Federated Platform Governance: a step forward in multistakeholder, bottom-up platform governance.

Federated Platform Governance: a step forward in multistakeholder, bottom-up platform governance

. Alejandro Pisanty

 

Facultad de Quimica, UNAM, Cd. Universitaria, Av. Universidad 3000,04510 Ciudad de México, México. 

 DRAFT. 

 Abstract 

 I propose to bring together the emerging platform governing and oversight boards in a bottom-up, multistakeholder federation. It will be flexible enough to accommodate each platform’s different rules and allow for cooperation on cross-cutting issues. 

 1. Introduction 

 a. Increasingly, platforms and social media like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok are creating bodies like Facebook’s Content Oversight Board and TikTok’s Safety Councils. Some of them are global, like Facebook’s or Twitter’s, whereas in TikTok there are both global and national/regional structures being formed. 

 b. Fertmann and Kettermann further ascribe these Boards or Councils (Platformrätte) a legislative power, which is somewhat inexact. Facebook’s COB is more a judiciary that is now starting to write policies and rules by which Facebook will also abide, but it’s first line of action is to respond to complaints about content that has been removed. 

 c. This paper goes one step further by forecasting and proposing an interaction among these Boards and Councils that acknowledges and partly compensates their democratic deficit, contributes to a better governance, stays In the right Internet-architecture layer, and continues to respect competition and other needs some parties perceive for their regulation. 

 2. Federation and its benefits 

 a. It can be expected that there will be overlapping membership in these Boards or at least their immediate environment. 

 b. The companies are calling for membership in their Boards by convening a community of activists, legal scholars, former judges, and activists in fields like Internet rights, free speech, child protection, and cybercrime, together sometimes with members of a more technical bent. The universe of well-known specialists with a good reputation and sound judgement who are reasonably free of conflict of interest and multicultural is limited and all companies will be dipping into the same broader pool. 

 c. Further, the actual or prospective Board or Council members have built networks by their membership in organizations like the Internet Society, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Association for Computer Machinery, Dynamic Coalitions of the Internet Governance Forum, and many others. They interact in specialized, subject-oriented meetings; in the fora and meetings of their associations local chapters and regional and global meetings; in meetings of the International Telecommunications Union; in meetings convened by trade associations such as the GSMA, AIMX, and others; in intergovernmental meetings to which they provide documents and studies and occasionally attend as part of national or other delegations; and in the Internet Governance Forum and the National and Regional IG meetings. A few more are members of organizations like the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace or Global Forum of Cyber Expertise. Many meet through ICANN and a few more through the IETF, or the OECD. The issue of Artificial Intelligence Ethics has already caused the emergence of maybe a hundred organizations, from high-level like the GPAI to rather local ones. Thus they have a set of issues in mind and principles upon which to act that are not homogeneous but are communicated with each other. 

 d. While the priorities by country, region, or organization may vary widely – witness the approaches to freedom of speech or private data protection between the United States and the European Union for one example – these specialists have a common ground to start upon, acknowledging their differences and aware of each other’s Weltanschauung and respect for their knowledge and experience. 

 e. A loose federation of Boards is likely to emerge informally, if it hasn’t yet, through the natural exchanges of opinion and knowledge of their members. 

 f. While each Board serves a platform in particular, and the importance of different issues varies among them, it is likely that some of these Boards will rely more on specialists in the staff assigned or the members themselves on the pressing issues of free speech, content takedowns, hate speech, deplatforming individuals and organizations, interference in elections, children abuse, person trafficking, the spread of malware and ransomware, bullying, online violence against women and minorities, and others. 

 g. At some point soon if not past, exchanges between platforms will be made in a search for consistency among them. While say Twitter may focus more on free speech and Facebook more on violence, they will not want to diverge widely. Also, naturally the specialists in each Board will communicate at least through vetted, public versions of their decisions, from which also ensues a mutual influence. 

 h. At some point soon it may turn out to be efficient (in a Coase-ian sense and others) to convene a meeting of say child protection members of the Boards and to lay down some ground rules and boundaries. At the very least a no-surprises policy may arise. 

 i. This loose, informal, voluntary, issue-focused, specialized, problem-solviing approach also means that there will not emerge a single overarching body with the intent to rule them all, and thus conserve the plasticity, generativity, and permissionless innovation (but not ungoverned behavior) characteristic of the Internet. 

 3. A modest proposal 

 a. All interested parties should convene a meeting of platform boards and councils in the Internet Governance Forum of 2021 in Kattowice, Poland, and online, to flesh out their possible participations in this proposal. This can be done by the IGF MAG convening a special session or a Main Session Panel, or else during a Dynamic Coalition or similar session. 

 b. The experience of building up ICANN and other multistakeholder mechanisms and organizations should be used for the many valuable lessons learned. It can provide guidance for identifying constituencies, setting up rules for meetings, and evolve into the formulation of consensus policies and organizational design. 

 4. Acknowlegments 

 a. I am thankful to the generous staff of Facebook and the people they convened in the explorations for establishing their Oversight Board (full disclosure: I am not a member nor in any way connected to any of the platforms.) 

 b. I am particularly thankful to Vint Cerf and Paul Twomey for discussions on this issue. 

 5. References 

 a. Fertmann and Kettermann, https://dashboard-dev.hiig.de/en/one-council-to-rule-them-all-can-social-media-become-more-democratic 

 A new version of this draft will be provided soon, with formatting, references, and other improvements.

Internet Core Principles under threat in the IGF

Discussion and position paper prepared for the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Core Values of the Internet Governance Forum, 2018
Presented (through a friendly reader) at the session in Paris, November 14, 2018.

Alejandro Pisanty – Dynamic Coalition on Internet Core Values, Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2018

Internet Core Principles or Internet Core Values ?
We will discuss this difference in a few seconds. Let us first answer what they both mean to us: the principles and values which, if you take them away from a network, make it stop being the Internet.
Some of us prefer to concentrate on Internet Core Principles, starting from the technical design principles of the Internet. These are more stable over time, more fundamental, and less susceptible to interpretation differences among cultures.
Internet Core Principles are well known in the technical community and more heterogeneously outside it. They include:
Packet switching
Layered architecture
Interoperability
Best Effort
Openness
End-to-End
Decentralization
Robustness
Scalability
It may be said that some of these characteristics are principles and others are design goals; and one may wish to add others like universality (preferably in its most constrained definition, “universal reach”) and resilience.
The definitions of Best Effort and End-to-End are rather refined.
Best Effort is a fundamental principle from the early stages of design of the Internet, in order to let the network function over a wide and growing variety of physical supports like radio, copper wire, and optical fiber (optical fiber communications came into existence some 20 years after the Internet was conceived; the same applies for cellular telephony and other wireless technologies, whereas radio communications of more general types had been available since the end of the 19th century.)
End-to-End is often described as “having communications go from one end to another” or “having communications go from one end of another, regardless of where on the network both ends are” but it actually means something more sophisticated, “having communications’ characteristics defined mostly at the end points, leaving the network to do only the job of carrying them.”
Layered architectures and packet switching are not unique to the Internet but have become almost synonymous with it because other instances have faded away.
Another principle that has become part of the core set is Permissionless Innovation. Understood in this context it means something quite simple: there is no owner of the whole network, no authority that has to grant permission for an application or technology to be used on the Internet. Of course other permissions may be needed, such as legality in a given jurisdiction, or those derived from requirements of security, privacy, or the management of intellectual property. They are not permissions intrinsic to the Internet; they apply to the actors (individuals or organizations) that develop, operate, or use the innovations.
As a result, most human conduct can now take place on the Internet or through it. The effects of the Internet on human conduct are:
1. Massification.
2. Identity effects – anonymization is possible, as is the formation and following of precise, detailed digital identities.
3. Transjurisdictional effects – actions on the Internet can take place across many borders, often for each single act.
4. Barrier lowering – cost, legal registration, company size, capital investment, etc. for activities on the Internet are much lower, often negligible, for executing them over the Internet as compared to offline.
5. Friction reduction – obstacles and time such as purchasing authorization, money transfer, customer or seller decisions, participation in discussions, etc. can take place instantly and without intermediation.
6. Memory effects – often paradoxical, memory effects include the pervasiveness of memory in the form of files that eternally and pervasively propagate, and the loss, often massive, of memory in the form of websites, publications, archives, accounts and identities, which are lost through deletion, erasing, physical destruction, company breakdowns, website renewals, or loss of compatibility, media and devices to read and execute information and software which are not regularly transferred to new supports.
Contemporary questions about the Internet rest on the key issues of expanding access and the benefits of the Internet, and of trust on the Internet, on individuals and organizations on and through the Net, and on operations of all kinds held through the Internet. Understanding how the core principles can support trust is indispensable for the development of strategies in all fields.
The Internet is a general purpose interconnection of networks. Standards are defined in an open process and applied voluntarily. Being connected is its own prize, so most actors will comply with the Internet standards developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force and other applicable entities. The decentralization of the Internet also requires an extensive cooperation among all parties, yet allows each of them great freedom on how they choose to operate their part of the Net.
The governance model that has emerged for the Internet is consequent with the above. It is decentralized, multistakeholder, cross-sectional, centered on specific issues and the solution of problems in them, participatory, decentralized and robust. It is generally oriented to specific layers (for example, standards for the Internet layer are developed in the IETF; issues concerning the DNS standards are dealt with in the IETF while the policy for the global coordination of resources is developed within ICANN)
Shifting to Core Values terminology, we find a current of thought which considers the above but tends to focus more on some of the principles and goals already stated, like universal reach or openness, and adds to the list values like freedom – “a free and open Internet accessible to all” would be a fair summary of this view and aspiration. A creative tension within the Dynamic Coalition allows us to make progress based on the contrast between both views.
The flags of access, openness and freedom understood as human rights are also carried by other IGF Dynamic Coalitions, such as those on Internet Rights and Principles (IRP), Open Access and others related to libraries, Network Neutrality (an extension and application of the End-to-End principle), and on Publicness.
Over the years of its existence the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Core Values has examined, in a yearly fashion, developments that enhance or endanger the values and principles that make the Internet be the Internet. While these in turn may vary over time, they have been remarkably stable at the core, and fora such as the IETF serve well in discussing, planning, and executing their evolution. We have looked each year at the effect of major trends on the layered architecture, interoperability, best effort, openness, end-to-end (in this case especially through the lens of Network Neutrality, and leaving the brunt of this task to the excellent work of the DC NN), decentralization, robustness, and scalability.
For 2018 the most notable developments we observe are as follows:
1. National or regional regulations such as the European Union’s GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) which intending to protect privacy (in the specific form of personal data protection) force Internet operators and intermediaries to establish rules for packet traffic based on geographical boundaries which are not well defined on the Internet, not even well represented by IP addresses. One of many undesirable consequences of this type of ruling has been the denial of service by some providers to users whose IP addresses are identified as related to the EU territories, as the providers are neither obliged under the applicable laws in their location nor equipped to comply with the GDPR (and may even actually break laws, contracts, policies, and accepted practices if they do comply.)
2. The EU’s Copyright Directive establishes obligations for Internet operators and intermediaries that can only be complied with by breaking the layered architecture’s derived obligation of avoiding cross-layer operations. The transit of packets between certain pairs of points has to be interrupted to intercept them and inspect their contents in the higher layers, then make a human (or human proxy through automated, algorithmic decision processes) decision on whether to let the packets arrive at their destination, or else start a notification process to parties such as sender, destination, operator, intermediaries, and authorities.
3. Some countries are establishing and putting in operation surveillance systems that violate the end-to-end principle and that force layer crossings in order to, in turn, affect the openness and decentralization process.
4. These type of systems also affect the scalability of the Internet and through it, the goal of universality.
5. We are generally concerned that the layered architecture is not well understood globally. “The Internet” has acquired too many meanings, ranging from the narrowest referring to the infrastructure of physical networks, IP-protocol packet transmission, routing, and TCP traffic control, to a broad one that encompasses all human activity that uses the networks. In this broader view, people and organizations attribute to the Internet problems that are entirely of human and organizational nature, such as cybercrime, harassment, “fake news” and other forms of disinformation, and tend therefore to seek solutions through intervention in the technology instead of focusing on human activity (as modified by the Internet, if needed.) The motivations of fraudsters or of disinformation campaigns are the same whether fraud be committed on the street or by phishing, whether disinformation be propagated by mouth or in online social media; their impact equally depends on the gullibility of victims and of their susceptibility to framing, or on the weaknesses of education and of political systems. This in turn leads to ill-advised legislation and other norms, such as treaties, standards, regulations, and policies which focus on the medium instead of on the actions and actors that are the actual viable subjects of such norms. An intense and extensive effort to educate legislators, policy makers and all stakeholders who can influence them is needed in order to focus on the right actions at the right layers and the right nodes.
6. We occupied ourselves with “Freedom from Harm” in our recent sessions. Better definitions of harms have been forthcoming, and actions have been started in different fora, such as standards and architectures that enclose IoT devices in distributed but not flat architectures, or laws demanding higher levels of security for devices. We cannot consider the issue closed and will revisit it in the upcoming year within our agenda.
7. The work of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) leading to and during its Plenipotentiary Conference 2018 is also of serious concern from the point of view of regress on the Core Principles of the Internet. The stakeholders of the Internet are largely excluded from the conference and its preparation through a funnel process that ends up in exclusively intergovernmental decision making, with a humiliating, token presence of a few “sector members” deprived of voice. Decentralization is violated by trying to introduce a framework of decision-making that is concentrated in a highly vertical, controlled process, removed from the effective operation of the Net and interfering with the decentralized, issue-focused processes of the Internet community. The relevance of standards like “DOA”, forcibly reintroduced after almost being discarded in the preparatory processes, the abuse of cybersecurity terminology as a pretext, the imposition of national-boundary delimited norms and the support for their further entrenchment are but a few examples of how deleterious this process is for the Internet.
8. Recent calls made in preparation for and during the Internet Governance Forum’s session in Paris 2018 are also cause of concern from the standpoint of Core Principles and Values. They focus narrowly on some aspects of cybersecurity, imply measures that have already been tested and decried by the technical community for layer crossings, reductions in interoperability and openness, and other side effects. They disregard the best-effort nature of the Internet and the open, multistakeholder participatory processes of its governance. In a probably well-meaning attempt to increase the involvement of governments, with their unique roles and capabilities, they sideline what a broad, global community has been able to build over at least two decades. We call on the community to absorb the productive aspects of these proposals while increasing and consolidating the governance model’s best features.

Adentrándonos en el IGF 2016: las primeras sesiones, el Día Cero

El Internet Governance Forum o Foro sobre Gobernanza de Internet está por comenzar, el 5 de diciembre de 2016 en Guadalajara, México.

Alejandro Pisanty


Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.


El denominado "Día Cero" se caracteriza por eventos que no son propiamente parte del programa del Foro aprobado por el MAG (Comité Asesor Multisectorial), pero contribuyen directamente a la reflexión del Foro y reúnen a actores presentes en la ciudad.

Haré referencia a continuación a algunos de los eventos del Día Cero a los que daré seguimiento (y en los que participaré) esperando que sean de interés más general.

El primero de estos eventos que describiré es GIGANET, la reunión de la red de académicos interesados o especializados en gobernanza de Internet como tema de investigación.

GIGANET

Se presentarán trabajos de investigación sobre diversos temas de gobernanza de Internet, en cuatro sesiones, a saber:

1. Participación, transparencia y responsabilidad, en la cual se discutirán temas como transparencia algorítmica, criptografía y libertad en relación con el Estado, e innovación en procesos multisectoriales.

2. Desafíos legales, en la cual se presentarán avances de investigación sobre la construcción de estructuras normativas, el principio de “persecución en caliente” en el ciberespacio, constitucionalismo digital y legitimidad, y el régimen de copyright en el contexto del conocimiento tradicional.

3. Acciones y políticas en gobernanza de Internet, con temas como perspectiva teórica de la fundación del IGF, papel de la juventud en el IGF, y evaluación de la expansión del espacio de nombres de dominio de primer nivel (gTLDs).

4. Economías emergentes y crisis, en la que las ponencias tratan de Internet y colonialismo, políticas en países emergentes con el caso del Marco Civil brasileño, y gobernanza de Internet durante las crisis considerando el caso concreto de Tailandia.


El segundo evento de esta publicación es el Foro Abierto que organiza ICANN sobre la transición en la supervisión de IANA, que ha pasado de ser una función del gobierno de Estados Unidos a una ejercida de manera autónoma por la organización.

El tercer evento de este día al que me refiero es la sesión organizada conjuntamente por ISOC (Internet Society), APC (Association for Progressive Communications) y la Fundacao Getulio Vargas sobre Conectividad Comunitaria, orientada a la construcción y puesta en operación de redes para acceso a Internet en comunidades aisaladas, marginadas, o no atendidas por actores de los mercados. En esta sesión se analizarán los principales problemas físicos, técnicos, legales y de políticas que dificultan el acceso a Internet en estas comunidades; tecnólogos de primera como Bob Frankston presentarán una visión de las alternativas técnicas; y se pondrá a discusión un manifiesto para atraer la atención y la acción colectivas en la materia en todo el mundo.

Hay muchos más eventos interesantes en la agenda. No dejen de visitarla y seleccionar algunos, ya sea que estén Uds. presentes en Guadalajara o bien puedan participar de manera remota a través de Internet.

Qué esperar del IGF o Foro sobre Gobernanza de Internet 2016

Qué esperar del IGF o Foro sobre Gobernanza de Internet 2016

Alejandro Pisanty

Facultad de Química, UNAM

Sociedad Internet de México, A.C.


Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.

El objetivo de este documento es presentar un esquema general del IGF 2016 para facilitar una participación efectiva.

INTRODUCCIÓN

El Internet Governance Forum (IGF) o Foro sobre Gobernanza de Internet (FGI o IGF) es un evento anual que reúne a los distintos sectores interesados (“stakeholders”) de la gobernanza global de Internet, para discutir los principales avances y problemas que se presentan en esta materia. El IGF es organizado por la ONU pero a diferencia de otros eventos de la misma, no es un foro gubernamental sino que todas las partes participan, en principio, en pie de igualdad.

El IGF está formado por distintos tipos de sesiones, de las que destacan sesiones plenarias, talleres, foros de mejores prácticas, coaliciones dinámicas, “flash sessions” y foros abiertos. Éstos serán descritos en las siguientes secciones junto con las modalidades de participación.

El programa del IGF es organizado a lo largo del año por el MAG o Grupo Asesor Multisectorial, siguiendo distintos procedimientos para cada tipo de sesión. Existe además un grupo de sesiones llamado “Día Cero”, previstas para el día anterior al inicio formal del foro, que se describe también en las secciones subsecuentes.

El Foro resulta desconcertante para algunos participantes ya que tiene como objetivo el análisis, la discusión, el debate y el estudio a fondo de los temas, pero explícitamente no debe formular conclusiones ni decisiones que se lleven a la acción. Esto se reserva a las organizaciones y mecanismos existentes apropiados para cada tema a nivel subnacional, nacional, regional, internacional o global. El Foro evita formular documentos para que no se presenten negociaciones sobre textos acordados, las cuales son vistas como limitantes de la discusión abierta, y evita tomar decisiones que en general serían duplicativas de las funciones de las organizaciones y mecanismos citados. Si se detectan temas no cubiertos de esta manera, las partes tendrán que negociar su solución.

Así, el principal valor del IGF es que los participantes pueden volver a sus lugares de origen y organizaciones informados, actualizados, empapados de los diversos criterios en juego, y preparados para avanzar en cada tema con una orientación a la solución de problemas bien definidos, con los actores y estructuras adecuados, y con base en un principio de subsidiaridad, todos los cuales son rasgos de la gobernanza de Internet más efectiva hasta ahora.

SESIONES

1. Plenarias

Las sesiones plenarias en general son paneles multisectoriales que discuten los grandes temas y subtemas seleccionados cada año para el Foro. Cada plenaria se alimenta de los contenidos de los talleres agrupados bajo su temática, o les provee bases e información. Las plenarias son organizadas por el MAG.

Además de los paneles plenarios, se debe contar en este tipo de sesiones a la inauguración, una sesión general inicial, el panel de puesta en escena de los temas generales, un panel de cierre del evento, la presentación del sumario del Presidente del Foro, y la sesión de clausura.

En los paneles de discusión se prevé la discusión entre los panelistas y la extensión de ésta a la audiencia tanto presente como la participante a distancia. A diferencia del formato usual en México, para tomar la palabra es necesario formar una fila delante del micrófono ubicado generalmente al frente de la sala y previsto para la participación del público. Las sesiones plenarias proveen una ocasión inigualable para conocer las visiones más avanzadas – y frecuentemente contrapuestas – sobre el futuro de Internet, en boca de los actores más autorizados y representativos, incluyendo a los creadores mismos de la tecnología y a sus realizadores más avanzados.

2. Talleres

Los talleres son reuniones de discusión concentradas en temas específicos de los grandes temas generales del Foro. Son organizados por grupos de personas o instituciones que los proponen al MAG, y seleccionados por el mismo MAG de entre el conjunto de propuestas mediante un complejo proceso de selección basado en criterios fijados con anterioridad.

Cada taller debe ser multisectorial y contar con balances de género, región y grupos funcionales o profesionales, en la medida de lo posible. En los talleres se prevé una discusión entre los panelistas invitados y una extensión de ésta a la audiencia tanto presente en sala como por vía remota.

La diversidad de temas y participantes de los talleres prácticamente garantiza que los intereses y objetivos de todo posible participante del Foro estén atendidos y que haya para cada quien suficiencia y hasta exceso de sesiones a las cuales acudir, y otros participantes con los cuales formar redes y comunidades de interés y de proyecto. Éste es sin duda uno de los mayores incentivos para participar en el IGF.

3. Foros de Mejores Prácticas (BPF)

Los Foros de Mejores Prácticas o BPF estudian las soluciones que se están dando, con los mejores resultados, a temas como ciberseguridad, género, IPv6, IXPs o puntos de intercambio de tráfico de Internet, y acceso a Internet. Estos foros son conducidos por expertos y se basan en documentos creados a lo largo de algunos meses por grupos de especialistas.

Las sesiones de los BPF permiten investigar a fondo los problemas y extraer lecciones acerca de las soluciones propuestas, las dificultades que éstas encuentran en distintos contextos, y las formas en que tales dificultades pueden ser superadas eficazmente. Los BPF se distinguen del resto de las sesiones en que sí tienen el propósito de producir conocimiento concluyente y sobre el cual es posible actuar empezando desde el corto plazo.

Los documentos de los BPF están disponibles con anticipación para su estudio y comentario, como preparación para el Foro. Es conveniente estudiarlos y darlos a conocer a especialistas que puedan interesarse en ellos y participar o apoyar a los participantes. Una vez terminado el IGF, lo aprendido y los documentos de los BPF pueden ser aprovechados de manera inmediata.

4. Coaliciones Dinámicas (DC)

Las Coaliciones Dinámicas (DC o CD) son agrupamientos que se forman entre los participantes del IGF con una temática y un objetivo determinados, y que perduran a través de algunos años. Algunas DC son la de Derechos y Principios en Internet, la de Valores Centrales de Internet, la de Neutralidad de la Red, la de Acceso a Internet en Bibliotecas, y otras de formación reciente.

Las DC deben organizar en principio dos tipos de sesión: una interna de trabajo en la que discutan su organización y planeen su actividad, y una pública de discusión multisectorial y experta que ilustre sus resultados, invite a la participación, y abra un análisis más amplio de su temática.

La creación de nuevas DC está sujeta a algunos criterios normados por el MAG; debe considerarse abierta siempre que éstos se reúnan. Durante el IGF 2016, una de las sesiones plenarias estará dedicada al trabajo de las Coaliciones Dinámicas.

En 2016 se presentará al menos una nueva DC en formación cuyo tema es la publicidad, no en el sentido de la mercadotecnia y ventas sino alrededor del necesario carácter público de algunos tipos de información, y su contraste con el “derecho al olvido”.

5. Foros Abiertos

Los Foros Abiertos son sesiones de un solo organizador, que tienden a presentar a las organizaciones o a formular la discusión de temas muy específicos por parte de un número de actores reducido. Ello no obsta para que puedan ser de gran interés, como serán en 2016 las sesiones organizadas por ICANN y por la Internet Society.

6. “Día cero”



a. Evento de Alto Nivel del País Anfitrión

El gobierno del país anfitrión organiza, desde hace algunos años, un evento bajo su conducción el día previo al inicio formal de las sesiones del IGF. Quizás el hito inicial de este tipo de eventos fuera la Reunión Ministerial organizada por el gobierno de Kenia previa al inicio del IGF de Nairobi hace algunos años. Dado que la reunión necesitó información, criterios y debate de otros sectores, cambió de nombre en los años siguientes. Es muy probable que resulte de interés general. Es facultad del gobierno anfitrión determinar si esta reunión es abierta o cerrada.

b. Otros



Diversos actores como empresas y organizaciones internacionales llevan a cabo eventos en el “Día Cero”, autorizados por el MAG y el Secretariado para realizarlos en las instalaciones del Foro, o bien en su periferia inmediata sin necesidad de autorización. Algunos son de interés general y otros especializados por tema, región o sector. En esta categoría están también las “flash sessions” que se organizan impromptu.



7. Otros eventos

A lo largo de la semana, desde antes y hasta después del período oficial del IGF, se llevan a cabo eventos como cursos de capacitación, reuniones de debate, reuniones sociales y otras. Organizaciones como ICANN y la Internet Society reúnen a interesados o a sus miembros. Internet Society y otras organizaciones llevarán a cabo un taller de capacitación sobre redes comunitarias para la conexión a Internet de poblaciones aisladas o marginadas. Algunas organizaciones orientadas a la defensa de los derechos humanos llevarán a cabo reuniones de coordinación. Gobiernos de distintos países y empresas también llevan a cabo procesos formativos.

GIGANET es un simposio de investigación de la Red Global de Investigación sobre Gobernanza de Internet, una asociación académica. Los trabajos presentados han sido seleccionados por un comité evaluador y representan algunas líneas de investigación de elevado interés. La asistencia es libre

En muchos países y regiones supranacionales se están llevando a cabo con cierta regularidad reuniones de trabajo sobre gobernanza de Internet. En algunos casos se trata de reuniones con conclusiones operativas, mientras que en otras se mantiene la orientación al diálogo abierto del IGF global. En algunas sesiones del IGF se mencionarán estas iniciativas bajo el título NRI (“National and Regional Initiatives”). En el caso de México, se han llevado a cabo en los últimos años dos sesiones de los “Diálogos sobre Gobernanza de Internet”.

La Internet Society organiza durante el “Día Cero” el CLX o “Collaborative Leader ship Exchange” para reunir a los líderes globales y regionales de la Sociedad y a los expertos y grupos focales de jóvenes cuya asistencia patrocina.



8. Participación y otros temas relacionados

La participación en el IGF está abierta a todos, como ya se ha dicho en este documento. Los aspirantes a participar deben registrarse (antes del 17 de noviembre de 2016) en el sitio Web del Foro, o bien presentándose físicamente en la sede (PALCCO, en Zapopan, Jalisco, en la Zona Metropolitana de Guadalajara) a partir del 3 de diciembre.

El IGF procura activamente la participación a distancia para quienes no pueden asistir físicamente a las sesiones. En cada sesión principal se asigna un moderador para la participación remota, quien la impulsa activamente ante los participantes presentes en el sitio. Adicionalmente, se constituyen “hubs” o polos de participación remota en los cuales se organiza una reunión alrededor de un sistema de conexión a Internet. Los “hubs” deben ser registrados previamente y reciben una atención especial.

Si bien el idioma dominante en el Foro es el inglés, se provee interpretación simultánea a los idiomas oficiales de la ONU en las sesiones principales. En los talleres y otras sesiones que no son plenarias, la disponibilidad de interpretación simultánea depende de que la financie el organizador de la sesión o un donador que haga la aportación necesaria.

Es importante notar que la participación en el IGF está regida por un Código de Conducta (ver https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-code-of-conduct-0 para conocerlo). Este Código está orientado a permitir la máxima apertura en las discusiones dentro de un marco de respeto mutuo propio de los organismos internacionales. Por ello protege la libertad de expresión bajo bandera de la ONU y al hacerlo limita las expresiones dirigidas a individuos o países específicos, la exhibición de pancartas, y otras actividades similares.

El recinto del Foro se pone bajo bandera de la ONU lo cual quiere decir que las reglas de conducta, que protegen a los ciudadanos de países sujetos a gobiernos autoritarios y restricciones severas a las libertades de expresión y asociación. Para los habitantes de algunos países liberales es importante entender el valor liberador de estas condiciones y hacerse cargo del origen y valor de las restricciones que pueden acompañar a estas normas. La seguridad física del recinto también está normada por la ONU y se materializa a través de una colaboración entre las fuerzas de seguridad de la propia ONU y las autoridades locales.

En el exterior del recinto se suele crear un espacio más abierto pero que está sujeto a las reglas nacionales, estatales y municipales de la localidad donde se ubica. En éste se ubican espacios tipo “booth” o “stand” de diversas organizaciones en los que se difunde información y se favorecen las interacciones informales.

Numerosas y muy diversas organizaciones apoyan activamente, incluso con financiamiento, la asistencia de grupos de expertos, de jóvenes, de activistas, de periodistas, etc., de acuerdo con los objetivos de cada una. Esto enriquece la participación y la diversidad del Foro y lo hace especialmente atractivo para la formación y consolidación de redes de interacción entre personas y organizaciones. En este momento (noviembre de 2016) estos programas han cerrado sus convocatorias.

La asistencia al Foro no exime a los participantes de alcanzar por su propia cuenta una situación migratoria adecuada para estar presentes en la sede. Las visas y permisos de internación deben gestionarse con suficiente anticipación ante las representaciones del país sede aplicables al lugar de residencia de los participantes extranjeros.

TEMÁTICA DEL IGF 2016

El IGF 2016 continúa la temática original prescrita para el Foro en los acuerdos de la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información (CMSI o WSIS) y la evolución que han tenido a lo largo de los años. El Foro fue creado por acuerdo de la Asamblea General de la ONU con base en los de la CMSI y ha sido prorrogado por la misma AG a partir de la evaluación de la primera década en diciembre de 2015.

El programa completo se puede visitar en http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/12/123 y, en formato interactivo, en la página principal http://intgovforum.org con actualizaciones constantes y opciones para usarlo dinámicamente en dispositivos móviles.

Los temas de 2016 son Acceso y Diversidad, Recursos Críticos de Internet (un eufemismo para los identificadores como nombres de dominio y direcciones IP), Ciberseguridad, Temas Emergentes, Gpenero y Juventud, Derechos Humanos en Línea, Cooperación Multisectorial (“Multistakeholder”) y Desarrollo Sustentable y la Economía de Internet. Como se mencionó antes, a cada uno de ellos le corresponde una sesión plenaria y numerosos talleres. Algunos talleres pueden asociarse a diversos temas; por ejemplo los temas de Género aparecerán también al discutir Ciberseguridad, Derechos Humanos en Línea, Cooperación Multisectorial, y Desarrollo Sustentable, cuando menos.

AGRADECIMIENTO: agradezco a Fátima Cambronero sus observaciones críticas y aportaciones de recursos informativos, y a Israel Rosas, Luis Miguel Martínez, León Felipe Sánchez Ambiá y Karina Martínez su revisión.



Referencias e información adicional

CÓDIGO DE ÉTICA - https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-code-of-conduct-0

Programa del IGF: http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/12/123

Página oficial del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet:

http://www.intgovforum.org

Registro:

http://www.intgovforum.org

Nota: plazo para registrarse y participar presencialmente del IGF vence el 17 de noviembre.

Coaliciones Dinámicas: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/dynamic-coalitions-4

Foros de mejores prácticas: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/best-practice-forums-4

Documentos informativos sobre políticas en Internet de la Internet Society, “Policy Briefings”, http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/policy

“The Internet Ecosystem”: (Ecosistema de Internet, documento de la Internet Society): http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Ecosystem_Factsheet.pdf


“Introduction to Internet Governance” e-book de la Fundación Diplo (disponible en varios idiomas): http://www.diplomacy.edu/igbook

Cómo preparar propuestas de talleres para el IGF 2016 (y un repaso por las diferentes modalidades de sesiones) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNnmoyDZ0wk&feature=youtu.be

Notes from the IGF session "Taking Stock and Looking Forward"

These are partial, informal notes I took in the "Taking Stock" session in the closing day of the Internet Governance Forum, in Baku, Azerbaijan. They do not substitute for official transcript, may contain unfinished content and rough references to third parties with no intent to offend, and may skip large parts of the session's content for no particular reason. And the no particular reasons may be different in each case. Meant for progress in parallel and in advance to official transcripts.


IGF2012TakingStock_WayForward

Notes by Alejandro Pisanty
Chair
Constance Bommelaer introduces session format.
Peter Major introduces facilitators.
Bertrand de la Chapelle. Asks rapporteurs to present reports.
Calls Jeanette Hofmann. Report from Main Session on Emerging Issues
1. Disaster recovery
a. Understand digital media for spreading information. Need to create local infrastructure to communicate vital information. Govts should prepare by digitizing information, providing it, and providing training. Emphasis on flow of information.
2. Intellectual property rights and free speech
a. Discussion around common principles. Regulation should be technologically neutral; this principle faces problems, like: each medium inherits different regulations, countries are different, regulation of hate speech is an example. Against convergence. There was no common view in panel.
Rohan Samarajiva, IG4D session:
3 clusters: gTLDs, enabling environment, infrastructure
gTLDs, expansion of domain name space: concerns are expansion of markets
On the other clusters there was agreement for multistakeholder processes. Differences refer to people who see infrastructure as more important (in developing countries.) Emphasis also on innovation.

Karen Rose, on Access and Diversity

Infrastructure, mobile and innovation.
Meta-level takeaways:
Go beyond rolling out connectivity. It is a key prerequisite, but to be meaningful we need to talk of Internet as value proposition. Turn users into creators and innovators to fuel development.
Driving demand for the Internet by being more relevant and developing content. All stakeholders have mutually reinforcing roles.
Look at these issues as how to fuel the Internet economy.
REPORT FOR PLENARY ON SECURITY, OPENNESS AND PRIVACY:
Alejandro Pisanty, UNAM and ISOC, Mexico
The 7th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum held numerous discussions on the intertwined subjects of Security, Openness and Privacy. The subject was the theme of a Main Session and Workshops, and was also of interest in Dynamic Coalition, Open Forum, and other discussions.
The brunt of the attention was dedicated to the relationship between Security and Privacy, or more broadly this year, between Security and Rights among which privacy is present with its own weight, for its impact on other rights, and as a symbol or even shorthand for these.
As the 7th IGF included many more rights-related sessions than any previous year, statements about rights threatened by surveillance permeated a large part of the discussions. Continuing from previous years, the balance between opposing trends as well as views of cybersecurity serving instead of opposing privacy and liberties went on being the focus of many debates.
In some of these debates, clear-cut cases and figures for state-driven surveillance were shown. Some of these are staggering, especially in view of the accelerated application of analytics and correlation that allow the deanonymization of data captured as anonymous. In many cases shown in the Forum, the justification for the scale of data capture and retention cannot be readily found. The impact of surveillance as a chilling effect on the rights of free expression and free association was underlined as well.
Identity management, a key element of online security and privacy, was discussed. Among the most forward-looking contributions is the view of evolution from top-down, owned identity, authentication and authorization frameworks towards identity management based on multiple sources which only require a low level of trust in each.
Openness was not intensely discussed in this intertwining. However, it was the subject of many discussions in which libraries and librarians play an increasing role in the Internet Governance Forum, and of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Core Values.
The communities concerned with rights and with security have not been communicating enough. A call is made for further multistakeholder dialog open to many diverse needs and points of view.

Bill Drake. Report on session on Critical Internet Resources.
gTLDs process; emphasis on broadly generic terms, role of the GAC which generated robust disagreement among some parties.
Secondary markets for IPv4 addresses. Using markets to reallocate scarce resource could serve some purposes, or could be inconsistent with global public interest.
WCIT and ITRs were discussed for potential impact on Internet, esp. proposals from some parties for interconnection and “sender pays” kind of approach. Boundaries between telecommunications and Internet are of interest as they shift. Consensus that the regulations should not extend deeply into the Internet realm and stay closer to the traditional realm of telecommunications.
Vladimir Radunovic. Report from remote participation, “the cloud”. 3,000 tweets previous to meeting, 1,500 more during the last 24 hours reaching 2.8 million followers; almost a parallel IGF.
Concerns on rights.
Heated discussions on enhanced cooperation, of which IGF is considered a model.
Debates on “right to Internet”
Intense interest in WCIT and ITU SecGen’s speech.
Other topics included questions about women and children rights, and disaster relief.

Qusai al-Shatti facilitator now. Open to participants.

Subi Chaturvedi. India. Professor and NGO from Delhi. Thanks people who facilitated her presence; it is a life-changing moment. IGF is one of the most transparent, accessible platforms.
Makes a submission: national IGFs are not fast enough. Need to have numerous events. We need an Internet Governance Movement; what is at stake is freedom, Internet and freedom.
Institutionalize best practices from national and regional experiences, sharing learning, creating bridges. Facilitate dissemination of information.

Parminder Jeet Singh. Recommendations from WG on IGF improvements. Complains. Extends the complaint. Insists on complaint. Asks why grounds for his complaint arose.

Jonas Makinnen. Progress in youth participation. More intense discussion and acknowledgement of youth’s contribution. IGF suffers from youth showcasing. Remarks on absence of local youth.
Youth want attribution and access. Young people need to be able to learn the positives and the negatives.

Peter Major. Response to Parminder on implementation of CSTD recommendations. They have not yet been accepted by the UN GA and the MAG was not mandated to follow them. Next year will be different.

Subi Chaturvedi. On youth: India IGF dedicated a day to related issues but still left out youth. We have to create events that engage youth, we must go to them.

Bertrand. Enhanced cooperation discussion more accepted. Transnational effect of laws, neutrality in Marco Civil. WCIT a big issue, discussion is in mission of IGF as monitor of whether processes comply with WSIS principles.
Qusai. In a nutshell eg disaster response, technical neutrality in regulation; IG4D importance to develop domain-name industry at ccTLD level and developing infrastructure (mostly IXPs), enabling environment.

Carblanc: will discuss statements of principles. There are at least 15 statements of principles which exist mostly in English. There are differences: in the mode of development (unilateral to multistakeholder); source (IGOs, govts, civil society, business, etc.); approach (economic, human rights, etc.); focus (constitution-type, sectoral, etc.)
Commonalities: reference to international founding instruments, similar rights, commonality in principles.
Kleinwächter. Over 25 sets of principles identified. There should be a single one that covers them all, counts with the agreement of all governements and all stakeholders, and be elaborated by the MAG.
Pisanty: attempt to find common principles upwards will only conclude on the commonalities in the lowest layers, i.e. openness, interoperability, end-do-end. Wolfgang’s proposal would also ask for the MAG to become the constitutional assembly of cyberspace; not equipped for that.

Elvana Thaci: one characteristic of the EU Principles are open; they don’t try to develop in isolation and try to express core values of the Internet in policy guidance. They see it as the CoE’s contribution to an ongoing global process in which all stakeholders must take their own responsibilities. See also CoE governance principles for 2012-2015.

Parminder Jeet Singh. Will not talk about DC on IRP. OECD and others are developing principles and they should not oppose UN-level development. Horrible people oppose these.
On Wolfgang: agree with Pisanty on MAG role, not right.

Jeremy Malcolm. Outcome from BestBits, civil society meeting of 50 experts. Only way to legitimacy is multistakeholder development of undisputed principles.

Franklin Netto (Brazil govt).
IGF would have important role in drafting principles.
Marco Civil has not been approved in Congress, it is an initiative of the Executive listening to society
Happy to hear that enhanced cooperation concept is not a taboo
Need a platform to operationalize the concept. Enhanced cooperation must be multistakeholder process, to result in public policies.
First time at IGF, likes very much to work in open space, BUT we need to find ways to systematize the results and take them to governmental realm and others.

Ayesha Hassan. The private sector welcomes the IGF and thinks there is room for further exploration of sets of principles.

Now Nermine El-Sadawy moderates. How could principles be compiled and how the IGF platform be used for that.
Carlos Affonso. Report from workshop.
Johan Hallenborg from same source. IGF should create a prize. Work more on intermediaries following Frank LaRue. Study interaction with technical design. Link to human rights fora, maybe through workshops next year. Continue to hold Human Rights Roundtable.

Nermine: do people agree with Wolfgang or Alejandro?

Peter Major: he understands that Wolfgang’s proposal is only to compile and find commonalities among sets of principles, sees no harm.
WG on IGF improvement.

Constance Bommelaer. Agrees with Anne Carblanc on compilation of principles; it needs to be done in a multistakeholder environment.

Anne Carblanc: surprised that no-one is taking the floor. If the IGF is not the platform, then what is? Human rights are not the only perspective; social wellbeing, economics, etc. also count, and the OECD would be glad to participate.

Bertrand. The issue of proliferation of principles was already present in the Nairobi IGF. There was general agreement on comparing these sets of principles. Need to decide how to do it. Compendium seems to represent at least the first step. There are milestones and natural timeframes to structure that discussion (like meetings in 2013.) Some compilations are already being made. One compilation could be done by February.

Parminder. Will make a suggestion for process. There should be a round table in the next IGF. Offers to help organize on behalf of CD on IRP.

Theresa Swinehart. Good dialog, good opportunity. As MAG member looks forward to continuing this in the MAG now.
Nermine: would agree with Theresa. Maturity point in time to take next steps.

Peter Major. Next phase of the session: Way Forward. Facilitators Avri Doria and Vint Cerf.

Avri: The IGF is evolving. Way forward has two dimensions: the IGF itself and the substance, what we’ll be talking about.
CSTD was talking about IGF of two years ago.
Wants MAG to be more than program committee, dynamic coalitions to be dynamic along the year. Look at some statements made in this IGF in defense of freedoms, esp. freedom of speech and freedom after speech.

Vint Cerf. The MAG should belong to the IGF, not to the CSTD. WE should be in charge.
7th IGF UNDESA staff, secretariat, hosts have achieved a lot with little resources. These must become more reliably. Commits to get more engagement for the IGF.
IGF meetings are rich in content and diversity and thought provoking debate. A project to curate the archives is called for. Calls for participation, offers data mining. Some work is already being done so the point is providing platforms.
More can and should be done to draw attention to problems that surface. Task and staff the MAG or a MAG-like Working Party to analyze the issues and assess whether progress is being made. Do the issues deserve attention by other bodies?
Need to involve more participants from Latin Americ, Asia and Africa.
IGF should self-assess.
There is value to loose coupling and informality. We should keep it, avoiding overly rigid regulations.

From Vint textually:
“1. The UNDESA staff and IGF secretariat, with great assistance from the Azerbaijani hosts, have done wonders with little resource. We must find a way forward to increase reliably the resources available for future IGF meetings. I am committed to finding ways to increase private sector engagement and support.
2. The IGF meetings are rich in content and diversity, vigorous in thought-provoking debate. This one was no different. But we are not leveraging the accumulated wisdom of the observations of participants as well as we should. A project to catalog, archive and curate the cumulative documents (including transcripts) of all IGFs is called for. I am committed to working with like-minded participants to achieve a sustainable archive and data-mining capacity to inform future IGFs and to assess historical trends.
3. It seems clear that more can and should be done to draw attention to problems that are surfaced in the IGF discussions between IGF meetings. To this end, we should consider tasking and staffing the MAG or a MAG-like working party to analyze the issues raised and to assess whether progress is being made. This work could include specific observations derived from the IGF deliberations and speculative suggestions for their further consideration in appropriate fora. At the beginning of each IGF, one could look forward to a report on progress made in areas identified as ripe for resolution.
4. It seems important to test the idea of dynamic coalition efforts that continue between annual IGF meetings. Perhaps some of the Dynamic Coalitions formed during this IGF can attempt to engage during 2013 in remote or even face/face interaction making use of online tools to further their work.
5. This IGF, as have its predecessors, has reaffirmed the vital utility of multi-stakeholder exchanges that benefit from candor without forced attempts to reach consensus. The IGF process should draw upon a broader range of participants from all stakeholder sectors, especially from Latin and Central America, Africa and Asia/Pac. Incentives and facilitating steps are needed to achieve this objective.”.


Avri. Calls on facilitators of last two sections then will call for open participation, focused on progress, not evaluation.

Bertrand.
Organizational matters. Some lead to drafting of texts and declaration.
There are too many workshops.

Qusai on ways forward.
The Internet is user-centric. Innovation doesn’t have borders. Future IGFs should discuss more Internet as tool for change.
Would like to see more interaction with regional and national IGFs.

Nermine El-Saadawy.
Need to aggregate and study principles.
Need intersessional meetings and other forms of continuity.
Create a think-tank group on Internet Governance policy issues.

Pisanty. Caveat re declarations or even types of summaries that need negotiated text.
Malcolm. On permissions needed to distribute materials.
Carl (N) how to contribute
Vint Cerf: we can and might use computer based tools already proven.
Carolina Aguerre. Agrees with Vint, Avri, Bertrand re legitimacy of IGF. Place for discussions, need to develop a very good website, tool with archives (very difficult to find out what has been discussed before)

Netto. Coincides with need to ensure sustainability of the IGF.
On how to compile the knowledge that has been generated in the IGF.

Heather Dryden.
Compilation of principles would be useful. Must be multistakeholder effort.

Ian Fish, UK, chartered institute for IT.
Besides geography there are sectoral and language considerations. (referring to Vint’s proposals.)

Andrea Beccali from IFLA. Many events till 2015.
UNESCO and UNDP progressively more absent. Failure of multistakeholder commitment of them.

Cedric from UNESCO: not true, tells of UNESCO presence.

Farghan Abdullayeva from Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences IT Institute. Interesting as host nation, multiple and diverse points of view. Thanks to organizers and participants.
Participant from Indonesia (el que intervino en una mesa de seguridad), will be host country.

Wout de Natris. Reports from workshop on international cybersecurity cooperations. Almost no regulatory body or law enforcement attended this conference. Summarizes conclusions: too many laws and treaties. Reach out and communicate. Capacity building. Set priorities through national security

Cybersecurity in the Internet Governance Forum, Baku, 2012 - some session notes

Notes from cybersecurity related sessions in the Internet Governance Forum 2012 (Bakú, Azerbaijan)

These are (admittedly incomplete and potentially inaccurate) notes I took in some sessions related to cybersecurity in the Internet Governance Forum

Cybersecurity that achieves privacy and civil liberties.

Questions from audience, now panelists:
Robert Guerra. It is difficult to get intelligence agencies into a public conversation. Data retention needs special care. Religious speech now important; sometimes used to stifle speech, censor. In some cases governments use it as cover for stifling political speech.

Jimmy. You can send letters or use public phones without identifying yourself; these are essential rights in the offline world. On the Internet you can register but you don’t have to do everything you can do.
Speakers “in Egypt they torture criminals because police can’t do their job right. There is always a reason like this for retaining amazing amount of data. Surveillance out of precaution.”
Concerning religion: it is dangerous to bring the discourse of religious and human rights to online. Private companies are being blackmailed for this; example of Google and “inflammatory videos”, now having showed that they do have the ability to block.
Lots of issues rehashed. Research needed.

Workshop on Identity

EU, US creating official, governmental, national digital identity frameworks.
Bill Smith. Identity space is natural for governments. Models like Liberty Alliance, circle of trust. Learning from private sector like credit cards.
Emerging model with multiple, low-level-of-trust sources of authentication. Moving to adaptive, behavior based authentication.
India national identity system. Black market in peer authentication for identity. Biometric deployment In unprecedented scale. Problems appearing, like cataracts not letting iris measurement work. Lack of privacy framework and data protection law is causing protests, long run may lead to improvement.

MAIN SESSION ON SOP

Moderator Jonathan Charles, ex-BBC.

Session very sparsely attended.
Christopher Painter (US). US national strategy for cyberspace is a cybersecurity strategy.
The same rights (human rights) apply in cyberspace as elsewhere, including war regulations. Need to build a consensus globally.
Kristy Hughes. Huge concern about mass surveillance by data collection. Security and privacy go together online. Surveillance is not only a transgression of privacy but an unjustifiable threat to freedom of expression. The need for massive collection and retention of data has not been justified.
Security and free expression should not be opposed, therefore balanced. They are most often complementary. Regulating speech for incitement to violence should be exceptional, not a result of balance.

Carlton Samuels. (to question “what bothers you?”). In my part of the world access is important. The ability to participate is necessary. It is true that people will come to the Internet with hearts and minds laced with larceny. It is indeed for us to protect the public from such persons. Privacy is important. There will be times when these principles chafe.

(MICROPHONE FAILURE)

Eleonora Rabinovitch. The three issues are intertwined. Will talk from perspective of human-rights organization in Latin America. Problematic legislation and decisions.
Problems too in legislation that criminalizes spreading false rooms. Use of free-trade agreements to approve changes in national legislation favoring intellectual-property protection which becomes a threat to the flow of information and free expression.
We have to be very cautious with new policies and legislation, even in good faith, to protect rights online.

Sherif Hashem (Egypt). We are seeing new attacks and viruses, possibly from state actors, moving forward. Very concerned that security and rights communities are not talking together enough. Need multistakeholder approach to whole set of problems. Need to be innovative. Apply known principles like proportionality.

Marietje Shcaake. Key priorities: people come first. Empower people, give them a free voice. Decisions in one country can have impact all over the world. Technologies can be used as weapons. No witch hunt of powerful corporations or of repressive countries; instead, find incentives, move away from zero-sum game.

Jonathan Zuck (for industry) stands up, shouts “give me liberty or give me death” “it felt good to say that, I’m not sure what it meant.” Then speaks against rhetoric.

Zaid Jamil. Need to act against cybercrime bringing people onto a single platform.
Christopher Painter (to question) If you have a security regime that stifles freedom you’re under the wrong approach.
Eleonora: puts Zuck in his place explaining to him the foundations of universal human rights principles.

REPORT FOR PLENARY ON SECURITY, OPENNESS AND PRIVACY:
Alejandro Pisanty, UNAM and ISOC, Mexico
The 7th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum held numerous discussions on the intertwined subjects of Security, Openness and Privacy. The subject was the theme of a Main Session and Workshops, and was also of interest in Dynamic Coalition, Open Forum, and other discussions.
The brunt of the attention was dedicated to the relationship between Security and Privacy, or more broadly this year, between Security and Rights among which privacy is present with its own weight, for its impact on other rights, and as a symbol or even shorthand for these.
As the 7th IGF included many more rights-related sessions than any previous year, statements about rights threatened by surveillance permeated a large part of the discussions. Continuing from previous years, the balance between opposing trends as well as views of cybersecurity serving instead of opposing privacy and liberties went on being the focus of many debates.
In some of these debates, clear-cut cases and figures for state-driven surveillance were shown. Some of these are staggering, especially in view of the accelerated application of analytics and correlation that allow the deanonymization of data captured as anonymous. In many cases shown in the Forum, the justification for the scale of data capture and retention cannot be readily found. The impact of surveillance as a chilling effect on the rights of free expression and free association was underlined as well.
Identity management, a key element of online security and privacy, was discussed. Among the most forward-looking contributions is the view of evolution from top-down, owned identity, authentication and authorization frameworks towards identity management based on multiple sources which only require a low level of trust in each.
Openness was not intensely discussed in this intertwining. However, it was the subject of many discussions in which libraries and librarians play an increasing role in the Internet Governance Forum, and of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Core Values.
The communities concerned with rights and with security have not been communicating enough. A call is made for further multistakeholder dialog open to many diverse needs and points of view.

Mis notas del IGF 2012 - sesión sobre "enhanced cooperation" / My notes from the "Enhanced Cooperation" session IGF 2012 in Baku, Azerbaijan

Raw notes taken in the first part of the meeting i.e. before the lunch break.

IGF2012Notes

Enhanced cooperation sesión.

Notable: large presence of Brazilian group

Janis – precedent but gives NO explanation
Claudia Scelli – private sector appreciates multistakeholder, not static model to adapt to change.
Carlos Afonso – not here to discuss the linguistics, but to find HOW TO do this enhanced cooperation; problem since WSIS. ICANN has examples of efforts and ICANN itself is an example (difficult, imperfect, reinventing itself) of enhanced cooperation. Maybe we should create a WG like WGIG about enhanced cooperation. Example of WHOIS. Some people want too ready access without due process; this creates a multistakeholder process. Solutions seem impossible. Is it either “in their respective roles” or “on an equal basis”? Fadi Chehade calls for this in an ideal combination; only practice will tell us. Not being only a representative of our community or constituency but also a participant in the process. Calls for multi-equal-stakeholder basis.

Ambassador Fonseca Filho (Brazil) Dept. of Sci & Tech Affairs, BR Foreign Office. From the POV of the Brazilian govt. there is a gap in Internet Governance and believe that the IGF is not enough. Need a specific forum for all matters related to the Internet; all organizations including IGF do their job but it’s not enough; it does not perform the role needed to issue recommendations. The way they propose: establish a working group to collect views on how to implement the concept of enhanced cooperation; worked in CSTD and are frustrated that it didn’t happen there (further understanding ToR for such a group). The proposal is now being submitted to the General Assembly of the UN (this week, 2nd Committee). The appropriate thing would be for the GA to send it back to the CSTD. Extrapolating from WGIG. Think that the wisdom of the process that established the IGF gives hope that they can establish an organization. IGF is one track but need the enhanced cooperation in the context of the UN. The idea attracts fear from many.

Bill Woodcock. Packet ClearingHouse. From the perspective of the technical community, the cooperation process has been very successful. Two examples, exchange points (IXPs) and domain names. Number of IXPs has grown, mostly in developing countries, moving the means for decentralization thanks to outreach; not the tech community’s achievement on its own but also not something that govts can make happen by themselves. Tools for govts to regulate lightly and in an enlightened way. After each IGF new IXPs rise. OECD has helped get consistent statistics and make them public for use of policy makers. In the domain name system there has been a 10x growth in domain name servers worldwide, gone from zero to serious DNSSEC. We now have resilience and robustness which we didn’t have 5 years ago.

COMMENT BY AP. IG has been problem-solving in specific fields, and the BR proposal is too close to the illusion of a single universal global government.

We don’t mean to substitute for the processes that are working. We need a platform for discussion, not a new organization. Also need to discuss how to create multistakholder cooperation. There is no organization that allow governments to discuss and solve their problems, form the perspective of governments.

Carlos Afonso: agrees emphatically with the BR govt position.

Erika Mann: it is right to try to fix problems in government cooperation but a new tool is only an illusion. Need to bring operational understanding of what every party does. Then need to analyze the gaps and see how to fix them among/between mechanisms. Then there may be a third thing which is the missing part. What you need there are Chatham House meetings so govts can profit from the expertise of others.

Fonseca Filho. What Erika says is what he wants to hear. We need a platform. We are not prejudging and maybe we should resort to the existing institutions. But that is not the view of my govt now. And we think we need a platform. Both processes should go hand-in-hand. Need the group to make it work better. In Brazil we do practice multistakeholder governance and we have the endorsement from home. And we should further discuss.

Janis Karklins. This discussion is a perfect example of how compromise formultations at the end of negotiations lead to confusing processes afterwards. We are futher in our understanding of enhanced cooperation. It is “on an equal footing among governments” separate from “all stakeholders in their roles and responsibilities”. Enhanced cooperation is for public policy – but there are no “pure” policy issues, they are intertwined with technical issues, intellectual property, etc. Indeed there is no one place to discuss. We can try to create a platform but there is one essential caution: AVOID UNINFORMED DEBATE. Informed debate is essential; by creating a unique platform we need to bring all full expertise, since for example experts in cybersecurity are not experts in freedom of expression.

SECOND PANEL.

Moderator Bill Drake. Enhanced cooperation has been a subject of great controversy because of vague formulation and the intergovernmental process in CSTD has been stuck.
Echeberría: cooperation in the Latin American and Caribbean region includes LACNIC’s “mini-GAC”, formalization of regional IGF.
Tarek Kamel – ICANN more than 100 govts in GAC, review process is an example of govt cooperation. Collaboration with UNESCO for IDNs, esp. for ccTLDs. IGF also one great example, ICANN supports it strongly. Also took part in CSTD process of IGF improvement. Enhanced cooperation also in national models like Brazil, Egypt, India.
Fiona Alexander – Affirmation of Commitments opened and internationalized a role that the USG had uniquely. Total change, doesn’t expire. Four reviews already conducted successfully. Accountability and Transparency verified if ICANN was living up to its own commitments, by international community. IDNs have only been put in place only after WSIS, after IETF had the standards, UNESCO had the language tables, then GAC and ccNSO working together. Now 32 countries have IDN ccTLDs. Now also doing multistakeholder inside the US.
Bill Drake – USG still has asymmetric role but does great job of opening participation. Asks for comment on the special role of the USG.
Fiona Alexander – evolving gradually from historical roots. For IANA USG took public consultation on ToR and bidding process was directed by adopting criteria from international community, deference to international community and users of IANA.
Jeff Brueggeman – “do no harm”; Internet policy making compared to other global processes is doing very well. One of the main areas of progress has been bridging technical and policy decisions, as Janis Karklins emphasized. Losing that would be harmful and damaging. Hard to understand how one platform would work. Moving away from binary choices is needed now.
Parminder Jeet Singh – I have the unpleasant task of saying what is not going well. Agree on what we are talking about. Appears that he wants to refer to governments’ public policy role. Wants to see more discussion of other public policy issues than Critical Internet Resources (CIR.) Issues about public oversight (then goes on to speak about ICANN.) There is another set of areas. Is it too early to be addressing them? Or aren’t there any? CSTD Computer etc. committee does Internet policy and if nothing is to be done why is that committee working? Why is OECD making it? Why do they oppose other countries doing it? “I want enhanced cooperation to focus on that:” rich countries making policies for the rest.
Narine (Egypt) – wants to address concerns also from Arab and emerging economies. Ecosystem of IG and EC, big puzzle that has to be built in harmony. We can see camps in UN, ITU, WSIS platform. We need to converge and move forward. We’d like to see new measures like GAC not being only advisory; why don’t governments have a stronger roles.
Joy Liddicoat – APC NZ – we should also talk about governments responsibilities, like the recent resolution within the UN supporting free expression online. Double values and repression cause trouble. Some try to stop packets because of their contents and some have different faces in GAC and the way the act re human rights. We should see more enhanced cooperation for improvement in this area. Internet-related public policy that is not made in multistakeholder way is perceived as illegitimate (see SOPA, PIPA; trade agreements.) We are in a process of evolution; APC is positive about developments.
Tarek Kamel: not one constituency is managing ICANN. GAC has some special rules. Compares processes in Egypt, India; not a closed club. Other fora are invited to speak and participate in cybersecurity, child protection, etc. and all those have enhanced cooperation. The wider perspective is open to these different fora.
Echeberría: Parminder wrong in saying that no-one has said before that the focus must be broader than CIR. Examples of enhanced cooperation by LACNIC in non-CIR issues.
Brueggeman: countries should abide by global policies they agree to – internally, follow through.
Drake reads the discussion as a shift of understanding enhanced cooperation from oversight of ICANN to platform for broader issues.
Parminder: the issue does not go away. OECD, two problems: OECD makes intergovernmental policies and tells UN not to. Preconize global policies.
Fiona: rationale behind OECD. Motivation was colleagues in Brazil – they showed the Marco Civil, so the other countries started working on principles. OECD focus is on economics, and has other stakeholders. Perplexed by Parminder’s interpretation.
Numerous participations.

Bill Drake reads the CIRP proposal espoused by Parminder and shows how it aims to create oversight and arbitration powers.
AP COMMENT: AGAIN, ILLUSION OF SINGLE WORLD GOVERNMENT. I did read the IBSA and CIRP proposals and find them deeply flawed.
Kummer – the IGF is the forum. IBSA deeply flawed, OECD much closer to appropriate.
Heather Dryden, GAC Chair – will talk about GAC in afternoon session. GAC has arrived at sets of principles. Increased participation is needed.
Drake –
Liddicoat – support the IGF. Glad to see more places for engagement.
Brueggeman – on “call for existing organizations to report” – it has not been regular enough but it has been done. Find ways to improve on the existing, not only mapping but really make rigorous analysis and get out of deadlock.
(comments)
Parminder – CIRP vs OECD. Something about poor incompetent guys. Now he believes that CIRP should not have the oversight role.
Nermine – enhanced cooperation working, responsibility to try to fix the gaps and integrate into the ecosystem.

Observaciones para el pre-IGF LAC, Foro Regional Preparatorio sobre Gobernanza de Internet para América Latina y el Caribe

LACNIC, ISOC, APC y NUPEF están preparando el evento anual que conocemos como pre-IGF LAC, Foro Regional Preparatorio sobre Gobernanza de Internet para América Latina y el Caribe. Éste se llevará a cabo en Bogotá, Colombia, del 24 al 26 de septiembre de 2012. Para conformar en detalle el orden del día (la agenda) del Foro, han convocado a los interesados a contestar una encuesta.

En esta encuesta se pide expresar en forma muy breve la respuesta a algunas preguntas, por ejemplo sobre las prioridades de distintos temas de gobernanza de Internet para la región de América Latina y el Caribe, o la conducción misma del Foro.

En ánimo de atraer interés al Foro y de adelantar algunos posibles debates, me permito hacer públicas aquí mis respuestas. Ojalá contribuyan en efecto a movilizar los temas de interés. Bienvenidos los comentarios.

Gobernanza de Internet para el desarrollo.

1. Definir de manera realista los temas en que la gobernanza de Internet puede tener impacto en el desarrollo.
2. Buscar un entrecruzamiento en todos los temas para encontrar su impacto en el desarrollo.
3. Investigar los principales obstáculos en la aplicación de Internet en el desarrollo y determinar cuáles tienen un aspecto de gobernanza de Internet. En caso contrario remitir a otros foros.

Temas emergentes de gobernanza de Internet en la región.

1. Neutralidad de la red, ante las propuestas de compañías de telecomunicaciones que la amenazan gravemente (sistemas de pago e interconexión como el propuesto por ETNO ante WCIT para cambio en los ITRs) y ante convergencia en empresas con capacidad de integración vertical y dominancia.
2. Iniciativas de ley en diversos países que amenazan el tejido mismo de Internet, enfocando erróneamente el locus de los problemas y de las soluciones.
3. Expansión del acceso por medio de redes aptas para dispositivos móviles adaptando contenidos para mantener su riqueza y eficacia.

Gestión y manejo de los recursos críticos de Internet.

1. Revisar propuestas y modelos de IXPs ante su resurgimiento por parte de nuevos actores como Data Centers, Proveedores de Servicios Online, CDNs, etc.
2. Seguridad, estabilidad y robustez de los recursos críticos en todas las escalas, desde ICANN hasta la periferia, con intervención inteligente y colaborativa de todos los actores.
3. Prevención de mercados negros y sistemas basados en diversos abusos ante el agotamiento de las direcciones IPv4 y la insuficiente implantación de IPv6.

Seguridad, apertura y privacidad.
1. Educación y capacitación ampliamente difundida, intensa y recurrente, desde usuarios finales hasta instancias centrales públicas y privadas.
2. Atención especial a seguridad de sistemas previamente aislados de Internet, como los de control industrial que han mostrado vulnerabilidades.
3. Replanteamiento de la gestión de riesgos entre seguridad de la información, seguridad de las redes, etc., seguridad de los usuarios, privacidad en tanto protección de datos, y privacidad en tanto protección de la intimidad, privilegiando la apertura en acceso a la información, estándares, y derechos.

Acceso y diversidad.

1. Expansión sistémica del acceso, buscando combinaciones de infraestructura, capacitación de usuarios, y estímulos a la utilización productiva para la población de más difícil acceso (geográfico, educativo, etc.)
2. Regulación de telecomunicaciones, radio y TV, y contenidos que permita la convergencia digital para facilitar acceso.
3. Exploración de modelos de acceso a niveles comunitarios que simultáneamente estimulen las expresiones de diversidad geográfica y de preferencias personales y profesionales.


Balance y perspectivas a futuro: ¿Ha contribuido el proceso regional preparatorio a avanzar en la construcción de una agenda de gobernanza de internet?

El proceso regional preparatorio ha permitido construir algunos temas en común y la aparición de algunos actores que sin este proceso no se hubieran manifestado. Contribuye de manera penosamente gradual a la difusión de los temas y controversias y al diálogo que en los foros relevantes permite a los actores alcanzar soluciones, hasta ahora parciales y limitadas. No tiene suficiente influencia en foros que avanzan de manera que no debiera ser tan limitada como lo es, como e-LAC.

Ha contribuido el proceso regional preparatorio a avanzar en el fortalecimiento del diálogo político multisectorial alrededor de la gobernanza de internet?

El proceso regional preparatorio del IGF ha contribuido a hacer avanzar el diálogo multisectorial pero presenta deficiencias importantes que requieren trabajo para remediarlas. El más importante es la ausencia de actores clave, principalmente del sector privado lucrativo, y la insuficiente participación de representantes de gobiernos con una adecuada combinación de conocimiento especializado y nivel de representación y toma de decisiones.

¿Cómo debería el proceso regional preparatorio continuar y de qué manera debe ser organizado?

El proceso debe seguir siendo abierto y participativo, y ser organizado con atención al debate detallado de ideas y propuestas en grupos de trabajo y al debate amplio en pleno. El multilingüismo de la región seguirá siendo un problema, que pone en desventaja especialmente a los participantes del Caribe.

IGF: futuro, desarrollo y controversias en gobernanza de Internet - Reunión preparatoria regional para el IGF

IGF: futuro, desarrollo y controversias en gobernanza de Internet - Reunión preparatoria regional para el Foro sobre Gobernanza de Internet

Notas de A. Pisanty sobre las sesiones del 5 de agosto de 2010, Quito, Ecuador.



SEGUNDO DÍA, 5 DE AGOSTO DE 2010



SEGUNDA SESIÓN – Gobernanza de Internet para el Desarrollo




Jorge Bossio

Introducción a la temática de la sesión

Pablo Accuosto

“Agenda de desarrollo” y gobernanza de Internet:

Temas

Interés

Cooperación Norte-Sur y Sur-Sur

En Sur-Sur: crear condiciones para un mayor flujo de contenidos entre países en desarrollo

Agenda de desarrollo para GI:

Evaluación del impacto económico social y cultural de la GI sobre factores que condicionan el desarrollo económico social y cultural

Protección del desarrollo de Internet – mecanismos para “proteger” Internet en los países en desarrollo; temas como seguridad, impacto de crisis económicas, etc.

Cooperación institucional. No tiene sentido traer al IGF todos los temas de desarrollo pero sí es necesario articularlos.

1. sensibiilización y fortalecimiento de capacidades
2. procesos de toma de decisiones
3. cooperación N-S y S-S
4. evaluación del impacto económico, social y cultural
5. “Protección” del desarrollo de Internet
6. Cooperación institucional


Juan Fernández (Cuba) – fijar la atención en los temas específicos de gobernanza y no en la generalidad de los temas de TI para el desarrollo.

Raúl Echeberría, Falta de indicadores de desarrollo. Origen del tema de desarrollo en el IGF.


Pisanty: origen de los textos de CMSI e IGF. Introducción en gran parte artificial del tema de desarrollo en el IGF. En qué enfocar la atención.

Eduardo Díaz. Neutralidad de la red.

Eduardo Rojas (Fundación Redes, Bolivia)

Bajar la gobernanza hasta los niveles locales, al municipio, al ciudadano; enfoque geopolítico.

Y no concentrar la discusión sólo entre los actores TICs sino llevarla a una base social amplia.


Pablo Accuosto se suma a la perspectiva de Eduardo.


Rudi Daniel: indicadores adecuados, serían como alfabetización, índice de desarrollo humano, etc.


Olga Cavalli. Los latinoamericanos debemos ocupar todos los espacios disponibles. Reflexión a partir de su experiencia en la GNSO de ICANN. Se explica la ausencia de latinoamericanos no con base en falta de espacios, pues éstos existen y están accesibles, sino que no hay participantes, con ideas o propuestas o intereses específicos.

Participar en el proceso de nuevos gTLDs es costoso e inaccesible para países en desarrollo. Busca que se reduzca el costo de solicitud de inscripción para proyectos comunitarios.

Ginger Paque. Problema de idioma. Elogia el “Next Generation Leaders Program” de ISOC y propone que sea transferido al idioma español.

Jacqueline Morris (T&T) Importante atraer la participación del sector educativo a los debates y mecanismos.

Raimundo Beca. Disipa el tema de costo de acceso a nuevos gTLDs. Operar un gTLDs es muy costoso y riesgoso. En vez de dispersar esfuerzos, concentrarlos en proyectos como .LAT.

Kemly Camacho (Costa Rica).

Importancia del uso de metodologías cuantitativas para profundizar sobre el impacto de las tecnologías en la sociedad. Discrepa de las metodologías usadas por la mayoría de los estados.

Impulsar al interior de los países las discusiones multisectoriales sobre el impacto de las tecnologías sobre todos los sectores.


Juan Fernández (Cuba) Pide a los participantes especificar el rol de los sectores privado y gubernamental en las dimensiones regional y local, en complemento a lo que se discute sobre los organismos de alcance global.

Olga Cavalli. Precisiones y acuerdos con Raimundo. Importancia de los NAPs e IXPs.

Mariana Balboni (CEPAL). CEPAL cuenta con muy buenos indicadores e información; su única limitación es la que le imponga el origen de los datos en los organismos nacionales de estadística de cada país, y sus tiempos propios.

Carlos Martínez Cagnazzo (Uruguay) Importancia de los IXPs para el desarrollo.

Evitar el exceso de regulación.


(orador de Brasil) Participó en discusiones previas en Ginebra y en efecto dice que hay poca incidencia del tema de desarrollo; felicita a la mesa por organizar los temas del debate.

Vuelve sobre el tema ICANN. ¿Es que falta participación de los países en desarrollo culpa de los propios países, o del diseño institucional?


Juan Fernández: relatoría, condensado de la discusión:

Todos los organismos y mecanismos (globales, regionales, locales) deben incluir el tema del desarrollo.

Neutralidad de la red.

Artificialidad del “pegado” del tema de desarrollo en el IGF. Encuentra alentador que al menos se haya introducido el tema en esta sesión.

Vigilar las tendencias globales y retos sistémicos.

Exigir la creación de espacios de participación donde no existen (en la sesión las referencias fueron a la UIT y la UNESCO; en ésta, la actividad de las OSC tiene mucho espacio pero no participan en la gobernanza).

[narrativa muy similar a la aquí expuesta]



SESIÓN VESPERTINA 2

CAMINO HACIA DELANTE

Moderadores: Alvaro Galvani, MRE Brasil y Ginger Paque

Relator: Cassio Martorelli, iBase, Brasil



Alvaro Galvani, puntos que atender:

1. Lo que pasó en la CSTD, relatoría que pasa a ECOSOC y de allí a SG y AG de la ONU

La consulta incluyó a ICANN, ISOC, UIT; y también OCDE y Consejo de Europa.

Le molesta que no hubo contribuciones de organismos de países en desarrollo.

Lo considera un reflejo de la barrera de participación.



2. Discusión en CSTD sobre continuidad del IGF.

Se sugirió que el SG convoque una reunión internacional sobre “enhanced cooperation”

3. Propuesta de Europa de creación de un grupo de trabajo de CSTD para proponer posibles mejoras al IGF.

Concluye que debemos organizarnos para actuar en esos espacios.


Raúl Echeberría. Un minuto para decir lo que le parece bien:

Que continúe el IGF, con características similares a las que tiene, como un foro en el que no haya negociación, considera inviable que haya negociaciones así que debe seguir así para no producir recomendaciones.

Valioso como punto de intercambio.

Propone que tengamos la valentía de escoger cada año sólo dos o tres temas para discutirlos; valentía porque al hacer esto se estarán seleccionando temas para excluirlos.


Valeria Betancourt. Se debería avanzar en que el IGF pueda producir mensajes políticos más claros.

APC quiere un proceso preparatorio para cada IGF, con foros temáticos


Pisanty:

Aprender de la experiencia multistakeholder y aplicar los aprendizajes a la solución de problemas susceptibles de este tipo de tratamiento.

Aprovechar o evitar como efecto negativo el desfase de muchos años.

El carácter resolutivo o productor de recomendaciones requiere representatividad, balance, sistemas de pesos y contrapesos, y estructuras para la apelación y reversión de decisiones.

Falta robustez de las resoluciones ante composición del foro; uno o dos participantes más o menos cambiaría radicalmente las resoluciones, conclusiones o incluso solamente la relatoría.


Pablo Accuosto. Cconverge en que el Foro no debe producir resoluciones, que o son vacuas o son engendros. Sin embargo cree que el paraguas del IGF puede dar lugar a recomendaciones, en los talleres y otras reuniones. El Foro tendría que canalizarlas por medio de publicaciones u otros medios.

También ha propuesto que el MAG tenga un rol superior al de organizador de las reuniones.


José Luis Segovia. Reconoce que es difícil producir lenguaje de acuerdos que sea productivo.

En cambio propone que el IGF sirva para intercambio de prácticas recomendadas o buenas prácticas.


Carolina Aguerré (Argentina) Es fundamental que el IGF siga, y siga con un rol consultivo. Clama también a favor de la relevancia. Cita el desfase detectado por APB y citado ayer. Es deseable que se presenten personas que tengan capacidad de decisión.

Bernadette Lewis. IGF es un gran foro para el intercambio de información y para destacar temas. Le preocupa que se provee la información pero ésta no se traduce en acción en los países y regiones.

Eduardo Rojas. Insiste en la necesidad de generar información e indicadores que permitan tomar decisiones; eso es importante a nivel regional.


Valeria Betancourt. Necesitamos avanzar en un proceso enfocado en la región, con agenda propia.

Alicia Paz (ccTLD .hn, Honduras). Cómo resolver los problemas, sensibilizar a los gobiernos para ello con temas como libertad de expresión y derecho a la privacidad. Consolidar la participación democrática de los pueblos. La solución no está en la estandarización sino en tratar el problema de cada pueblo en forma específica.


Álvaro Galvani. No negociación ni recomendaciones cerradas, pero sí registro del disenso y la diferencia.

ECOSOC no consideró más que a unos cuantos actores.

El proceso regional puede ejercer más la producción de mensajes claros.


Pisanty

Los argumentos de Álvaro Galvani demuestran precisamente que el proceso del IGF debe ser ante todo para el diálogo y el libre flujo de las ideas.


Echeberría.

Si bien las recomendaciones parecen posibles sin negociación, el Foro fue diseñado de forma no resolutiva. Cada mensaje, por simple que parezca, requiere una construcción compleja. Se pierde la riqueza del debate. Ejemplo, los articulos 71 y 72 de los documentos de la Cumbre de Túnez requirieron 17 horas de negociación y aún así dejaron ambigüedades.

Provee el ejemplo de que en el MAG del IGF se propuso buscar resoluciones en materias no controvertibles y se seleccionó el tema “Pornografía Infantil”. Si bien puede haber consenso en combatirla, sigue siendo difícil lograr acuerdos en cómo hacerlo.

Concluye que puede ser más viable acercarse a producir recomendaciones o conclusiones, y mejores informes de relatores, dedicando tiempo más extenso a los temas a cambio de que se traten menos temas.


eLAC: va a haber reunión ministerial y harán propuestas (nota APB: es notable a estas alturas de la discusión que siga sin hacer mención a stakeholders no gubernamentales)


(participante Urugay) necesidad de objetivos claros y metas concretas para la Agenda Digital


Álvaro Galvani propone un glosario de términos


Pisanty. ¿Se acuerdan de “neither kings nor gods, only rough consensus and running code”?


Álvaro Galvani. Sumario de posiciones: a favor y en contra de carácter resolutivo del Foro, y por mecanismos regionales.



Cassio Martinelli

Muchos participantes destacaron la necesidad de atraer la participación de nuevos participantes y actores

Que el Foro regional no dependa sólo de la agenda global sino que se enfoque en la agenda regional




SESIÓN DE CLAUSURA

Raúl Echeberría

Se han dado pasos en esta reunión; aún si no se prorrogara el mandato del IGF, valdría la pena continuar con la experiencia regional.

Agradece a participantes, organizadores, anfitriones.


Ernesto Majó (LACNIC)

Participantes presenciales 120 personas de 25 países, 40% mujeres 60 hombres, 36% país anfitrión; participantes remotos también. Becas a 21 participantes.



Valeria Betancourt.

Agradecimientos.

Retoma “siguientes pasos”.

Hará disponibles las relatorías y abrirá proceso de discusión en línea.

Los organizadores consideran que se debe avanzar en una agenda regional de gobernanza de Internet.


Raúl Echeberría

Temas en que trabajar: atraer más participantes del sector privado, de gobiernos, de organismos intergubernamentales.