[discuss] [bestbits] Wikileaks releases Penultimate NetMundial Outcome Document

[Nnenna Nwakanma]

Still reading..

N


On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> PDF link: http://goo.gl/z5bFXm
>
> https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/
>
> 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
> entities.
>
> ### **[1. Internet Governance Principles Introduction.](#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 Rights
>
> 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.
>
> 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 stakeholders.
>
> -   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 preserving:
>
> -   End-to-end nature of the network
> -   Equal treatment to all protocols and data, delivered by the underlying
> communications
>
> 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.
>
> OPEN ACCESS/PLATFORM
>
> 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
> arrangements.
>
> 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
>
> OPEN STANDARDS
>
> 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 voting.
> -   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
> Governance](#roadmap)**
>
> ### **[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 decision.
>
> ### **[Issues dealing with institutional improvements.](#issues_inst_
> improvements)**
>
> -   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
> topics](#issues_governance_topics)**
>
> 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 NETmundial:](#points_further_
> disc)**
>
> 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
> footing.
> -   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
> stakeholders.
>
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140408/fa4ff075/attachment-0001.html>