[discuss] Wikileaks releases Penultimate NetMundial Outcome Document
pranesh at cis-india.org
Tue Apr 8 15:56:47 UTC 2014
PDF link: http://goo.gl/z5bFXm
NETmundial Executive Stakeholder Committee (EMC) Outcome Document
Tuesday 8 April 2014, 15:30 GMT
Today WikiLeaks released the penultimate draft agreement ("Outcome
Document") going into NETmundial 2014 - the Global Multistakeholder
Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. NETmundial is an
international conference of twelve nations and other internet
stakeholders, to be hosted in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23-24, convened
to lay down a roadmap for internet governance. It is co-hosted by the
twelve goverments of Argentina, Brazil, France, Ghana, Germany, India,
Indonesia, South Africa, South Korea, Tunisia, Turkey and the United
States of America. The document was prepared by the NETmundial Executive
Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) from the 180 NETmundial submissions and
has been submitted to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC)
for final comment. The HLMC comprises ministerial level representation
from the twelve co-hosting nations and is due to give its feedback
tomorrow, on April 9.
This document has been created by the Executive Multistakeholder
Committee (EMC) and is submitted to the High-Level Multistakeholder
Last Updated: April 3rd, 2014
### **[0. Introduction](#introduction)**
The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet
Governance, also known as NETmundial, is convened to discuss two
important issues relevant for the future evolution of the Internet, in
an open and Multistakeholder fashion:
- Internet Governance Principles, and
- Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem
The recommendations in this document have been prepared with the view to
guiding NETmundial to consensus. This has been a collaborative effort
among representatives of all stakeholder groups.
More than 180 contributions have been received from all stakeholders
around the globe. Those contributions have been taken as the basis for
the elaboration of the recommendations here submitted to the
participants of NETmundial towards the development of broad consensus.
The recommendations of NETmundial are intended to constitute valuable
contribution to be used in other Internet Governance related fora and
### **[1. Internet Governance Principles
NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values
that may serve as the foundation for an inclusive, Multistakeholder,
effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet Governance framework. Human
Principles related to Human Rights.
Human rights are central values that should underpin Internet governance
principles. Rights that people have offline must also be protected
online, in accordance with international human rights law, including the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on
Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Those rights include, but are not limited to:
- Access to information and the free flow of information
- Freedom of association
- Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to hold and express
opinions, and to seek, receive, and impart information on the Internet
without arbitrary interference.
- Privacy: People should be able to exercise their right to privacy
online the same way they do offline, including avoiding arbitrary or
unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance.
- Accessibility: People with disabilities should be granted full
access to online resources.
- Culture and linguistic diversity: Cultural and linguistic diversity
should be encouraged and supported in a non-discriminatory manner.
- Development: The Internet has a vital role to play in helping to
achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable
### **[Internet Infrastructure](#internet_infrastructure)**
Principles related to the Internet infrastructure.
To preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure,
stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet.
SECURITY, STABILITY AND RESILIENCY
Internet as an universal global resource, should remain a secure,
stable, resilient and trustworthy network. Effectiveness in handling
security depends on strong and constant cooperation among different
- Security, stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet
should be a key objective of all stakeholders in Internet governance.
SINGLE AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE
The Internet should continue to be a globally coherent interconnected,
unfragmented, scalable and accessible network which allows the free flow
of data packets throughout the community, with:
- A common set of unique identifiers
- A stable and globally coherent Internet operations
OPEN AND DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE
The Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative environment
and an open system architecture, with voluntary collaboration,
collective stewardship and participation, recognizing technical
management principles for efficient and improved network operation and
- End-to-end nature of the network
- Equal treatment to all protocols and data, delivered by the
ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION
The ability to innovate has been at the heart of the remarkable growth
of the Internet and it brought great value to the global society. For
the preservation of its dynamism, Internet must continue to allow
permission-less innovation through an enabling environment.
The Internet should be an open and accessible platform, promoting fair
access to any content, applications and services at the user's choice.
Internet should be a tool for equal opportunity and development, based on:
- Minimal barriers: There should be no unreasonable barriers or
unnecessary burdens to entry for new users
- Universality: Access to the Internet should become universal as an
effective tool for human development and social inclusion.
- Agility: Policies for access to Internet service should be future
oriented and technology neutral, able to accommodate rapidly developing
technologies and different types of use.
- Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral, free from
discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of
information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship
- Intermediary liability should be limited in line with international
- Diversity: The Internet must respect and promote diversity in all
### **[Internet Governance Process](#internet_governance_process)**
Principles related to Internet governance decision-making processes and
Internet governance should be open, participatory, Multistakeholder,
technology-neutral, sensitive to human rights and based on principles of
transparency, accountability and inclusiveness, among others:
- Multistakeholder: with the full participation of governments, the
private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academia and
users in their respective roles and responsibilities.
- Open, participatory, process driven governance: The development of
international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance
arrangements should enable full and balanced participation of all
stakeholders from around the globe.
- Transparent: it should be easy to understand how decisions are made,
processes should be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures;
procedures which should have been developed and agreed through
- Accountable: mechanisms for checks and balances as well as for
redress should exist.
- Inclusive: Internet governance institutions and processes should be
inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes should be
bottom-up, enabling the full involvement of all stakeholders in a way
does not disadvantage any category of stakeholder.
- Distributed: A governance characterized by distributed and
Multistakeholder mechanisms and organizations.
- Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage
collaborative and cooperative approaches to policy development that
reflect the inputs and interests of stakeholders.
- Enabling meaningful participation: All stakeholders should be able
to participate in any internet governance process. Particularly,
Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity
building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing
countries and underrepresented groups.
Principles related to the technical standardization of the Internet
The Internet should be unique, interoperable, resilient, decentralized,
secure, interconnected, and based on open public standards, embracing:
- Openness: allows for sharing and innovation, respecting rights and
accessibility enabling global competition;
- Interoperability: Open Standards facilitate interoperability and
enable all to fully participate in the global network.
- Stability: The open nature of the Internet allows its continued
growth, resilience and stability.
- Open development: Informed by individual and collective expertise
and practical experience, decisions made by open consensus rather than
- Innovation: Open Standards serve as building blocks for further
innovation and contribute to the creation of global communities.
- Human rights: Standards must respect human rights contributing to
the creation of global communities.
- Availability: Open standards specifications on which the Internet is
based should be made accessible to all for implementation and deployment.
### **[2. Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet
### **[I. Introduction](#roadmap_introduction)**
The objective of this roadmap is to recommend the steps forward in the
process of continuously improving the existing Internet governance
framework ensuring full involvement of all stakeholders. Internet
governance framework is a distributed and coordinated ecosystem
involving various organizations and fora. It must be inclusive,
transparent and accountable, and its structures and operations must
follow a model that enable the participation of all stakeholders in
order to address the interests of all those who benefit from the
Internet. The implementation of the Tunis Agenda has demonstrated the
value of the Multistakeholder model in Internet governance. The valuable
contribution of all stakeholders to Internet governance should be
recognized. Due to the successful experiences this model should be
further strengthened, improved and evolved. Internet governance should
serve as a catalyst for development and for promotion of human rights.
Participation should reflect geographic balance and include stakeholders
from developing and least developed countries.
Issues that deserve attention of the community in the Internet
governance future evolution.
- Internet governance decisions are sometimes taken without the
meaningful participation of all stakeholders. It is important that
Multistakeholder decision-making and policy formulation are improved in
order to ensure the full participation of all interested parties,
recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders.
- Enhanced cooperation to address international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet must be fully implemented on a consensual
basis. It is important that all stakeholders commit to advancing this
discussion through the working group created to this purpose under UN
CSTD and/or other international Multistakeholder dialogues.
- Stakeholder representatives appointed to Multistakeholder Internet
governance processes should be selected through open and transparent
processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their
processes based on publicly known mechanisms.
- There is a need to develop Multistakeholder mechanisms at the local
level since a good portion of Internet governance issues should be
tackled at this level. Local Multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as
a link between local discussions and regional and global instances.
Therefore a fluent coordination and dialogue across those different
dimensions is essential.
- There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties
in Internet governance discussions and decision-making, with attention
to geographic, stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries.
- The establishment of enabling mechanisms including capacity building
and empowerment mechanisms, such as remote participation or adequate
funding, and access to meaningful and timely information are essential
for promoting inclusive and effective Internet governance.
- All stakeholders must renew their commitment to build a people
centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society.
Therefore in pursuing the improvements of the Internet governance
ecosystem, the focus on Digital Development Agenda should be retained.
- Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved
communication and coordination between technical and non-technical
communities, providing a better understanding about the policy
implications in technical decisions and technical implications in policy
### **[Issues dealing with institutional
- There is a need for mechanisms to consider emerging topics and
issues that are not currently being adequately addressed by existing
Internet governance arrangements and usually referred as orphan issues.
- There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF).
Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working
group on IGF improvements. Improvements should include inter-alia:
- Improved outcomes. Even keeping the nature of IGF as a
non-decision-making body, improvements can be implemented including
creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of
- Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms, and
considering the IGF as a permanent forum.
- Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF
- The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide
discussions between meetings. The 1Net initiative could possibly provide
a platform for Multistakeholder intercessional dialogue.
A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing
those orphans and emerging issues already mentioned in the previous
point with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways
to address them.
- There should be adequate communication and coordination among
existing forums, task forces and organizations of the Internet
governance ecosystem. Periodical reports, formal liaisons and timely
feedbacks are examples of mechanisms that could be implemented to that
end. It would be recommendable to analyze the option of creating
Internet governance coordination mechanisms to perform on-going
monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing functions.
- In the follow up to the recent announcement of US Government with
regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions,
the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and
accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has
to take place through an open process with the participation of all
stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community. The IANA functions
are currently performed under policies developed in processes hosted by
several organizations and forums. Any adopted mechanism should protect
the bottom up, open and participatory nature of those policy development
processes and ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is
desirable to keep an adequate separation between the policy process and
its operational aspects. This transition should be completed by
- It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up
leading to a truly international and global organization with an
independent status and clear accountability mechanisms that satisfy
requirements from its own stakeholders and from the global community.
The relevant, balanced, and active representation from all regions and
stakeholders in the ICANN structure is a key issue in the process of a
### **[Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance
1. Security and Stability
- It is necessary to continue working pursuing international
agreements on topics such jurisdiction, law enforcement assistance to
promote cybersecurity and prevent cybercrime. Discussions about those
frameworks should be held in a Multistakeholder manner. International
agreements should include measures of restraining cyber weapons
development and deployment.
- Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address security threats
should involve collaboration among private sector, researchers,
technical experts, governments and NGOs. There are stakeholders that
still need to become more involved with cybersecurity, for example
network operators and software developers.
- There is room for new forums and initiatives, they should not
duplicate, but to add to current structures. All stakeholders should aim
to leverage from and improve these already existing cybersecurity
organizations. The experience accumulated by several of them, for
example the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) and
Computer Incident Response Teams (CERTs/CSIRTs), demonstrates that, in
order to be effective, any cybersecurity initiative depends on
cooperation among different stakeholders, and it can't be achieved via a
single organization or structure.
2. Internet Surveillance ? Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines
trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet Governance ecosystem.
Mass surveillance and contradicts some of the principles proposed in
this document. Surveillance should be conducted in accordance with the
?Necessary and Proportionate? principles. More dialogue is needed on
this topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the
Human Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the
3. Capacity building - One of the key requirements for realization of
Internet governance principles is ensuring that diverse stakeholders
have not merely the opportunity for nominal participation, but in fact
the formation and the resources for effective participation. Capacity
building is important to support the emergence of true Multistakeholder
communities, especially in those regions where the participation of some
stakeholders group needs to be further strengthened.
### **[Points to be further discussed beyond
Several contributions to NETmundial identified points that need further
discussion and better understanding regarding the following:
- Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders on the Internet
governance ecosystem, including the meaning and application of equal
- Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance.
- A principles based code of conduct and related indicators for the
Internet governance ecosystem.
### **[Key messages](#key_messages)**
The Internet governance ecosystem needs to continuously evolve as
described above, strengthening the Multistakeholder model across the
Capacity building is a crucial aspect to enhance the participation of
all stakeholders in a meaningful way.
The IGF should be strengthened.
There are issues that are not being treated properly by existing
Internet governance mechanisms. IGF is one of the venues for discussing
ways to deal with those issues.
It is expected that ICANN continues working in evolving the organization
toward a more global organization with a balanced participation of all
The US Government?s special role with regard to the IANA functions
should end in a short term and the transition should be conducted in an
open, participatory and responsible manner.
All the organizations with responsibilities in Internet governance
ecosystem have to develop principles for transparency, accountability
and inclusiveness and implement them. All the organizations should
prepare periodical reports on their progresses and status about these
issues. Those reports should be made publicly available.
Further discussion is required to reach consensus on the roles and
responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance.
All the organizations, forums and processes of the Internet Governance
ecosystem are expected to commit to implementing, as well as explicitly
adhere, to all the principles agreed in NETmundial.
It is expected that the NETmundial findings and outcomes feed other
processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and all Internet governance
discussions held in different organizations and bodies at all levels.
The follow up and future discussions of topics listed in this document
should prompt the creation of expert groups, task forces or groups of
facilitators convened by existing entities or bodies. They should
present reports of their works in major Internet governance meetings.
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the discuss