[discuss] Wikileaks releases Penultimate NetMundial Outcome Document

Pranesh Prakash 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.

Outcome Document

This document has been created by the Executive Multistakeholder 
Committee (EMC) and is submitted to the High-Level Multistakeholder 
Committee (HLMC).

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 
development goals.

### **[Internet Infrastructure](#internet_infrastructure)**

Principles related to the Internet infrastructure.

To preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, 
stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet.


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.


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


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 
underlying communications


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 
best practice
-   Diversity: The Internet must respect and promote diversity in all 
its forms

### **[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 
Multistakeholder processes.
-   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.

### **[Standards](#standards)**

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 
policy options.
     -   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 
is essential.
     -   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 
September 2015.
-   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 
successful globalization.

### **[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 
related aspects.

​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 
entire ecosystem.

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.

Pranesh Prakash
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...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140408/44e715c1/signature.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list