corporations play a major role in facilitating – and sometimes, in restricting – human rights online. They are, in sum, intermediaries without whom the Internet cannot function.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">37. <b>Given this, it is essential that the outcome document of the WSIS+10 Overall Review recognize and affirm the role of the private sector, and crucially, its responsibilities to respect and protect human rights online</b>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">38. We suggest, therefore, the insertion of the following paragraph <b>Para 42A</b>, after Para 42:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“42A. We recognize the critical role played by corporations and the private sector in facilitating human rights online. We affirm, in this regard, the responsibilities of the private sector set out in the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011), and encourage policies and commitments towards respect and remedies for human rights.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">C. Implementation and Follow-up</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">39. Para 57 of the Zero Draft calls for a review of the WSIS Outcomes, and leaves a black space inviting suggestions for the year of the review. How often, then, should the review of implementation of WSIS+10 Outcomes take place?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">40. It is true, of course, that reviews of the implementation of WSIS Outcomes are necessary to take stock of progress and challenges. However, we caution against annual, biennal or other such closely-spaced reviews due to concerns surrounding budgetary allocations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">41. Reviews of implementation of outcomes (typically followed by an Outcome Document) come at considerable cost, which are budgeted and achieved through contributions (sometimes voluntary) from states. Were Reviews to be too closely spaced, budgets that ideally ought to be utilized to bridge digital divides and ensure universal connectivity, particularly for developing states, would be misspent in reviews. Moreover, closely-spaced reviews would only provide superficial quantitative assessments of progress, but would not throw light on longer term or qualitative impacts.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-zero-draft-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-zero-draft-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaWSIS+10Internet Governance2015-10-16T02:44:16ZBlog EntryCIS submission to the UNGA WSIS+10 Review
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-to-unga-wsis-review
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) submitted its comments to the non-paper on the UNGA Overall Review of
the Implementation of the WSIS outcomes, evaluating the progress made and challenges ahead.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>To what extent has progress been made on the vision of the peoplecentred, inclusive and development oriented Information Society in the ten years since the WSIS?</b><br />The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003 and 2005 played an important role in encapsulating the potential of knowledge and information and communication technologies (ICT) to contribute to economic and social development. Over the past ten years, most countries have sought to foster the use of information and knowledge by creating enabling environment for innovation and through efforts to increase access. There have been interventions to develop ICT for development both at an international and national level through private sector investment, bilateral treaties and national strategies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, much of the progress made in the past ten years in terms of getting people connected and reaping the benefits of ICT has not been sufficiently peoplecentred, nor have they been sufficiently inclusive.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These developments have not been sufficiently peoplecentred, since governments across the world have been using the Internet as a monumental surveillance tool, invading people’s privacy without legitimate justifications, in an arbitrary manner without due care for reasonableness, proportionality, or democratic accountability. These developments have not been sufficiently peoplecentred, since the largest and most profitable Internet businesses — businesses that have more users than most nationstates have citizens, yet have one-sided terms of service — have eschewed core principles like open standards and interoperability that helped create the Internet and the World Wide Web, and instead promote silos.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We still reside in a world where development has been very lopsided, and ICTs have contributed to reducing some of these gulfs, while exacerbating others. For instance, persons with visual impairment are largely yet to reap the benefits of the Information Society due to a lack of attention paid to universal, while sighted persons have benefited far more; the ability of persons who don’t speak a language like English to contribute to global Internet governance discussions is severely limited; the spread of academic knowledge largely remains behind prohibitive paywalls.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As ICTs have grown both in sophistication and reach, much work remains to achieve the peoplecentred, inclusive and developmentoriented information society envisaged in WSIS. While the diffusion of ICTs has created new opportunities for development, even today less than half the world has access to broadband (with only eleven per cent of the world’s population having access to fixed broadband). See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/en/ITUD/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf">International Telecommunication Union, ICT Facts and Figures: The World in 2015</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ninety per cent of people connected come from the industrialized countries — North America (thirty per cent), Europe (thirty per cent) and the AsiaPacific (thirty per cent). Four billion people from developing countries remain offline, representing two-thirds of the population residing in developing countries. Of the nine hundred and forty million people residing in Least Developed Countries (LDCs), only eighty-nine million use the Internet and only seven per cent of households have Internet access, compared with the world average of forty-six per cent. See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/en/ITUD/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf">International Telecommunication Union, ICT Facts and Figures: The World in 2015</a>. This digital divide is first and foremost a question of access to basic infrastructure (like electricity).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Furthermore, there is a problem of affordability, all the more acute since in the South in comparison with countries of the North due to the high costs related to access to the connection. Further, linguistic, educational, cultural and content related barriers are also contributing to this digital divide. Growth of restrictive regimes around intellectual property, vision of the equal and connected society. Security of critical infrastructure with in light of ever growing vulnerabilities, the loss of trust following revelations around mass surveillance and a lack of consensus on how to tackle these concerns are proving to be a challenge to the vision of a connected information society. The WSIS+10 overall review is timely and a much needed intervention in assessing the progress made and planning for the challenges ahead.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were two bodies as major outcomes of the WSIS process: the Internet Governance Forum and the Digital Solidarity Fund, with both of these largely failing to achieve their intended goals. The Internet Governance Forum, which is meant to be a leading example of “multi-stakeholder governance” is also a leading example of what the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) noted in 2010 as “‘black box’ approach”, with the entire process around the nomination and selection of the MAG being opaque. Indeed, when CIS requested the IGF Secretariat to share information on the nominators, we were told that this information will not be made private. Five years since the MAG lamented its own blackbox nature, things have scarcely improved. Further, analysis of MAG membership since 2006 shows that 26 persons have served for 6 years or more, with the majority of them being from government, industry, or the technical community. Unsurprisingly, 36 per cent of the MAG membership has come from the WEOG group, highlighting both deficiencies in the nomination/selection<br />process as well as the need for capacity building in this most important area. The Digital Solidarity Fund failed for a variety of reason, which we have analysed in a <a class="external-link" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E0HKY06744b6i2slR5HMk9Qd6I7zPFWJlKSmhsneAs/ edit">separate document</a> annexed to this response.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>What are the challenges to the implementation of WSIS outcomes?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some of the key areas that need attention going forward and need to be addressed include:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Access to Infrastructure</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Developing policies aimed at promoting innovation and increasing affordable access to hardware and software, and curbing the ill effects of the currentlyexcessive patent and copyright regimes.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Focussing global energies on solutions to lastmile access to the Internet in a manner that is not decoupled from developmental ground realities.</li>
<li>This would include policies on spectrum sharing, freeing up underutilized spectrum, and increasing unlicensed spectrum.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">This would also include governmental policies on increasing competition among Internet providers at the last mile as well as at the backbone (both nationally and internationally), as well as commitments for investments in basic infrastructure such as an openaccess national fibreoptic backbone where the private sector investment is not sufficient.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Developing policies that encourage local Internet and communications infrastructure in the form of Internet exchange points, data centres, community broadcasting.</li>
</ul>
<p>Access to Knowledges</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">As the Washington Declaration on IP and the Public Interest5 points out, the enclosure of the public domain and knowledge commons through expansive “intellectual property” laws and policies has only gotten worse with digital technologies, leading to an unjust allocation of information goods, and continuing royalty outflows from the global South to a handful of developing countries. This is not sustainable, and urgent action is needed to achieve more democratic IP laws, and prevent developments such as extra judicial enforcement mechanisms such as digital restrictions management systems from being incorporated within Web standards.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Aggressive development of policies and adoption of best practices to ensure that persons with disabilities are not treated as secondgrade citizens, but are able to fully and equally participate in and benefit from the Information Society.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Despite the rise of video content on the Internet, much of that has been in parts of the world with already high literacy, and language and illiteracy continue to pose barriers to full usage of the Internet.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">While the Tunis Agenda highlighted the need to address communities marginalized in Information Society discourse, including youth, older persons, women, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, and remote and rural communities, but not much progress has been seen on this front.</li>
</ul>
<p>Rights, Trust, and Governance</p>
<ul>
<li>Ensuring effective and sustainable participation especially from developing countries and marginalised communities. Developing governance mechanisms that are accountable, transparent and provide checks against both unaccountable commercial interests as well as governments.</li>
<li>Building citizen trust through legitimate, accountable and transparent governance mechanisms.</li>
<li>Ensuring cooperation between states as security is influenced by global foreign policy, and is of principal importance to citizens and consumers, and an enabler of other rights.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">As the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability show, uninformed intermediary liability policies, blunt and heavy handed regulatory measures, failing to meet the principles of necessity and proportionality, and a lack of consistency across these policies has resulted in censorship and other human rights abuses by governments and private parties, limiting individuals’ rights to free expression and creating an environment of uncertainty that also impedes innovation online. In developing, adopting, and reviewing legislation, policies and practices that govern the liability of intermediaries, interoperable and harmonized regimes that can promote innovation while respecting users’ rights in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are needed and should be encouraged.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">An important challenge before the Information Society is that of the rise of “quantified society”, where enormous amounts of data are generated constantly, leading to great possibilities and grave concerns regarding privacy and data protection.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reducing tensions arising from the differences between cultural and digital nationalism including on issues such as data sovereignty, data localisation, unfair trade and the need to have open markets.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Currently, there is a lack of internationally recognized venues accessible to all stakeholders for not only discussing but also acting upon many of these issues.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>What should be the priorities in seeking to achieve WSIS outcomes and progress towards the Information Society, taking into account emerging trends?</b><br />All the challenges mentioned above should be a priority in achieving WSIS outcomes and ensuring innovation to lead social and economic progress in society. Digital literacy, multilingualism and addressing privacy and user data related issues need urgent attention in the global agenda. Enabling increased citizen participation thus accounting for the diverse voices that make the Internet a unique medium should also be treated as priority. Renewing the IGF mandate and giving it teeth by adopting indicators for development and progress, periodic review and working towards tangible outcomes would be beneficial to achieving the goal of a connected information society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>What are general expectations from the WSIS + 10 High Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly?</b><br />We would expect the WSIS+10 High Level Meeting to endorse an outcome document that seeks to d evelop a comprehensive policy framework addressing the challenges highlighted above . It would also be beneficial, if the outcome document could identify further steps to assess development made so far, and actions for overcoming the identified challenges. Importantly, this should not only be aimed at governments, but at all stakeholders. This would be useful as a future road map for regulation and would also allow us to understand the impact of Internet on society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>What shape should the outcome document take?</b><br />The outcome document should be a resolution of the UN General Assembly, with high level policy statements and adopted agreements to work towards identified indicators. It should stress the urgency of reforms needed for ICT governance that is democratic, respectful of human rights and social justice and promotes participatory policymaking. The language should promote the use of technologies and institutional architectures of governance that ensure users’ rights over data and information and recognize the need to restrict abusive use of technologies including those used for mass surveillance. Further, the outcome document should underscore the relevance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights, in the Information Society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The outcome document should also acknowledge that certain issues such as security, ensuring transnational rights, taxation, and other such cross jurisdictional issues may need greater international cooperation and should include concrete steps on how to proceed on these issues. The outcome document should acknowledge the limited progress made through outcome-less multi-stakeholder governance processes such as the Internet Governance Forum, which favour status quoism, and seek to enable the IGF to be more bold in achieving its original goals, which are still relevant. It should be frank in its acknowledgement of the lack of consensus on issues such as “enhanced cooperation” and the “respective roles” of stakeholders in multi-stakeholder processes, as brushing these difficulties under the carpet won’t help in magically building consensus. Further, the outcome document should recognize that there are varied approaches to multi-stakeholder governance.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-to-unga-wsis-review'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-to-unga-wsis-review</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiWSIS+10Internet Governance2015-08-09T16:24:04ZBlog EntryWSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report
<b>The WSIS+10 High Level was organised by the ITU and collaborative UN entities on June 9-13, 2014. It aimed to evaluate the progress on implementation of WSIS Outcomes from Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, and to envision a post-2015 Development Agenda. Geetha Hariharan attended the event on CIS' behalf.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +10 </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/">High Level Event</a><span> (HLE) was hosted at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, from June 9-13, 2014. The HLE aimed to review the implementation and progress made on information and communication technology (ICT) across the globe, in light of WSIS outcomes (</span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p1.html">Geneva 2003</a><span> and </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p2.html">Tunis 2005</a><span>). Organised in three parallel tracks, the HLE sought to take stock of progress in ICTs in the last decade (High Level track), initiate High Level Dialogues to formulate the post-2015 development agenda, as well as host thematic workshops for participants (Forum track).</span><span> </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Track:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy2_of_HighLevelTrack.jpg/@@images/be5f993c-3553-4d63-bb66-7cd16f8407dc.jpeg" alt="High Level Track" class="image-inline" title="High Level Track" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Opening Ceremony, WSIS+10 High Level Event </i>(<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/ITU/status/334587247556960256/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level track opened officially on June 10, 2014, and culminated with the endorsement by acclamation (as is ITU tradition) of two <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/inc/doc/outcome/362828V2E.pdf">Outcome Documents</a>. These were: (1) WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, taking stock of ICT developments since the WSIS summits, (2) WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, aiming to develop a vision for the post-2015 global information society. These documents were the result of the WSIS+10 <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/">Multi-stakeholder Preparatory Platform</a> (MPP), which involved WSIS stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations and relevant regional organizations).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <strong>MPP</strong> met in six phases, convened as an open, inclusive consultation among WSIS stakeholders. It was not without its misadventures. While ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré consistently lauded the multi-stakeholder process, and Ambassador Janis Karklins urged all parties, especially governments, to “<i>let the UN General Assembly know that the multi-stakeholder model works for Internet governance at all levels</i>”, participants in the process shared stories of discomfort, disagreement and discord amongst stakeholders on various IG issues, not least human rights on the Internet, surveillance and privacy, and multi-stakeholderism. Richard Hill of the Association for Proper Internet Governance (<a href="http://www.apig.ch/">APIG</a>) and the Just Net Coalition writes that like NETmundial, the MPP was rich in a diversity of views and knowledge exchange, but stakeholders <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/06/16/what-questions-did-the-wsis10-high-level-event-answer/">failed to reach consensus</a> on crucial issues. Indeed, Prof. Vlamidir Minkin, Chairman of the MPP, expressed his dismay at the lack of consensus over action line C9. A compromise was agreed upon in relation to C9 later.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some members of civil society expressed their satisfaction with the extensive references to human rights and rights-centred development in the Outcome Documents. While governmental opposition was seen as frustrating, they felt that the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">MPP had sought and achieved a common understanding</span></strong>, a sentiment <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748168051580928">echoed</a> by the ITU Secretary General. Indeed, even Iran, a state that had expressed major reservations during the MPP and felt itself unable to agree with the text, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">agreed</a> that the MPP had worked hard to draft a document beneficial to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns around the MPP did not affect the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">review of ICT developments</span></strong> over the last decade. High Level Panels with Ministers of ICT from states such as Uganda, Bangladesh, Sweden, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and others, heads of the UN Development Programme, UNCTAD, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN-WOMEN and others spoke at length of rapid advances in ICTs. The focus was largely on ICT access and affordability in developing states. John E. Davies of Intel repeatedly drew attention to innovative uses of ICTs in Africa and Asia, which have helped bridge divides of affordability, gender, education and capacity-building. Public-private partnerships were the best solution, he said, to affordability and access. At a ceremony evaluating implementation of WSIS action-lines, the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), India, <a href="https://twitter.com/covertlight/status/476748723750711297">won an award</a> for its e-health application MOTHER.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Outcome Documents themselves shall be analysed in a separate post. But in sum, the dialogue around Internet governance at the HLE centred around the success of the MPP. Most participants on panels and in the audience felt this was a crucial achievement within the realm of the UN, where the Tunis Summit had delineated strict roles for stakeholders in paragraph 35 of the </span><a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">Tunis Agenda</a><span>. Indeed, there was palpable relief in Conference Room 1 at the </span><a href="http://www.cicg.ch/en/">CICG</a><span>, Geneva, when on June 11, Dr. Touré announced that the Outcome Documents would be adopted without a vote, in keeping with ITU tradition, even if consensus was achieved by compromise.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/HighLevelDialogues.jpg/@@images/3c30d94f-7a65-4912-bb42-2ccd3b85a18d.jpeg" alt="High Level Dialogues" class="image-inline" title="High Level Dialogues" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Prof. Vladimir Minkin delivers a statement.</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/JaroslawPONDER/status/476288845013843968/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The High Level Dialogues on developing a post-2015 Development Agenda, based on WSIS action lines, were active on June 12. Introducing the Dialogue, Dr. Touré lamented the Millennium Development Goals as a “<i>lost opportunity</i>”, emphasizing the need to alert the UN General Assembly and its committees as to the importance of ICTs for development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As on previous panels, there was <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">intense focus on access, affordability and reach in developing countries</span></strong>, with Rwanda and Bangladesh expounding upon their successes in implementing ICT innovations domestically. The world is more connected than it was in 2005, and the ITU in 2014 is no longer what it was in 2003, said speakers. But we lack data on ICT deployment across the globe, said Minister Knutssen of Sweden, recalling the gathering to the need to engage all stakeholders in this task. Speakers on multiple panels, including the Rwandan Minister for CIT, Marilyn Cade of ICANN and Petra Lantz of the UNDP, emphasized the need for ‘smart engagement’ and capacity-building for ICT development and deployment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A crucial session on cybersecurity saw Dr. Touré envision a global peace treaty accommodating multiple stakeholders. On the panel were Minister Omobola Johnson of Nigeria, Prof. Udo Helmbrecht of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), Prof. A.A. Wahab of Cybersecurity Malaysia and Simon Muller of Facebook. The focus was primarily on building laws and regulations for secure communication and business, while child protection was equally considered.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The lack of laws/regulations for cybersecurity (child pornography and jurisdictional issues, for instance), or other legal protections (privacy, data protection, freedom of speech) in rapidly connecting developing states was noted. But the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">question of cross-border surveillance and wanton violations of privacy went unaddressed</span></strong> except for the customary, unavoidable mention. This was expected. Debates in Internet governance have, in the past year, been silently and invisibly driven by the Snowden revelations. So too, at WSIS+10 Cybersecurity, speakers emphasized open data, information exchange, data ownership and control (the <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties">right to be forgotten</a>), but did not openly address surveillance. Indeed, Simon Muller of Facebook called upon governments to publish their own transparency reports: A laudable suggestion, even accounting for Facebook’s own undetailed and truncated reports.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a nutshell, the post-2015 Development Agenda dialogues repeatedly emphasized the importance of ICTs in global connectivity, and their impact on GDP growth and socio-cultural change and progress. The focus was on taking this message to the UN General Assembly, engaging all stakeholders and creating an achievable set of action lines post-2015.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Forum Track:</h3>
<p><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/copy_of_ForumTrack.jpg/@@images/dfcce68a-18d7-4f1e-897b-7208bb60abc9.jpeg" alt="Forum Track" class="image-inline" title="Forum Track" /></p>
<p><i>Participants at the UNESCO session on its Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</i> (<a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/leakaspar/status/476690921644646400/photo/1">Source</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was organized as an extended version of the WSIS Forum, which hosts thematic workshops and networking opportunities, much like any other conference. Running in parallel sessions over 5 days, the WSIS Forum hosted sessions by the ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, ICANN, ISOC, APIG, etc., on issues as diverse as the WSIS Action Lines, the future of Internet governance, the successes and failures of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/">WCIT-2012</a>, UNESCO’s <a href="http://www.unesco.org/new/internetstudy">Comprehensive Study on Internet-related Issues</a>, spam and a taxonomy of Internet governance.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Detailed explanation of each session I attended is beyond the scope of this report, so I will limit myself to the interesting issues raised.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At ICANN’s session on its own future (June 9), Ms. Marilyn Cade emphasized the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">importance of national and regional IGFs</span></strong> for both issue-awareness and capacity-building. Mr. Nigel Hickson spoke of engagement at multiple Internet governance fora: “<i>Internet governance is not shaped by individual events</i>”. In light of <a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/">criticism</a> of ICANN’s apparent monopoly over IANA stewardship transition, this has been ICANN’s continual <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en">response</a> (often repeated at the HLE itself). Also widely discussed was the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">role of stakeholders in Internet governance</span></strong>, given the delineation of roles and responsibilities in the Tunis Agenda, and governments’ preference for policy-monopoly (At WSIS+10, Indian Ambassador Dilip Sinha seemed wistful that multilateralism is a “<i>distant dream</i>”).<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This discussion bore greater fruit in a session on Internet governance ‘taxonomy’. The session saw <a href="https://www.icann.org/profiles/george-sadowsky">Mr. George Sadowsky</a>, <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/faculty/kurbalija">Dr. Jovan Kurbalija</a>, <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org/">Mr. William Drake</a> and <a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2014/forum/agenda/session_docs/170/ThoughtsOnIG.pdf">Mr. Eliot Lear</a> (there is surprisingly no official profile-page on Mr. Lear) expound on dense structures of Internet governance, involving multiple methods of classification of Internet infrastructure, CIRs, public policy issues, etc. across a spectrum of ‘baskets’ – socio-cultural, economic, legal, technical. Such studies, though each attempting clarity in Internet governance studies, indicate that the closer you get to IG, the more diverse and interconnected the eco-system gets. David Souter’s diagrams almost capture the flux of dynamic debate in this area (please see pages 9 and 22 of <a href="http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ISOC%20framework%20for%20IG%20assessments%20-%20D%20Souter%20-%20final_0.pdf">this ISOC study</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were, for most part, insightful interventions from session participants. Mr. Sadowsky questioned the effectiveness of the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while Mr. Lear pleaded that techies be let to do their jobs without interference. <a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/">Ms. Anja Kovacs</a> raised pertinent concerns about <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">including voiceless minorities in a ‘rough consensus’ model</span></strong>. Across sessions, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">questions of mass surveillance, privacy and data ownership rose</span></strong> from participants. The protection of human rights on the Internet – especially freedom of expression and privacy – made continual appearance, across issues like spam (<a href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/CDS/sg/rgqlist.asp?lg=1&sp=2010&rgq=D10-RGQ22.1.1&stg=1">Question 22-1/1</a> of ITU-D Study Group 1) and cybersecurity.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The HLE was widely attended by participants across WSIS stakeholder-groups. At the event, a great many relevant questions such as the future of ICTs, inclusions in the post-2015 Development Agenda, the value of muti-stakeholder models, and human rights such as free speech and privacy were raised across the board. Not only were these raised, but cognizance was taken of them by Ministers, members of the ITU and other collaborative UN bodies, private sector entities such as ICANN, technical community such as the ISOC and IETF, as well as (obviously) civil society.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Substantively, the HLE did not address mass surveillance and privacy, nor of expanding roles of WSIS stakeholders and beyond. Processually, the MPP failed to reach consensus on several issues comfortably, and a compromise had to be brokered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>But perhaps a big change at the HLE was the positive attitude to multi-stakeholder models from many quarters, not least the ITU Secretary General Dr. Hamadoun Touré. His repeated calls for acceptance of multi-stakeholderism left many members of civil society surprised and tentatively pleased. Going forward, it will be interesting to track the ITU and the rest of UN’s (and of course, member states’) stances on multi-stakeholderism at the ITU Plenipot, the WSIS+10 Review and the UN General Assembly session, at the least.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wsis-10-high-level-event-a-birds-eye-report</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaWSIS+10PrivacyCybersecurityHuman Rights OnlineSurveillanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionMulti-stakeholderICANNInternet AccessITUInternet StudiesE-GovernanceICT2014-06-20T15:57:32ZBlog Entry