The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
CIS Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability
<b>On May 6, 2014, ICANN published a call for public comments on "Enhancing ICANN Accountability". This comes in the wake of the IANA stewardship transition spearheaded by ICANN and related concerns of ICANN's external and internal accountability mechanisms. Centre for Internet and Society contributed to the call for comments.</b>
<h3><strong>Introduction:</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">announced its intent</a> to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder Internet governance community. ICANN was tasked with the development of a proposal for transition of IANA stewardship, for which ICANN subsequently <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/draft-proposal-2014-04-08-en">called for public comments</a>. At NETmundial, ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé acknowledged that the IANA stewardship transition and improved ICANN accountability were <a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/issuance-of-netmundial-multistakeholder-statement-concludes-act-one-of-2014-internet-governance-trifecta/">inter-related issues</a>, and <a href="http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/icanns-accountability-in-the-wake-of-the-iana-functions-stewardship-transition/">announced</a> the impending launch of a process to strengthen and enhance ICANN accountability in the absence of US government oversight. The subsequent call for public comments on “Enhancing ICANN Accountability” may be found <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en">here</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Suggestions for improved accountability:</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the event, Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) wishes to limit its suggestions for improved ICANN accountability to matters of reactive or responsive transparency on the part of ICANN to the global multi-stakeholder community. We propose the creation and implementation of a robust “freedom or right to information” process from ICANN, accompanied by an independent review mechanism.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article III of ICANN Bye-laws note that “<i>ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness</i>”. As part of this, Article III(2) note that ICANN shall make publicly available information on, <i>inter alia</i>, ICANN’s budget, annual audit, financial contributors and the amount of their contributions, as well as information on accountability mechanisms and the outcome of specific requests and complaints regarding the same. Such accountability mechanisms include reconsideration (Article IV(2)), independent review of Board actions (Article IV(3)), periodic reviews (Article IV(4)) and the Ombudsman (Article V).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”) sets forth a process by which members of the public may request information “<i>not already publicly available</i>”. ICANN <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">may respond</a> (either affirmatively or in denial) to such requests within 30 days. Appeals to denials under the DIDP are available under the reconsideration or independent review procedures, to the extent applicable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While ICANN has historically been prompt in its response to DIDP Requests, CIS is of the view that absent the commitments in the AoC following IANA stewardship transition, it would be desirable to amend and strengthen Response and Appeal procedures for DIDP and other, broader disclosures. Our concerns stem from the fact that, <i>first</i>, the substantive scope of appeal under the DIDP, on the basis of documents requested, is unclear (say, contracts or financial documents regarding payments to Registries or Registrars, or a detailed, granular break-up of ICANN’s revenue and expenditures); and <i>second</i>, that grievances with decisions of the Board Governance Committee or the Independent Review Panel cannot be appealed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, CIS proposes a mechanism based on “right to information” best practices, which results in transparent and accountable governance at governmental levels.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>First</i>, we propose that designated members of ICANN staff shoulder responsibility to respond to information requests. The identity of such members (information officers, say) ought to be made public, including in the response document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Second</i>, an independent, third party body should be constituted to sit in appeal over information officers’ decisions to provide or decline to provide information. Such body may be composed of nominated members from the global multi-stakeholder community, with adequate stakeholder-, regional- and gender-representation. However, such members should not have held prior positions in ICANN or its related organizations. During the appointed term of the body, the terms and conditions of service ought to remain beyond the purview of ICANN, similar to globally accepted principles of an independent judiciary. For instance, the Constitution of India forbids any disadvantageous alteration of privileges and allowances of judges of the <a href="http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p05125.html">Supreme Court</a> and <a href="http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p06221.html">High Courts</a> during tenure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Third</i>, and importantly, punitive measures ought to follow unreasonable, unexplained or illegitimate denials of requests by ICANN information officers. In order to ensure compliance, penalties should be made continuing (a certain prescribed fine for each day of information-denial) on concerned officers. Such punitive measures are accepted, for instance, in Section 20 of India’s Right to Information Act, 2005, where the review body may impose continuing penalties on any defaulting officer.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Finally</i>, exceptions to disclosure should be finite and time-bound. Any and all information exempted from disclosure should be clearly set out (and not merely as categories of exempted information). Further, all exempted information should be made public after a prescribed period of time (say, 1 year), after which any member of the public may request for the same if it continues to be unavailable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS hopes that ICANN shall deliver on its promise to ensure and enhance its accountability and transparency to the global multi-stakeholder community. To that end, we hope our suggestions may be positively considered.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Comment repository</strong>:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All comments received by ICANN during the comment period (May 6, 2014 to June 6, 2014) may be found <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/">at this link</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundialICANNAccountability2014-06-10T13:03:57ZBlog EntryNet Freedom Campaign Loses its Way
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-business-line-may-10-2014-sunil-abraham-net-freedom-campaign-loses-its-way
<b>A recent global meet was a victory for governments and the private sector over civil society interests.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/net-freedom-campaign-loses-its-way/article5994906.ece">published in the Hindu Businessline</a> on May 10, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One word to describe NetMundial: Disappointing! Why? Because despite the promise, human rights on the Internet are still insufficiently protected. Snowden’s revelations starting last June threw the global Internet governance processes into crisis.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Things came to a head in October, when Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, horrified to learn that she was under NSA surveillance for economic reasons, called for the organisation of a global conference called NetMundial to accelerate Internet governance reform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The NetMundial was held in São Paulo on April 23-24 this year. The result was a statement described as “the non-binding outcome of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving … governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world.” In other words — it is international soft law with no enforcement mechanisms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The statement emerges from “broad consensus”, meaning governments such as India, Cuba and Russia and civil society representatives expressed deep dissatisfaction at the closing plenary. Unlike an international binding law, only time will tell whether each member of the different stakeholder groups will regulate itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Again, not easy, because the outcome document does not specifically prescribe what each stakeholder can or cannot do — it only says what internet governance (IG) should or should not be. And finally, there’s no global consensus yet on the scope of IG. The substantive consensus was disappointing in four important ways:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Mass surveillance</b> : Civil society was hoping that the statement would make mass surveillance illegal. After all, global violation of the right to privacy by the US was the <i>raison d'être</i> of the conference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Instead, the statement legitimised “mass surveillance, interception and collection” as long as it was done in compliance with international human rights law. This was clearly the most disastrous outcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Access to knowledge:</b> The conference was not supposed to expand intellectual property rights (IPR) or enforcement of these rights. After all, a multilateral forum, WIPO, was meant to address these concerns. But in the days before the conference the rights-holders lobby went into overdrive and civil society was caught unprepared.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The end result — “freedom of information and access to information” or right to information in India was qualified “with rights of authors and creators”. The right to information laws across the world, including in India, contains almost a dozen exemptions, including IPR. The only thing to be grateful for is that this limitation did not find its way into the language for freedom of expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediary liability:</b> The language that limits liability for intermediaries basically provides for a private censorship regime without judicial oversight, and without explicit language protecting the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Even though the private sector chants Hillary Clinton's Internet freedom mantra — they only care for their own bottomlines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Net neutrality:</b> Even though there was little global consensus, some optimistic sections of civil society were hoping that domestic best practice on network neutrality in Brazil’s Internet Bill of Right — also known as Marco Civil, that was signed into law during the inaugural ceremony of NetMundial — would make it to the statement. Unfortunately, this did not happen.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For almost a decade since the debate between the multi-stakeholder and multilateral model started, the multi-stakeholder model had produced absolutely nothing outside ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a non-profit body), its technical fraternity and the standard-setting bodies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The multi-stakeholder model is governance with the participation (and consent — depending on who you ask) of those stakeholders who are governed. In contrast, in the multilateral system, participation is limited to nation-states.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Civil society divisions</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The inability of multi-stakeholderism to deliver also resulted in the fragmentation of global civil society regulars at Internet Governance Forums.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But in the run-up to NetMundial more divisions began to appear. If we ignore nuances — we could divide them into three groups. One, the ‘outsiders’ who are best exemplified by Jérémie Zimmermann of the La Quadrature du Net. Jérémie ran an online campaign, organised a protest during the conference and did everything he could to prevent NetMundial from being sanctified by civil society consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Two, the ‘process geeks’ — for these individuals and organisations process was more important than principles. Most of them were as deeply invested in the multi-stakeholder model as ICANN and the US government and some who have been riding the ICANN gravy train for years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even worse, some were suspected of being astroturfers bootstrapped by the private sector and the technical community. None of them were willing to rock the boat. For the ‘process geeks’, seeing politicians and bureaucrats queue up like civil society to speak at the mike was the crowning achievement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Three, the ‘principles geeks’ perhaps best exemplified by the Just Net Coalition who privileged principles over process. Divisions were also beginning to sharpen within the private sector. For example, Neville Roy Singham, CEO of Thoughtworks, agreed more with civil society than he did with other members of the private sector in his interventions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In short, the ‘outsiders’ couldn't care less about the outcome and will do everything to discredit it, the ‘process geeks’ stood in ovation when the outcome document was read at the closing plenary and the ‘principles geeks’ returned devastated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For the multi-stakeholder model to survive it must advance democratic values, not undermine them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This will only happen if there is greater transparency and accountability. Individuals, organisations and consortia that participate in Internet governance processes need to disclose lists of donors including those that sponsor travel to these meetings.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-business-line-may-10-2014-sunil-abraham-net-freedom-campaign-loses-its-way'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-business-line-may-10-2014-sunil-abraham-net-freedom-campaign-loses-its-way</a>
</p>
No publishersunilICANNInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-05-27T11:07:04ZBlog EntryCivil Society Pushes for Privacy Panel
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-may-6-2014-laxmi-ajai-prasanna-civil-society-pushes-for-privacy-panel
<b>The article was published in the Times of India on May 6, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Civil society organizations are pushing for a 'privacy commission' to provide protection to individuals from illegal breach of their privacy, with guidelines imposing penal sanction against the violators. This assumes significance</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This assumes significance at a time when the Centre has decided to set up a judicial panel to probe the snoopgate scandal wherein the BJP government in Gujarat was allegedly involved in illegal surveillance of a woman architect and especially when the Right to Privacy Bill is pending in Parliament.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, industry consortia, including CII and FICCI, prefer lesser regulation, though calling for a cautious approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Among civil society organizations pressing for a stringent privacy bill is the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS), the only representative from Kerala to attend the NETmundial conference held recently in Brazil. The meet focused on privacy issues to ensure basic human rights, including freedom of expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">NETmundial is the first step towards pushing for a privacy law against the snooping and spying on individuals by those in power, including agencies within and outside the country Privacy guidelines should be clear as to what data can be collected without infringing on the dignity of an individual as 'data' represents the duration of a call, while 'metadata' reveals the content of the caH," said ICFOSS director SatishBabu.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), another NETmundial participant, also stands for a strong privacy law. "The two-day conference that concluded on April 24 was a baby step towards a privacy law with a road map for global internet governance. It is the first step towards a multi-stakeholder model offering an equal footing for all civil society organizations, academia, government, private sector and the UN fora," said CIS executive director Sunil Abraham</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We are pushing for a privacy law in the country aimed at national privacy regulation and constituting a privacy commission on the lines of the information commission," he added.</p>
<hr />
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/civil-society-privacy-bill.pdf" class="internal-link">Click to read the full story</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-may-6-2014-laxmi-ajai-prasanna-civil-society-pushes-for-privacy-panel'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-may-6-2014-laxmi-ajai-prasanna-civil-society-pushes-for-privacy-panel</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPrivacyInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-05-27T11:39:20ZNews ItemIndia for inclusive internet governance
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-april-25-indrani-bagchi-india-for-inclusive-internet-governance
<b>India wants "core internet infrastructure" to be part of an international legal system that would accommodate governments, civil society and other stakeholders. In typical Indian diplomatic style, its position can be interpreted to mean everything and nothing. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Indrani Bagchi <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-for-inclusive-internet-governance/articleshow/34170534.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on April 25, 2014 quotes Sunil Abraham.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An MEA team, led by joint secretary Vinay Kwatra, told Net Mundial (forum for internet governance) in Brazil on Thursday, "The elements of India's approach on internet governance respond to its growing complexity and rests in supporting the dynamism, security and openness of a single and unfragmented cyberspace. We also support innovation and robust private sector investment to augment internet's continuing growth and evolution."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian position is essentially an MEA position, because there has been little prior inter-agency consultation in the government. In fact, while the MEA had decided upon its team almost a month ago, the department of information technology woke up only last week. It was on Friday that the nodal ministry for IT-related issues even agreed to send a team to Brazil on Monday- the same team that the MEA was sending. If nothing else, sources said, this only highlighted the lack of seriousness within the Indian system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kwatra said internet should have a democratic governing system involving everyone, which would essentially mean creating a parallel international system. While India does not want the status quo to continue, there is no clarity whether it favours a multilateral or a multi-stakeholder system. India, like China, wants a strong state presence in the decision-making process of internet governance because "it is used for transactions of core economic, civil and defence assets at national level and in the process, countries are placing their core national security interests in this medium". On the other hand, it wants unfettered access to knowledge and technology as a nation-building and governance tool.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Additionally, India wants non-governmental stakeholders to be properly audited and a "clear delineation of principles governing their participation, including their accountability, representativeness, transparency and inclusiveness". There is a crying need for India to clearly define the future it expects to thrive in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abhraham of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society says India should take the lead in defining new internet rules, keeping its future in mind. "We could use patent pools and compulsory licensing to provide affordable and innovative digital hardware to the developing world. This would ensure that rights-holders, innovators, manufactures, consumers and government would all benefit ... We could explore flat-fee licensing models like a broadband copyright cess or levy to ensure that users get content at affordable rates and rights-holders get some royalty from all internet users in India. This will go a long way in undermining the copyright enforcement-based censorship regime that has been established by the US. We could enact a world-class privacy law and establish an independent, autonomous and proactive privacy commissioner who will keep both private and state actors on a short lease. We need a scientific, targeted surveillance regime that is in compliance with human rights principles. This will make India simultaneously an IP and privacy haven and thereby attract huge investment from the private sector, and also earn the goodwill of the global civil society and independent media."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT" style="float:left; ">This is more than the Indian government has thought of. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="float:left; "><span id="advenueINTEXT" style="float:left; ">While no binding decisions are expected from Brazil this week, the high profile event is expected to trigger a high-level debate on possible reforms. India, say officials, needs to come up with concrete proposals. This is imperative after the US made two crucial decisions on internet governance this year. In March the US announced that by September 2015 it would give up oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based non-profit group, that assigns domain names. But the US is clear it will not hand over the levers to any organization that can be controlled by any other country. This week, the US' FCC dealt a body blow to the concept of "net neutrality" (which essentially functions on the premise that access to the internet is the same for everyone) by allowing companies like Disney and Google to pay for premium internet speeds. </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="float:left; "><span style="float:left; ">Countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (may be even Iran) seek to control net access for their citizens as a measure of political control. Second, cyber offensive by countries which are ramping up capacity in these fields could take over internet governance structures if they are not crafted carefully enough. If the US is relinquishing control over ICANN, the next global battle is likely to be over who takes over that mantle. This makes it important to get net governance right. At least China has a plan: It wants the UN to take control. India wants a bit of everything, without actually giving it a shape, making it virtually impossible to shape the debate.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="float:left; "><span style="float:left; "><br /></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="float:left; "><span style="float:left; "><br /></span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-april-25-indrani-bagchi-india-for-inclusive-internet-governance'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-april-25-indrani-bagchi-india-for-inclusive-internet-governance</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-05-05T10:36:52ZNews ItemNETmundial Day 2
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-2
<b>Fadi Chehade, the ICANN boss, closed NETmundial 2014 with these words "In Africa we say if you want to go first, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together." He should have added: And if you want to go nowhere, go multi-stakeholder.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For all the talk of an inclusive global meeting, there was exactly <span><a href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/map_no_contrib_govt.html">one governmental submission from the African continent</a></span>, and it was from Tunisia; and the overall rate of submissions from Africa and West Asia were <a href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/map_no_contrib.html">generally very low</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The outcome document perfectly reflects the gloss that the "multi-stakeholder" model was designed to achieve: an outcome that is celebrated by businesses (and by all embedded institutions like ICANN) for being harmless, met with relief by governments for not upsetting the status quo, all of it lit up in the holy glow of "consensus" from civil society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course there was no consensus. Civil society groups who organised on Day 0 put up their <a href="http://pastebin.com/3uK9KbR0%20">position</a>: the shocking omission of a strong case for net neutrality, ambiguous language on surveillance, weak defences of free expression and privacy. All valid points. But it's striking that civil society takes such a pliant position towards authority: other than exactly two spirited protests (one against the data retention in Marco Civil, and the other against the NSA's mass surveillance program) there was no confrontation, no provocation, no passionate action that would give civil society the force it needs to win. If we were to compare this to other international struggles, the gay rights battle, or its successor, the AIDS medicines movement, for instance - what a difference there is. People fought to crush with powerful, forceful action. Only after huge victories with public and media sympathy, and only after turning themselves into equals of the corporations and governments they were fighting, did they allow themselves to sit down at the table and negotiate nicely. Internet governance fora are marked by politeness and passivity, and perhaps - however sad - it's no wonder that the least powerful groups in these fora always come away disappointed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It's also surprising that there is no language in the outcome document that explicitly addresses the censorious threat posed by the global expansion of a sovereign application of copyright, as seen most vividly in the proposed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA">SOPA/PIPA</a> legislation in the United States. The outcome document has language that seems to more or less reflect the <a href="http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/">civil society proposal</a>, and it's possible that a generous interpretation of the language could mean that it opposes the selective, restrictive and damaging application of what the intellectual property industries want to accomplish on the Internet. But it's puzzling that the language isn't stronger or more explicit, and even more puzzling that civil society doesn't seem to want to fight for such language.</p>
<p>This seems like an appropriate time to end the multi-stakeholder diaries. <a href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/track_multistakeholder.html">Hasn't the word been used enough?</a> Here is one last instalment. We thank the kind folks who gave us their time.</p>
<p>Q: What does "multi-stakeholder" mean? What is "multi-stakeholderism"?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>A large part of the discourse prior to the NETmundial conference has been centered around the issue of what is the best structural system to regulate a global network – this has commonly been portrayed as a choice between a multistakeholder system – which broadly speaking, aims to place ‘all stakeholders’ on equal footing – against multilateralism – a recognized concept in International law / the Comity of Nation States, where a nation state is recognized as the representative of its citizens, making decisions on their behalf and in their interests.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>In our opinion, the issue is not about the dichotomy between multilateralism and multistakeholderism; it is about what functions or issues can legitimately be dealt with through each of the processes in terms of adequately protecting civil liberties and other public interest principles – including the appropriate enforcement of norms. For instance, how do you deal with something like cyber warfare without the consent of states? Similarly, how do we address regulatory issues such as determining (and possibly subsidizing) costs of access, or indeed to protect a right of a country against unilateral disconnection?</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>.....The crux of the matter rests in deciding which is the best governance ‘basket’ to include a particular issue within – taken from both a substantive and enforcement perspective. The challenge is trying to demarcate issues to ensure that each is dealt with effectively by placing it in an appropriate bucket.</i> <i>(The full post can be accessed </i><a href="http://www.knowledgecommons.in/brasil/en/multilateral-and-multistakeholder-responsibilities/">here</a><i>).</i><br /><b>Rishab Bailey</b> from the Society for Knowledge Commons (India)</p>
<p class="PreformattedText" style="text-align: justify; "><i>If I would have signed the campaign </i><a href="http://wepromise.eu/">http://wepromise.eu</a><i> as a candidate to the European Parliament I would have made it an election promise to defend "the principle of multistakeholderism".</i></p>
<p class="PreformattedText" style="text-align: justify; "><i>That means that I "support free, open, bottom-up, and multi-stakeholder models of coordinating the Internet resources and standards - names, numbers, addresses etc" and that I "support measures which seek to ensure the capacity of representative civil society to participate in multi-stakeholder forums." Further, I "oppose any attempts by corporate, governmental or intergovernmental agencies to take control of Internet governance."</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>My very rudimentary personal view is basically that it's a bad idea to institutionalise conflicting competences.</i><br /><b>Erik Josefsson</b>, Adviser on Internet policies for the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament</p>
<hr />
<p>And so it <a href="http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf">ends</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-2'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-2</a>
</p>
No publisherachalICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-25T04:58:26ZBlog Entry'India wants core internet infrastructure'
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-april-24-2014-india-wants-core-internet-infrastructure
<b>India wants "core internet infrastructure" to be part of an international legal system that would accommodate governments, civil society and other stakeholders. In typical Indian diplomatic style, its position can be interpreted to mean everything and nothing. </b>
<hr />
<p>The article by Indrani Bagchi was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/India-wants-core-internet-infrastructure/articleshow/34165412.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on April 24, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An MEA team led by Vinay Kwatra, joint secretary told the Net Mundial in Brazil on Thursday, "The elements of India's approach on internet governance respond to its growing complexity and rests in supporting the dynamism, security and openness of a single and un-fragmented cyberspace. We also support innovation, and robust private sector investments to augment internet's continuing growth and evolution."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian position is essentially an MEA position, because there has been little prior inter-agency consultation certainly in the government. In fact, while the MEA had decided upon its team almost a month ago, the Department of Information Technology only woke up last week.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was only on Friday that the nodal ministry for IT-related issues even agreed to send a team to Brazil on Monday — the same team that the MEA was sending. If nothing else, sources said, this only highlighted the lack of seriousness within the Indian system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Brazil, Kwatra said internet should have a democratic governing system, involving everyone, which would essentially mean creating a parallel international system. The internet is essentially owned and led by the US, controlled by the fact that the overwhelming number of root servers are situated in that country. But after the Edward Snowden leaks on</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">NSA surveillance, the US' intentions and practices have come under a cloud.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While India does not want the status quo to continue, there is no clarity whether India favours a multilateral or a multi-stakeholder system. India, like China, wants a strong state presence in the decision making process of internet governance, because "it is used for transactions of core economic, civil and defence assets at national level and in the process, countries are placing their core national security interests in this medium." On the other hand, it wants unfettered access to knowledge and technology as a nation-building and governance tool.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Additionally, India wants non-governmental stakeholders to be properly audited "there should also be a clear delineation of principles governing their participation - including their accountability, representativeness, transparency, and inclusiveness. Clearly, it makes it even more important that we define the multistakeholderism."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is a crying need for India to clearly define the future it expects to thrive in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abhraham of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore says India should take the lead in defining new internet rules, keeping its future in mind. "We could use patent pools and compulsory licensing to provide affordable and innovative digital hardware to the developing world. This would ensure that rights-holders, innovators, manufactures, consumers and government would all benefit ... We could explore flat-fee licensing models like a broadband copyright cess or levy to ensure that users get content at affordable rates and rights-holders get some royalty from all internet users in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This will go a long way in undermining the copyright enforcement based censorship regime that has been established by the US. When it comes to privacy - we could enact a world-class privacy law and establish an independent, autonomous and proactive privacy commissioner who will keep both private and state actors on a short lease. Then we need a scientific, targeted surveillance regime that is in compliance with human rights principles. This will make India simultaneously an IP and privacy haven and thereby attract huge investment from the private sector, and also earn the goodwill of global civil society and independent media." This is more than the Indian government has thought of.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While no binding decisions are expected from Brazil this week, the high profile event is expected to trigger a high level debate on possible reforms. India, say officials, need to hone its position to come up with concrete proposals. This is imperative, after the US made two crucial decisions on internet governance this year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In March the US announced by September 2015 it would give up oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned of Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit group based in California that assigns domain names. But the US is clear it will not hand over control to any organization that can be controlled by any other country. This week, the US' FCC has dealt a body blow to the concept of "net neutrality" (which essentially functions on the premise that access to the internet is the same for everyone) by allowing companies like Disney and Google to pay for premium internet speeds. Countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (maybe even Iran) seek to control net access for their citizens as a measure of political control. Second, cyber offensives by countries who are ramping up capacity in these fields could take over internet governance structures if they are not crafted carefully enough. On the flip side, as Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society puts it, "The US censorship regime is really no better than China's. China censors political speech - US censors access to knowledge thanks to the intellectual property (IP) rightsholder lobby.."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If the US is relinquishing control over ICANN, the next global battle is likely to be over who takes over that mantle. Which, in turn, makes it important to get net governance right. At least China has a plan — it wants the UN to take control. India wants a bit of this and a bit of that, without actually giving it a shape, which makes it impossible for India to shape the future of the debate.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-april-24-2014-india-wants-core-internet-infrastructure'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-april-24-2014-india-wants-core-internet-infrastructure</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-05-05T10:29:30ZNews ItemNETmundial: Tracking *Multistakeholder* across Contributions
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-tracking-multi-stakeholder-across-contributions
<b>This set of analysis of the contributions submitted to NETmundial 2014 is part of the effort by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, to enable productive discussions of the critical internet governance issues at the meeting and elsewhere.</b>
<div><iframe frameborder="0" height="500px" src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/charts/cis_netmundial_track_multistakeholder.html" width="750px"></iframe></div>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Created by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a> using <a href="https://developers.google.com/chart/" target="_blank">Google Charts</a>.<br /> Google <a href="https://developers.google.com/terms/" target="_blank">Terms of Use</a> and <a href="https://google-developers.appspot.com/chart/interactive/docs/gallery/treemap.html#Data_Policy" target="_blank">Data Policy</a>.<br /> Data compiled by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a> and Jyoti.<br /> Download the <a class="external-link" href="https://github.com/ajantriks/netmundial/blob/master/data/cis_netmundial_track_multistakeholder.csv">data</a><a href="https://github.com/ajantriks/netmundial/blob/master/data/cis_ig_vis_track_multistakeholder.csv" target="_blank"></a>.</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This scatter plot shows the number of times the word *multistakeholder* (including *multi-stakeholder* and *multistakeholderism*) appears across contributions submitted to NETmundial.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">X axis (horizontal) gives the serial number of contributions and Y axis (vertical) gives the number of times the word appears on a contribution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Click on the types of organisation below the chart to highlight the corresponding organisations on the chart.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The visualisations are done by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro Chattapadhyay</a>, based on data compilation and analysis by Jyoti Panday, and with data entry suport from Chandrasekhar.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Built on <a href="http://getbootstrap.com/" target="_blank">Bootstrap</a> by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a></td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">All code, content and data is co-owned by the author(s) and <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/" target="_blank">Centre for Internet and Society</a>, Bangalore, India, and shared under Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/in/" target="_blank">Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 India</a> license.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-tracking-multi-stakeholder-across-contributions'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-tracking-multi-stakeholder-across-contributions</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-25T09:53:37ZBlog EntryBrazil passes Marco Civil; the US-FCC Alters its Stance on Net Neutrality
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality
<b>Hopes for the Internet rise and fall rapidly. Yesterday, on April 23, 2014, Marco Civil da Internet, the Brazilian Bill of Internet rights, was passed by the Brazilian Senate into law. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Marco Civil</i>, on which we <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet">blogged</a> previously, includes provisions for the protection of privacy and freedom of expression of all users, rules mandating net neutrality, etc. Brazil celebrated the beginning of NETmundial, a momentous first day about which Achal Prabhala <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-0">blogs</a>, with President Rousseff’s approval of the<i> Marco Civil</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At about the same time, news <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/568be7f6-cb2f-11e3-ba95-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zmtOMMj0">broke</a> that the US Federal Communications Commission is set to propose new net neutrality rules. In the wake of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/14/net-neutrality-internet-fcc-verizon-court">Verizon net neutrality decision</a> in January, the proposed new rules will <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147520/report-us-fcc-to-allow-payments-for-speedier-traffic.html">prohibit</a> Internet service providers such as Comcast from slowing down or blocking traffic to certain websites, but permit fast lane traffic for content providers who are willing to pay for it. This fast lane would prioritise traffic from content providers like Netflix and Youtube on commercially reasonable terms, and result in availability of video and other content at higher speeds or quality. An interesting turn-around, as <i>Marco Civil</i> expressly mandates net neutrality for all traffic.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/brazil-passes-marco-civil-us-fcc-alters-stance-on-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundialICANNMarco Civil2014-04-24T10:05:32ZBlog EntryNETmundial Day 1
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-1
<b>Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's speech at the opening of NETmundial in São Paulo was refreshingly free of the UN-speak that characterised virtually every single other presentation this morning. The experience of sitting for five hours in a room where the word "multi-stakeholder" is repeated at the rate of five mentions per minute is not for the faint-hearted; it almost makes you wish for more of the straight-talking tough-love of people like Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Surveillance was mentioned by a few brave souls. Two peaceful, silent - and rather effective - protests broke out during the opening speeches; one, against the data retention clause in Brazil's otherwise path-breaking and brand-new law for civil rights on the Internet, Marco Civil, and another for honouring US NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and urging <a href="https://twitter.com/Lhunthendrix/status/458975285049053184/photo/1">action against surveillance</a>. Sadly for Brazilian civil society, the Marco Civil protestations went unheard, and Rousseff signed the bill into law in full.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were lots of speeches. Lots. If you missed them, here's a handy <a href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/word_freq_org_type.html">visualisation</a> you can use to catch up quickly: just add some prepositions and conjunctions, and you'll have a perfectly anodyne and universally acceptable bureaucrat/politician keynote address.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The afternoon was given over to assimilating previously received comments on the <a href="http://document.netmundial.br/">outcome</a> document and adding new ones from people in the room. Much contention, much continuity, lots of hard work, lots of nitpicking (some of it even useful) and lots of ambiguity; after more consultation - the slog goes on until tomorrow afternoon - the outcome document will be laid to rest. Lunch was excellent: there's a reason the Grand Hyatt São Paulo costs as much as it does.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our quest to plumb the depths of multi-stakeholderism continued: we thank the kind folks who gave us their time and allowed us to record them.</p>
<p>Q: What does "multi-stakeholder" mean? What is "multi-stakeholderism"?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Multi-stakeholderism to me is the ability to engage with every stakeholder and have them in the room, and have them understand that it is not an equal opportunity for all. I also understand that civil society and academia will never be at the same place as business, which has far more resources, or governments, which have the sovereign right to make laws, or even the technical community, which is often missing from the policy dialogue. There are three things which are important to me: (1) Will I be able to make interventions not just in the dialogue but in the decision making process? For me, that is key. (2) Do I have recourse in a process which might be multilateral or inter-governmental - do I have recourse when international treaties are ratified or signed, because they become binding national laws? and (3) What is it that happens to dissent in a process that is not multi-stakeholder? I think even the ITU (the International Telecommunications Union) has taken cognizance of multi-stakeholderism. So it's not new, but it's also not old or accepted, which is why we contest it. We will never have equal stakeholders. And who gets to represent the stakeholder communities? I don't think power imbalances get resolved, and I think it's a deeply flawed process. It's not perfect. But what worries me is the alternative. So give me a better alternative.</i><br /><b>Subi Chaturvedi</b>, Media for Change/ Lady Shriram College (India)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Simply put, multi means many components, and stakeholders are people who have the stakes. So multi-stakeholder means many people who are informed to take the process forward. The process is still on: it's evolving. The idea is that everyone who has an interest should bring it forward, and the dialogue must be balanced. Proof of concept is important - it's not about taking a dogmatic position but a scientific position. Business is concerned about the justification around return on investment.</i><br /><b>Jimson Olufuye</b>, Africa ICT Alliance (Nigeria)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Everyone who has a stake in the use and operation of the Internet should have a stake in the way it is managed. I think we shouldn't be considering this as a power game - it's not winner takes all. Decision making should be as much as possible consensual, where no one has a veto power.</i><br /><b>Getachew Engida</b>, Deputy Director-General, UNESCO (France)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>It is very simple. I think people are complicating matters. It's not a power game. The Internet is fundamentally a global network of interconnected computers. People have become not only consumers of information but providers of information, so the stakes in the media/ICT world are massive. Unprecedented. Therefore, around major issues confronting the Internet, decision making should be as participatory as possible.</i><br /><b>Indrajit Banerjee</b>, Director, UNESCO (France)</p>
<hr />
<p><b>Additional Links</b></p>
<ul>
<li><a class="external-link" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KemK8YbHrI">Watch Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's speech at the opening of NETmundial</a></li>
<li>Follow Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt on <a class="external-link" href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/458996103162376193">Twitter</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-1'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-1</a>
</p>
No publisherachalICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-24T09:02:49ZBlog EntryNETmundial Roadmap: Defining the Roles of Stakeholders in Multistakeholderism
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-roadmap-defining-roles-of-stakeholders-in-multistakeholderism
<b>NETmundial, one of the most anticipated events in the Internet governance calendar, will see the global community convening at Sao Paolo, with an aim to establish 'strategic guidelines related to the use and development of the Internet in the world.' This post analyses the submissions at NETmundial that focused on Roadmap, towards an understanding of stakeholder roles in relation to specific governance functions and highlighting the political, technical and architectural possibilities that lie ahead. </b>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Introduction</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A technically borderless Internet, in a world defined by national boundaries, brings many challenges in its wake. The social, ethical and legal standards of all countries are affected by technical standards and procedures, created by a few global players. This disparity in capacity and opportunities to participate and shape Internet policy, fuelled by Edward Snowden's revelations led to the development of the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance or <a href="http://netmundial.br/">NETmundial</a>. Set against, an urgent need for interdisciplinary knowledge assessment towards establishing global guiding principles with respect to the technological architecture and the legal framework of the Internet–NETmundial is seen as a critical step in moving towards a global policy framework for Internet Governance (IG). As stakeholder groups from across the world come together to discuss future forms of governance, one of the most widely discussed issues will be that of Multistakeholderism (MSism).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Multistakeholderism</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The governance structure of the Multistakeholder model is based on the notion, that stakeholders most impacted by decisions should be involved in the process of decision making. The collaborative multistakeholder spirit has been widely adopted within the Internet Governance fora, with proponents spread across regions and communities involved in the running, management and use of the Internet. So far, MSism has worked well in the coordination of technical networking standards and efforts to set norms and best practices in defined areas, in the realm of technical governance of the Internet. However, the extension of MSism beyond truly voluntary, decentralized and targeted contexts and expanding its applicability, to other substantive areas of Internet Governance is proving a challenge. Beyond defining how the process of policymaking should be undertaken, <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/networks-and-states">MSism does not provide any guidance on substantive policy issues of Internet governance</a>. With the increasing impact of Internet technology on human lives and framed against the complexity of issues such as security, access and privacy, the consensus on MSism is further rendered unattainable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The need for contextualizing the model aside, as with most policy negotiations certain open concepts and words have also prevented agreement and adoption of MSism as the best way forward for IG. One such open and perhaps, the most contentious issue with respect to the legitimacy of MSism in managing Internet functions is the role of stakeholders. A key element of MSism is that decisions will be made by and including all relevant stakeholders. Stakeholder groups are broadly classified to include governments, technical community and academia, private sector and civil society. With each stakeholder representing diverse and often conflicting interests, creating a consensus process that goes beyond a set of rules and practices promising a seat at the negotiation table and is supportive of broad public interest is a challenging task that needs urgent addressing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This post aims to add to the discourse on defining the role and scope of stakeholders' decision-making powers, towards a better understanding of the term "in their respective role". Addressing the complexity of functions in managing and running the Internet and the diversity of stakeholders that are affected and hence should be included in decision making, I have limited the scope of my analysis to cover three broad internet management functions:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Technical: Issues related to infrastructure and the management of critical Internet resources</li>
<li>Policy: Issues relating to the developmental aspects, capacity building, bridging digital divide, human rights</li>
<li>Implementation: Issues relating to the use of the Internet including jurisdictional law, legislation spam, network security and cybercrime </li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While this may be an oversimplification of complex and interconnected layers of management and coordination, in my opinion, broad categorisation of issues is necessary, if not an ideal starting point for the purpose of this analysis. I have considered only the submissions categorised under the theme of Roadmap, seeking commonalities across stakeholder groups and regions on the role of stakeholders and their participation in the three broad functions of technology, policy and implementation<b>. </b></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Towards a definition of respective roles: Analysis NETmundial submissions on Roadmap</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There were a total of 44 submissions specific to Roadmap with civil society (20) contributing more than any other group including academia (7), government (4), technical community (5), private sector (3) and other (5). MSism sees support across most stakeholder groups and many submissions highlight or agree on participation and inclusion in decision making processes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Regionally, submissions from North (24) were dominated by USA (10) with contributions cutting across academia (4), civil society (2), technical community (2) and other (2). Brazil (5) contributed the most to submissions from South (15), followed by Argentina (3). The submissions were consistent with the gender disparity prevalent in the larger technology community with only 12 females contributing submissions. An overwhelming number of submissions (38), thought that the multistakeholder (MS) model needs further definition or improvements, however, suggestions on how best to achieve this varied widely across stakeholders and regional boundaries. Only 16 submissions referenced or suggested Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in its present capacity or with an expanded policy role as a mechanism of implementing MSism on the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many submissions referred <b>to issues related to the management of critical internet resources (CIRs)</b>, the role of ICANN and US oversight of IANA functions. A total of 11 submissions referred to or specified governance processes with respect to technical functions and issues related to critical resources with civil society (5) and academia (3) contributing the most. In an area that perhaps has the most direct relevance to their work, the technical community was conspicuous with just two submissions making any concrete recommendations. The European Commission was the only governmental organisation that addressed this issue, recommending an expansion of the role of IGF. There were no specific recommendations from the private sector.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The suggestions on oversight and decision making mechanism were most conflicted for this category of Internet functions and included:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>setting up a technical advisory group, positioned within a new intergovernmental body <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/files/305.pdf">World Internet Organization (WIO)</a> framework;</li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96">splitting IANA functions</a> into protocol parameters, that Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) will be responsible for and IP address-related functions retained by ICANN </li>
<li>expanding the role of IGF, possibly creating an <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/cybersecurity-related-international-institutions-an-assessment-and-a-framework-for-nations-strategic-policy-choices/264">IGF Secretariat</a></li>
<li>expanding the role of <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-icann/109">Government Advisory Committee (GAC)</a> to mainstream government representatives participation within supporting organisations, in particular the Generic Name Supporting Organisation (GNRO)</li>
<li>expanding the role of <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/cybersecurity-related-international-institutions-an-assessment-and-a-framework-for-nations-strategic-policy-choices/261">private sector</a> </li>
<li>expanding the role of ICANN with multistakeholder values</li>
<li>expanding the role of <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-ecosystem-naming-and-addressing-shared-global-services-and-operations-and-open-standards-development/243">all stakeholders</a> </li>
<li>implementing changes that <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-and-the-future-of-the-internet/291">do not necessarily require legislative acts</a> or similar hard law approaches and implementation does not necessitate international treaties or intergovernmental structures</li>
<li>establishing a new non-profit corporation <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96">DNS Authority (DNSA)</a> combining the IANA Functions and the Root Zone Maintainer roles in </li>
<li>improving <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/evolution-and-internationalization-of-icann/263">transparency and accountability of current bodies</a> managing CIRs</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">16 submissions referred to <b>issues related to policy development and implementation </b>including developmental aspects, capacity building, bridging digital divide and human rights. All submissions called for a reform or further definition of MSism and included recommendations from civil society (5), academia (4), technical community (2), governments (2), private sector (1) and Other (2). All stakeholder groups across regions, unanimously agreed that all stakeholders within their respective role should have a role in decision making and within public policy functions. There was however, no broad consensus on the best way to achieve this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specific recommendations and views captured on who should be involved in policy related decision making and what possible frameworks could be developed included:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>improving <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/bottom-up-oversight-in-multistakeholder-organizations/237">existing intergovernmental organizations</a></li>
<li>creating <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65">Internet Ad Hoc Group</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65">modularization of ICANN’s functions</a> </li>
<li>creating a <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution/153">stewardship group IETF, ICANN and the RIRs</a></li>
<li>creating an <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution/153">independent IANA</a> as an International NGO with host country agreements governed by its MOUs-defined by the IANA Stewardship Group prior to the signing of MOUs with IANA Partners</li>
<li>creating a <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164">'new body'</a> to develop international level public policies in concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies; and facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements</li>
<li>responsibility of the definition of these policies rests within the <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-future-development-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/196">States as an inalienable right</a></li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/bottom-up-oversight-in-multistakeholder-organizations/237">continuity of bottom-up oversight</a> enables a better view of an organization and thus better accountability as government oversight will destroy multistakeholder character</li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/dsci-submission-on-roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-internet-governance-ecosystem/256">evolving global governance norms</a> that separate DNS maintenance from policies on TLDs, as well as public policies that intersect with nations’ rights to make them</li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/cybersecurity-related-international-institutions-an-assessment-and-a-framework-for-nations-strategic-policy-choices/261">policy makers incrementally develop formal and informal relationships</a></li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/apc-proposals-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/280">dealing with conflict of interest and ensuring pluralism</a></li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/iis-contribution-on-internet-governance-ecosystem-and-roadmap/288">full multi-stakeholder framework</a> including possible establishment of Working Groups where all parties concerned are represented</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">18 submissions referred to <b>issues related to the implementation of standards </b>including issues relating to the use of the Internet including jurisdiction, law, legislation, spam, network security and cybercrime. All submissions called for a reform or further definition of MSism values and included recommendations from civil society (8), academia (3), technical community (3), governments (2), private sector (1) and other (1). Stakeholders from academia (5), civil society (3) and government (1) collectively called for the reform of ICANN guided by multistakeholder values, but did not specify how this reform would be achieved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Specific recommendations on the improvements of institutional frameworks and arrangements for issues related to implementation of standards included:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>establishment of double system of arbitrage/settlement placed under <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-next-best-stage-for-the-future-of-internet-governance-is-democracy/305">World Internet Forum (WIF)</a> scrutiny and under the neutral oversight and arbitrage of the UN general secretariat</li>
<li><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/from-forum-to-net-nations/292">new legal instruments</a> in establishing MS model need to be adopted</li>
<li>establishment of the <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164">Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board (ITOAB)</a> replace the US government's current oversight role </li>
<li>multilateral frameworks with <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/dsci-submission-on-roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-internet-governance-ecosystem/256">oversight role of governments</a> </li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In summation, the classification of Internet functions discussed above, presents a very broad view of complex, dynamic and often, interrelated relationships amongst stakeholder groups. However, even within these very broad categories there are various interpretations of how MSism should evolve.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To come back to the very beginning of this post, NETmundial is an important step towards a global policy framework for Internet governance. This is the first meeting outside formal processes and it is difficult to know what to expect, partly as the expectations are not clear and range widely across stakeholders. Whatever the outcome, NETmundial's real contribution to Internet Governance has been sparking anew, the discourse on multistakeholderism and its application on the Internet through the creation of a spontaneous order amongst diverse actors and providing a common platform for divergent views to come together.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-roadmap-defining-roles-of-stakeholders-in-multistakeholderism'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-roadmap-defining-roles-of-stakeholders-in-multistakeholderism</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiICANNIANAInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-28T12:51:40ZBlog EntryNETmundial Day 0
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-0
<b>Day O of NETmundial began at Arena NetMundial, an alternative-ish, Brazilian counterpart to the official "multistakeholder" meeting being organised at the very expensive Grand Hyatt. Arena NETmundial began today and will extend until the last day of NETmundial; it's being organised at the very democratic Centro Cultural São Paulo - free to all, no registration required - and offers space for a whole host of organised and spontaneous activity.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Every evening is capped by a music performance, and the opening act was a stand-out two-hour visual extravaganza by Tom Zé, Tropicalia's most avant-garde exponent. Lula (Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the previous President of Brazil) was supposed to join us at 7 p.m. today to discuss Marco Civil da Internet - the Brazilian bill for "civil rights" on the Internet - but was a no show.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">No matter: Marco Civil was passed into law by the Senate at about 8 p.m. this evening, and President Dilma Rousseff (who reportedly willed this meeting into being) is expected to sign her assent to it tomorrow morning at the opening of NETmundial, which she is scheduled to attend. (While the global press around Marco Civil is unanimously positive and upbeat, it's worth noting that there is one problematic provision — the issue of data retention — that many folks from <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/brazilian-internet-bill-threatens-freedom-expression">Brazilian civil society</a> see as a <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2014/03/26/marco-civil-a-groundbreaking-although-not-perfect-victory-for-brazilian-internet-users/">huge loss</a>).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A host of <a href="http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination/">civil society groups</a> spent the day at Arena NETmundial figuring out how to stage a coordinated, detailed and forceful response to what many saw as <a href="http://document.netmundial.br/">watered-down text</a> from the NETmundial organisers. (Several corporate representatives and some academics also saw it as watered-down, but from another direction).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are several puzzling aspects to the shape NETmundial has assumed. What began as a response to the Snowden leaks — the unprecedented scale of the US government sponsored, NSA-executed surveillance — has become a meeting that strangely doesn't have all that much to say about surveillance, perhaps thanks to the various partners roped in to manage the process. There is little that references the bitter <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA">SOPA/PIPA</a> battles of two years ago, and not much in the NETmundial outcome document that addresses the manner in which a sovereign state has outrageously sought to export its national application of copyright onto the global Internet landscape. The civil society meeting produced language to address both these situations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Perhaps the most confounding aspect of this meeting is the manner in which the word "multistakeholder" is thrown about by people of every political stripe. Seemingly, if there is one thing that most everyone, from governments to businesses to civil society activists at NETmundial agree on, it is that multistakeholderism has an essential place in the future of Internet governance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That being as it is, I asked a bunch of people what their interpretation of the term was, and many agreed to be recorded. Their answers were surprising, to say the least.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is what they said:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Q: What does "multi-stakeholder" mean? What is "multi-stakeholderism"?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>I think multistakeholderism is a kind of democracy, which means, in the public policy area, other than the critical internet resources, usually only governments make public policy. They sometimes consult with other stakeholders, but it is not usually open or transparent and it is very selective. They only choose the experts they like. I think "multistakeholder" is useful in comparison with an inter-governmental or governmental process. </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Byoungil Oh</b> from the Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Multistakeholderism is a mechanism to ensure that people who are affected or have the potential to be affected by a policy or a technical decision get to have a say in the decision, in the process, or in coming to a decision, so that their rights </i>— <i>the rights of the affected people — are assured. I think there should be some sort of equity, currently the way multistakeholderism is being carried out is that certain stakeholders carry much higher weight and I think that is something that needs to be addressed.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>YoungEum Lee</b> from Korea National Open University (Korea)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>If multistakeholderism is a form of institutionalising participatory democracy, then it's good. But public policy decision making is only something that the representatives of people can do. For me, that's sacrosanct. When you're taking in views, in consultation, multistakeholderism works. But public policy decision-making, at a global level, has to be a multilateral process. However, it has to be embedded into a huge amount of public consultations, transparencies, accountabilities, etc., which could be a multistakeholder system. </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Parminder Jeet Singh</b> from IT for Change (ITFC) (India)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>I hate with a passion the concept of multistakeholderism. For me, how it can make sense is by recognising there are multiple stakeholders. And they’re not fixed. But issues affect different people in different ways and these people need to be involved in decision making processes. It's an approach that can potentially democratise processes by identifying who is affected by those processes and making sure they participate in them. But turning them into an -ism which is undifferentiated, which doesn't recognise conflict, power, voice, and that there are differences, makes it meaningless and also possibly dangerous.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Anriette Esterhuysen</b> from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) (South Africa)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>This multistakeholderism thing I think is bullshit. We now a have a clear picture of technology as a whole being turned against its users, being turned into a tool for oppression, for control. And when you look at the most important struggles of the 20th century, whether women's rights or civil rights or gay rights, it never happened with a total global consensus. This is an illusion. What we need is to affirm that we citizens have the right to decide. We are the only stakeholders here, because we are the co-owners of the Internet as a public good.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Jérémie Zimmermann</b>, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net (France)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Everyone has to participate, and everyone has to decide what is the future of the Internet. I think that we need to improve our networks. There is no real answer here: for me it is very difficult to think of the kind of discussion we will have, but I know that my voice is probably useful for others who are in a similar situation to me. </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Pilar Saenz</b> from the Karisma Foundation (Colombia)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Multistakeholderism means that we are going to smash the patriarchy. Ask me what the colour blue means?</i> [Ok: What does the colour blue mean?] <i>The colour blue means we are going to smash the patriarchy.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Jacob Appelbaum</b>, journalist, activist and core member of the TOR Project (USA/Germany)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Ultimately rights are embedded in laws. But when it comes to an international framework, in the current Internet governance model, nothing is based in law, including the domain name system. So the whole structure of international Internet governance is divorced from international law, and that's why, when you talk of a multistakeholder model, what you are really saying is that the market will finally determine what happens. No stakeholder is going to operate against its own interest whether it be governments or corporations. We need an international legal framework, from which the powers - or rights - of Internet governance emerge. Without that you're leaving it to the market. In reality, even today, what we have is a private-sector-led multistakeholder model. </i><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Prabir Purkayastha</b> from Knowledge Commons and the JustNet Coalition (India)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>What does multistakeholderism mean? Listen, I'm a brown person from a developing country, and I'm female.</i><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Anonymous</b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-0'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-0</a>
</p>
No publisherachalInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-23T10:58:50ZBlog EntryAccountability of ICANN
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/accountability-of-icann
<b>The issue of how to ensure the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN is a concern which finds voice in many of the proposals. Four broad stands can be gleaned from the submissions to NETmundial '14 on this issue. </b>
<p><span>The issue of how to ensure the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN is a concern which finds voice in many of the proposals. Generally speaking, the issue of representation, and legitimacy of ICANN members is a point which all proposals regarding ICANN accountability consider. The issue of funding also came up in several of the submissions. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Joint Contribution of Civil Society from Latin America, submissions from University of Gezira in Sudan and NIC Mexico, called for increased funding for participation of stakeholders from developing countries in ICANN and other multistakeholder meetings. The Government of Austria expressed concern over dwindling funding of IGF and called for improvement of the same. In this scenario of crunched funds, submissions by Article 19 and BestBits as well as Net Coalition proposed the use of a percentage of ICANN’s gTLD revenues to fund inclusive participation in the multistakeholder process.</span></p>
<p>Apart from these concerns, submissions to NetMundial '14 also raised a myriad of different issues around the functioning of ICANN. Nevertheless, four broad stands can be gleaned from the issue of accountability of ICANN. These are as follows:</p>
<p><strong>I. </strong><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Submissions which suggest that oversight over ICANN should end, and ICANN accountability should be internalised.</span></strong></p>
<p>8 submissions to the NetMundial 2014 were of the opinion that ICANN should become an independent body with no oversight exercised by any other body on it. In other words, these proposals opposed the replacement of current US government oversight on ICANN, by oversight through any other body. In such a case, accountability of ICANN was sought to be ensured through strengthening multistakeholderism and reform <i>within</i> the ICANN structure.</p>
<p>Most of these submissions came from the civil society (4) or the technical community (2); 1 from Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms, which identifies as “other”, and 1 from the Government of France. 3 of these proposals represent a global community, 2 come from North America or USA, 1 from France, 1 from New Zealand and 1 from the Democratic Republic of Congo.</p>
<p><span>The ICANN model proposed in the </span><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96">submission from Internet Governance Project</a><span> (IGP), from the North American civil society, found support among other contributors in this category. The proposal was based on the principle that oversight of ICANN must not be internationalised but ended. The rationale behind such proposal was that giving additional stakeholders besides the NTIA a say in IANA function and ICANN oversight will only politicise ICANN and make it a subject of possible geopolitical power struggles by governments, ultimately ignoring the interests of internet users all over the world. While calling for an end to ICANN oversight through any or all government agencies, the proposal also called for the strengthening of multistakeholderism within ICANN. This proposal was explicitly supported by </span><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/content-contribution-to-netmundial-on-the-roadmap-for-the-futher-evolution-of-the-ig-ecosystem-regarding-the-internationalisation-of-the-iana-function/130">InternetNZ, from the New Zealand technical community, in its proposal</a><span>, as well as to quite an extent by </span><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem-icann/109">Article 19 and BestBits, from the global civil society, in their proposal</a><span>.</span></p>
<p>IGP’s submission also suggested whittling down of ICANN’s powers in order to separate management of IANA functions from ICANN’s present mandate. This is a point where the submissions in this category diverge. Submissions from IGP with Article 19 and BestBits, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) from the civil society and InternetNZ and Avri Doria, from the technical community, recommended the separation of IANA functions from the ICANN. <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/french-government-submission-to-netmundial/154">The French Government submission</a>, on the other hand, did not envisage separation of management IANA function from ICANN, but rather the internalisation of the former within the latter, even as proposing an independent and multistakeholder structure for ICANN with suitable accountability mechanisms for all stakeholders.</p>
<p>The submission from Article 19 and BestBits, in fact, suggested further narrowing of ICANN’s mandate by explicitly including a clause in its bylaws to prevent it from engaging in content regulation or conduct that could violate freedom of expression or privacy on the internet, including technical policy making involving trademarks and intellectual property. Such suggestions were made based on the fear that, if unregulated, ICANN might increasingly make its foray into public policy issues like content regulation, as happened in the .xxx controversy. Consequently, the submission from Article 19 and BestBits also suggested that ICANN’s bylaws include a provision whereby private parties can legally challenge ICANN’s actions on grounds of human rights violations before local courts or arbitration tribunals.</p>
<p>This approval for local dispute resolution when the submission agrees with the suitability of Californian law for ICANN incorporation is, however, likely to cause consternation amongst non-American stakeholders. While the submission is not averse to the idea of ICANN expanding its reach globally through creation of subsidiaries (preferably in western Europe), it also takes a firm stand on ICANN not moving its headquarters out of the US. The advantages of such status quo are seen in stability of current agreements with registrars etc., but the idea of ICANN being ultimately subject to Californian law and its courts is unlikely to go down well with other global stakeholders.</p>
<p>One concern found across board, but more explicitly in submissions of Article 19 and BestBits and Avri Doria was the strengthening of ICANN board by making it more representative and accountable through mechanisms of internal accountability like the ATRT2 Transparency and Accountability Review process. <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/bottom-up-oversight-in-multistakeholder-organizations/237">Avri Doria of USA, in her submission</a> suggested, the improvement of accountability mechanisms in ICANN by supplementing the ATRT process with a strong appeals mechanism, as found in IETF, for accountability process and results with powers to remove officers from their roles if they do not fulfil their responsibilities. Strengthening of GAC within ICANN by making it more participatory and representative is another concern which is highlighted.</p>
<p><strong>II. </strong><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Submissions which suggest that oversight of ICANN should be transferred to a multilateral or intergovernmental body</span></strong></p>
<p>A second, small category of 4 submissions argued that the oversight function of the ICANN should be transferred from the present unilateral U.S. government (NTIA) oversight, to oversight by all countries. This was suggested to counter the power imbalance exercised by one country over critical internet infrastructure, over others, by sharing oversight of ICANN with all others.</p>
<p>In their details, submissions in this category can be vague. While some of them envisioned transfer of ICANN control by the US Government to an intergovernmental body like the ITU, others do not specify the details of the transfer, but merely mention that ICANN oversight should be multilateral in nature. <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles-securing-the-future-of-the-internet/233">Submissions from CIPIT</a>, part of the Kenyan academia and <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-reform-of-global-internet-governance/240">The Society for Knowledge Commons</a>, civil society stakeholder covering India and Brazil, mentioned that the oversight of technical policy functions should be “multilateral” in nature, while the <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-from-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-to-the-global-multiskaeholder-meeting-for-the-future-of-the-internet-23-24-april-2014-sao-paolo-brazil/236">submission by the Government of Iran</a> called for restructuring ICANN as an “international” organisation.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmaps-for-further-evolution-of-internet-governance/65">submission by Swiss civil society organisation, Association for Proper Internet Governance</a>, referred <a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/dnstransition/comments/dnstrans_comment0081.htm">to the response by the Syrian representative in ITU to RFC</a> sought by the US Department of Commerce, to bring ICANN in the aegis of ITU by signing of a MoU between the two entities, as far as technical policy decisions (eg. development of policies relating to operation of root servers and those relating to operation and administration of gTLDs and ccTLDs) are concerned. Such a proposal was found necessary in light of the non-binding advisory nature of GAC in ICANN, especially when technical policy decisions by ICANN have public policy implications. In such a scenario, the submission dubs it “strange” to relegate government to a subsidiary role within ICANN and “unusual (to say the least)” for governments to constitute a sub-committee of the board of a private company like ICANN. Consequently, the MoU between ITU and ICANN is sought to make GAC a group within ITU so as to strengthen its legitimacy and accountability.</p>
<p><strong>III. </strong><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Submissions which suggest that oversight of ICANN should be transferred to another body not intergovernmental in nature.</span></strong></p>
<p>10 submissions suggested the transfer of ICANN oversight to a non-intergovernmental or multilateral body. 2 of these proposals came from governments and 1 from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which identifies as “other”, 3 from the private sector, 2 from civil society and 1 from technical community and academia each. Most of these proposals come from European stakeholders (5), 1 each from Brazil and Argentina, 1 from India, 1 from Nigeria, and 1 from the global civil society group, Just Net Coalition.</p>
<p>Like the last category, these submissions also expressed their dissatisfaction with the unilateral US Government oversight of ICANN, but suggested replacing it with a non-multilateral body. Details of the composition of such bodies vary. Some called for replacement by a technical body, other envision a wholly newly created multistakeholder body, yet others called for signing of the present ICANN AoC with US Government, by a number of stakeholders, which would not include just governments.</p>
<p>One such <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/addressing-">submission came from Portuguese academic, Luis Magalhaes,</a> which called for the signature of ICANN AoCs with all the stakeholders in internet governance, thus effectively replacing oversight by NTIA to oversight by all stakeholders. This submission also expressed concern over the incorporation of ICANN under Californian law, and suggests that ICANN should be regulated in an international law framework, though without relinquishing its control to merely governments. <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/orange/199">Submission by the private sector stakeholder Orange Group</a> also looked to expand the AoC of ICANN to include within it, the “ICANN community and stakeholders including Governments represented through the GAC.”</p>
<p><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/nominet-submission-on-internet-governance-principles-and-the-roadmap/156">Private sector stakeholder from the UK, Nominet, similarly, called</a> for wider engagement in the ICANN AoC and ensuring wider engagement for transparency and accountability in the AoC process. It also called to end ambiguity about the legal jurisdiction for ICANN, while including and strengthening ITU and IGF in the internet governance ecosystem. <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/dsci-submission-on-roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-internet-governance-ecosystem/256">Submission by private player, Data Security Council of India</a>, while endorsing “a multistakeholder model with defined roles of relevant stakeholders” was vaguer about the model it sought for ICANN. But it called for nomination of stakeholders by Governments rather than ICANN selecting them without transparency.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/europe-austria-fed-ministry-for-transport-innovation-and-technology/144">Austrian Government submission</a>, on the other hand, was more ambiguous. It envisaged the extension of AoCs regarding ICANN and IANA while ensuring “the full participation of all stakeholders, from both developed and developing countries, within their respective roles and responsibilities.” <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-future-development-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/196">In its submission, the Government of Argentina</a> sought to “promote the internationalisation of ICANN through a deep revision of the current structure,” and ensure “active representation from all regions and all actors in the ICANN structure, including representatives of governments on an equal footing,” especially in the structures of ICANN Board, SSAC and GNSO.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/evolution-and-internationalization-of-icann/263">submission by Brazilian Internet Steering Committee</a> similarly, looked to export oversight to entities outside of ICANN in its submission, as long as such entities are recognised as representative of the international public interest. This was suggested with the rationale to avoid a situation where the same organisation is responsible is responsible for policy making as well as its implementation. The Committee also suggested strengthening of ATRT2 process, as well as reform of GNSO and of ALAC so that the latter can have transparent processes for nomination of members, as well as participate in policy development processes in GNSO, along with increased government participation in GNSO. It was also suggested that the number of ICANN Board seats allocated by NomCom should be reduced in order to increase slots for Board members directly elected by the SOs.</p>
<p>Other submissions offered a more detailed view into the composition of the oversight entity recommended to replace NTIA. <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164">The submission by global civil society organisation, Just Net Coalition</a>, for example, proposed the formation of a “Internet Technical and Advisory Board” to discharge ICANN oversight function by replacing the present NTIA oversight role. In addition, this board was recommended to advice on public policy perspectives to various technical standards bodies, and thus act as the link between public policy bodies and these standards bodies. The composition of such a board was recommended to consist of people with specialised technical expertise but also with appropriate political legitimacy, ensured via a democratic process. 10-15 members were envisaged in such a board which could include 1 member from each of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). 2-3 members from each of the 5 geographic regions as understood in the UN system to be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective region were suggested to be part of the board. It was preferred that these members would come from the top recognised technical academic bodies of each country/region, but the entire constitution of the board was left open to other suggestions in Just Net Coalition’s submission.</p>
<p>The technical community stakeholder, <a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/from-forum-to-net-nations/292">Nigeria Internet Registration Association, on the other hand, offered</a> a rather confused proposal for the formation of a “World Internet Governance Organisation (WIGO),”envisaged as “a global organisation with equal participation of the Government, Private sector, Civil Society, Technical Community in a multi-stakeholder consensus building NET-NATIONS.” But while in the beginning the submission suggests a multistakeholder composition of WIGO, seemingly for oversight of ICANN, later the submission sparks the idea that ICANN itself should be changed to WIGO.</p>
<p><a href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-next-best-stage-for-the-future-of-internet-governance-is-democracy/305">Global Geneva’s submission</a> proposed to transfer ICANN oversight to a body called World Internet Forum, which, while part of the UN system, is envisioned as a multistakeholder venue for citizens globally, where constituencies are not governments. ICANN is allowed to pursue technical policy functions like gTLD management under the supervision of WIF, while not encroaching on public policy matters. IANA function is envisaged to be managed separately from the ICANN.</p>
<p>In many of these submissions, like those of Argentinian Government and Brazilian Internet Steering Committee emphasis was also paid on the strengthening of GAC, while taking into consideration stakeholders other than governments.</p>
<p><strong>IV. </strong><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Submissions which endorse globalisation and multistakeholder governance of ICANN but are vague about the specifics of such governance model</span></strong></p>
<p>Lastly, there are submissions which call for the globalisation of ICANN and express their dissatisfaction with the U.S. Government oversight of it, while endorsing multistakeholder governance. However, these submissions are also vague about the details of such ICANN globalisation, and the structures in which it will be held accountable. 4 such submissions emerge from governments (Spain, Norway, Mexico and the European Commission), 6 from the private sector, 2 from the technical community, and 2 from the civil society. Europe leads in this category of proposals with 6 of these proposals emerging from there, 2 from Latin America and Mexico each (4 altogether), 1 from Kuwait, 1 from Japan, 1 from the NRO (identifying itself from Mauritius) and 1 from the global GSM Association of mobile operators.</p>
<p>A list of these submissions is provided below.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><strong>Sl.No.</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Proposal No. </strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Name of Proposal</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Organisation</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Sector</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Region</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Link</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li> </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>46</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Norwegian Contribution to the Sao Paulo Meeting</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Norwegian government</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Government</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Norway, Europe</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/norwegian-government/137</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li> </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>50</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Contribution from the GSM Association to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>GSMA</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Private Sector</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Global</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-from-the-gsm-association-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/141</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li> </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>51</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Contribution of Telefonica to NETmundial</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Telefonica, S.A.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Private Sector</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Spain</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contribution-of-telefonica-to-netmundial/143</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li> </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>56</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ETNO Contribution to NETmundial</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>ETNO [European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association]</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Private Sector</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Belgium</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/etno-contribution-to-netmundial/148</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li> </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>64</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Submission by AHCIET to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. NETmundial</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>AHCIET</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Private Sector</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Latin America</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/submission-by-ahciet-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance-netmundial/157</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li> </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>70</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Spanish Government Contribution to the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, Spain</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Government</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Spain</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/multistakeholder-human-rights-stability-gac/165</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li> </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>80</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>European Commission</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Government</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Europe</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li>10. </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>106</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Submission on Internet Governance Principles and Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Kuwait Information Technology Society</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Civil Society</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Kuwait</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/kuwait-information-technology-society-kits-submission-on-internet-governance-principles-and-roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/214</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><ol>
<li> </li>
</ol></td>
<td>
<p>111</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Content Submission by the Federal Government of Mexico</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Secretara de Comunicaciones y Transportes, Mexico</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Government</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Mexico</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/content-submission-by-the-federal-government-of-mexico/219</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>10.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>114</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Better Understanding and Co-operation for Internet Governance Principles and Its Roadmap</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Japan Internet Service Providers Association</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Private Sector</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Japan</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/better-understanding-cooperation-for-internet-governance-principles-its-roadmap/222</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>11.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>116</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Deutsche Telekom’s Contribution for to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Deutsche Telekom AG</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Private Sector</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Germany/Europe</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/deutsche-telekom-s-contribution-for-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/225</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>12.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>135</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Joint Contributions of Civil Society Organisations from Latin America to NetMundial</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Group of individuals and Civil Society Organizations from Latin America</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Civil Society</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Latin America</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/joint-contributions-of-civil-society-organizations-from-latin-america-to-netmundial/251</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>13.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>143</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>NRO Contribution to NETmundial</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>NRO (for AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE-NCC)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Technical Community</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Mauritius</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/nro-contribution-to-netmundial/259</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>14.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>183</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>NETmundial Content Submission- endorsed by NIC Mexico</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>NIC Mexico</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Technical Community</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Mexico</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/netmundial-content-submission-endorsed-by-nic-mexico/302</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>***</p>
<p>A previous version of this post performed preliminary analysis of the NETmundial submissions. It may be found <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/accountability-of-icann-1" class="internal-link">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/accountability-of-icann'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/accountability-of-icann</a>
</p>
No publishersmarikaInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-05-28T10:50:22ZBlog EntryNETmundial - Word Clouds of Contributions by Types of Organisation
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-word-clouds-of-contributions-by-types-of-organisation
<b>This set of analysis of the contributions submitted to NETmundial 2014 is part of the effort by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, to enable productive discussions of the critical internet governance issues at the meeting and elsewhere. </b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_academia.png"><span class="external-link"><img alt="..." src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_academia.png" width="700" /></span></a></p>
<hr />
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_civil_society.png"><img alt="..." src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_civil_society.png" width="700"/" /></a></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_government.png"><img alt="..." src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_government.png" width="700" /></a></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_other.png"><img alt="..." src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_other.png" width="700" /></a></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_private_sector.png"><img alt="..." src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_private_sector.png" width="700"/" /></a></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_technical_community.png"><img alt="..." src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/img/cis_ig_vis_word_cloud_technical_community.png" width="700"/" /></a></p>
<hr />
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Created by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a> using <a href="http://cran.r-project.org/" target="_blank">R</a>.<br /> Download the <a class="external-link" href="https://github.com/ajantriks/netmundial/blob/master/R/cis_netmundial_wordcloud.R">R code</a><a href="https://github.com/ajantriks/netmundial/blob/master/R/cis_ig_vis_wordcloud.R" target="_blank"></a>.<br /> Download the <a class="external-link" href="https://github.com/ajantriks/netmundial/tree/master/data/word_clouds_org_types">data</a>.<br /></td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These word clouds show the hundred most frequently appearing words in the aggregated contribution text of each type of organisations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The size of the words in these diagrams refer to their frequency of appearance. A larger size refers to higher frequency of appearance. The colour of the words have been differentiated to group the words according to their freuqency of appearance. The color hierarchy is as follows: Green, Pink, Blue, Red.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While creating these word clouds, certain common English words (like, 'the' and 'and') and obvious words for the contributions (like, 'internet' and 'governance') have been ommitted. The full list of ommitted words have been documented in the R code used to generate the diagrams.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Built on <a href="http://getbootstrap.com/" target="_blank">Bootstrap</a> by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a>.</td>
<td>All code, content and data is co-owned by the author(s) and <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/" target="_blank">Centre for Internet and Society</a>, Bangalore, India, and shared under Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/in/" target="_blank">Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 India</a> license.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-word-clouds-of-contributions-by-types-of-organisation'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-word-clouds-of-contributions-by-types-of-organisation</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-25T09:51:51ZBlog EntryNETmundial - Which Governments Have Not Submitted Contributions to NETmundial?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-which-governments-have-not-contributed-to-net-mundial
<b></b>
<div><iframe frameborder="0" height="470px" src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/charts/cis_netmundial_map_no_contrib_govt.html" width="1010px"></iframe></div>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Created by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a> using <a href="http://datamaps.github.io/" target="_blank">Datamaps</a>.</td>
<td>
<div class="col-md-8" id="chart-description" style="text-align: justify; ">The map shows (in *green*) all the countries from where no government agency has submitted any contribution to NETmundial. Governments of the countries appearing in *white* have contributed to the NETmundial process.<br /><br />Inter-governmental and international bodies that have submitted contributions to NETmundial -- such as OECD and UNESCO -- have not been considered while creating the above map.<br /><br />To see the map of all the countries from where there have been no contributions (by any kinds of organisation) to NETmundial, <a class="external-link" href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/map_no_contrib.html">click here</a>.</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The visualisations are done by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro Chattapadhyay</a>, based on data compilation and analysis by Jyoti Panday, and with data entry support from Chandrasekhar.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Built on <a href="http://getbootstrap.com/" target="_blank">Bootstrap</a> by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a>.</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">All code, content and data is co-owned by the author(s) and <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/" target="_blank">Centre for Internet and Society</a>, Bangalore, India, and shared under Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/in/" target="_blank">Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 India</a> license.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div id="_mcePaste"></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-which-governments-have-not-contributed-to-net-mundial'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-which-governments-have-not-contributed-to-net-mundial</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-25T09:47:53ZBlog EntryNETmundial - Which Countries Have Not Submitted Contributions to NETmundial?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-which-countries-have-not-contributed-to-net-mundial
<b>This set of analysis of the contributions submitted to NETmundial 2014 is part of the effort by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, to enable productive discussions of the critical internet governance issues at the meeting and elsewhere. </b>
<div><iframe frameborder="0" height="470px" src="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/charts/cis_netmundial_map_no_contrib.html" width="1010px"></iframe></div>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Created by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a> using <a href="http://datamaps.github.io/" target="_blank">Datamaps</a>.</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The map shows (in *green*) all the countries from where no contributions (by any kinds of organisation) have been submitted to NETmundial. Countries appearing in *white* are those from where contributions have been submitted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Organisations that have indicated (in their submitted contribution) that they are either 'global' or 'international' organisations with headquarter in a specific country(ies), or a coalition of several organisations from different countries, have not been considered while making the above map. Such organisations (not considered while making this map) include African ICT/IG Stakeholders, Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits, Just Net Coalition, OECD, etc.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To see the map of all the countries from where the respective governments have not submitted any contributions to NETmundial, <a class="external-link" href="http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/map_no_contrib_govt.html">click here</a>.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India, is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The visualisations are done by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro Chattapadhyay</a>, based on data compilation and analysis by Jyoti Pandey, and with data entry suport from Chandrasekhar.</p>
<table class="invisible">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Built on <a href="http://getbootstrap.com/" target="_blank">Bootstrap</a> by <a href="http://ajantriks.net/" target="_blank">Sumandro</a></td>
<td>All code, content and data is co-owned by the author(s) and <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/" target="_blank">Centre for Internet and Society</a>, Bangalore, India, and shared under Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/in/" target="_blank">Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 India</a> license.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-which-countries-have-not-contributed-to-net-mundial'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-which-countries-have-not-contributed-to-net-mundial</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet GovernanceNETmundial2014-04-25T09:40:03ZBlog Entry