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 submitted here to the participants of NETmundial towards the development of broad consensus.
The recommendations of NETmundial are also intended to constitute a potentially valuable contribution for use in other Internet governance related fora and entities.
Norbert Bollow - Civil Society
bharadwaj - Civil Society
Dave Kissoondoyal - Civil Society
Deirdre Williams - Civil Society
Joana Varon - Civil Society
US Government
Amanda Williams - Academia
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)
United Kingdom Government
Europeean Commission
Jeremy Malcolm - Civil Society
Adrian Farrel - Civil Society
Marlon Borba
Melaku Girma - Academia
Javier Rodríguez, Axisnet - Technical Community
Borisova Ludmila - Civil Society
Niels ten Oever - Civil Society
Describing the Final Document of Net Mundial meeting and collaborative process as “Potentially valuable contributions” undermines an effort without precedents made so far to reach consensus about the Future of Internet Governance, which is facing a crisis of legitimacy and inertia. IG Fora and entities involved shall recognize it as a core document to guide their processes from now on and rethink their practices.
I agree with you, but I am not sure if a stronger statement, like “a reference for use…” would be a solution. Is the NetMundial the “topmost” of all fora dedicated to Internet Governance?
A simple solution would be use “constitute a contribution”.
I would go for “valuable contribution for use in other Internet Governance related fora and entities”
This draft outcome document already represents a compromise among the representatives from the different stakeholders at the EMC and the HLMC, i.e., victories and defeats on all sides. To that effect, to minimize this meeting to a drafting exercise, which would be a terrible mistake and throw away an unique opportunity, we should make the most of it. On the other hand, the outcome document from NETmundial should be a much shorter text inserting broad lines on the Principles and on the Roadmap on the future of Internet Governance.
The NETmundial Meeting is an unique momentum, as high level representatives from all different stakeholders will attend it, and we should trigger an open discussion among all of them on the issues raised on this draft document, which is very much welcomed and we recognize its high value and the hard work of all of those that were involved on its drafting. Therefore, it should be the basis and the framework for the open and free discussions to be taken during the 2 days, whilst the outcome document should be very short with key broad principles and a clear roadmap on the way forward.
The project is almost freezes the existing system of Internet governance, eliminating the possibility of its qualitative change.
Russian comments on a draft outcome document of the Global Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance (NETmundial):
The Russian Federation has carefully analyzed a draft outcome document which in fact includes two separate documents: Internet governance principles and Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet governance.
We agree with the representatives of civil society who doubted the conceptual basis and unclear terminology used in both documents
(for instance, “Internet governance”, “multistakeholder model”, “stakeholder”, “interested parties”). It’s obvious that before making any recommendations we need to have internationally agreed, uniform terms and concepts that we are going to follow after the NETmundial. Having said this we need to clarify the terms mentioned above or substitute them for more specific and understandable wording.
We also echo the arguments made by some academicians who suggest to add the term “responsibilities” in all cases when the documents refer to the roles of all stakeholders”.
Moreover, the Russian Federation fully shares the views expressed by the representatives of civil society who think that due to the original spirit of the NETmundial the draft outcome document should not have any binding or resolutive language. Thus, we strongly recommend not to use in both documents such obligatory terms as “should”, “shall”, “must”, “have to” and replace them by the words of encouragement, invitation or expectation of some possible actions or measures.
We also believe that the titles of both documents are rather ambitious. With contributions made by representatives of only 46 countries and very limited number of issues tackled, these documents could hardly be acknowledged as comprehensive principles or decisions.
Please see NETMundial Future of Internet Governance draft outcome document with corresponding comments and proposals according to the contribution Russian Government Contribution to NETmundial https://minsvyaz.ru/ru/doc/?id_4=1091
It is not quite accurate to attribute to civil society at large that the documents should not contain strong resolutions. Whilst nobody suggests that the NETmundial outcomes should, in themselves, be binding, it is also accepted by many that the other non-binding fora such as the IGF have had too little impact on policymaking and that its processes have been poorly designed to achieve such impact.
Therefore there are those within civil society, myself among them, who believe the NETmundial outcomes should go beyond mere formalities and should propose concrete, actionable reforms.
Curious to parse out the intentions inherent in the advocacy of the multistakeholder model, I went through the whole document extracting all of the phrases that qualify the roles and expectations for “stakeholders.” Here’s a synthesis of what I found:
In “empowering the principle of equal participation among all stakeholder groups,” [acting within] their respective roles and responsibilities, the Internet Governance ecosystem will enable:
• Full and balanced involvement and participation of all stakeholders, in an open way that does not disadvantage any category of stakeholder.
• Full participation of all interested parties, recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders in different issues. … including the meaning and application of equal footing.
• Collaborative and cooperative approaches that reflect the inputs and interests of stakeholders.
• Symmetrical stakeholder balance related to geography, category and gender
But it does appear that stakeholders are not anyone who self-identifies as such. They are qualified into collective categories of organizations that are then “represented,” including:
• Governments,
• Private sector,
• Civil society,
• Technical community,
• Academia
• Users
• Newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented groups.
There are systemic expectations that:
• Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes will have been selected through open and transparent processes.
• Representatives will be “active,” but that this will require capacity building and financing …. “to ensure that diverse stakeholders have an opportunity for more than nominal participation, but in fact gain the knowhow and the resources for effective participation.”
• All stakeholders will have committed to advancing discussion in a multistakeholder fashion.
• All stakeholders will have committed to building a people centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society.
• National multistakeholder mechanisms will serve as a link between local discussions and regional and global instances (for)… fluent coordination and dialogue across those different dimensions….
• Organizations with responsibilities in the Internet governance ecosystem … [will] prepare periodical reports on their progress and status on [implementing]…. transparency, accountability and inclusiveness.
• Initiatives will involve appropriate collaboration among private sector, researchers, technical experts, governments and NGOs.
It is clear to me that stakeholder categories self-select their representatives. What remains unclear to me is:
• Who or what is it that acknowledges the presence of a representative of a stakeholder category?
• What are the processes for assigning or identifying or evolving respective roles and responsibilities?
• Who or what is providing the mechanisms for evaluating the balance of involvement or the appropriateness or effectiveness of collaboration and participation?
• When a stakeholder category “reports,” where does that accounting go?
The answer seems to be – the Internet Governance Ecosystem. And yet these expectations imply some sort of control system. If so, then they remain at odds with the definition of the Internet Governance Ecosystem as a distributed system. If, on the other hand, we defined the Internet and its governance in terms of, for example, Elinor Ostrom’s principles for the design of common property resource management systems, then there would be some clear principles for answering those questions:
1. Clearly defined boundaries about who is in and who is out (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties);
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources are adapted to local conditions;
3. Collective-choice arrangements allow most resource appropriators to participate in the rules-making and decision-making processes;
4. Effective monitoring of operational conformance by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution are cheap, local, and of easy access;
7. Unchallenged recognition of the community’s self-determination by higher-level authorities;
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.
Completely agree that we need to address that missing step – identifying the appropriate stakeholder groups in any given Internet governance process, and agreeing on their legitimate roles in that process. See my submission at https://content.netmundial.br/contribution/an-extended-role-for-the-igf-in-filling-the-gaps-in-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/126 which is not very well reflected in the text.
NetMundial is an opportunity to:
- Be a significant milestone in efforts to improve and democratise the governance of the internet, and particularly to strengthen the participation and influence of civil society and of stakeholders from developing countries.
- Establish agreement that the internet should be governed in the broadest possible public interest.
- Establish agreement that fundamental human rights, such as rights to free expression and association, and the right to privacy and to access and share knowledge, need to be protected on the internet.
- Help restore trust in the internet governance ecosystem after the 2013 revelations of mass surveillance of internet use and users – surveillance in which some of the governments and companies that have been active in this ecosystem were directly involved.
- Give governments who have felt they were not able to discuss internet governance issues an opportunity to do so
- Generate concrete and actionable outputs which can then be (1) discussed further at global and regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) and at other relevant meetings in the course of 2014 and (2) be formally adopted by IG institutions (e.g. ICANN) and intergovernmental bodies (e.g. the UN General Assembly).
Agree.
It is a matter of great concern that there is no mention in the document of the words “education”, “educate”, “school”, “teach” and related as of 04/19/2014. There can be no internet governance without a worldwide effort on education and technology initiatives in schools and the involvement of teachers and pupils. The discussion about these matters has to start earlier with privacy and internet safety issues being addressed earlier in the school curricula.
This document, and the discussions around it, should focus on forging agreement in areas where there is currently not already global consensus. Whilst I completely support a strong affirmation of the centrality of human rights to Internet governance, the content of these rights is well established and cannot be renegotiated. More time and attention should be paid to the principles that are not already globally accepted, which predominantly relate to Internet governance processes and mechanisms.
The Internet Governance Coalition (the “Coalition”) extends our sincere appreciation to Brazil for hosting the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance,” to be held in São Paulo. The Meeting is taking place at a time when the topic of Internet governance is an issue of great interest around the world. The many major conferences and work efforts scheduled this year exemplify the accelerated pace of Internet governance discussions and make 2014 a particularly important year in the ongoing evolution of the Internet. Indeed, there are a host of institutions, each with different core functions and strengths, that address issues related to Internet governance.
The Coalition looks forward to working with all stakeholders to prepare for a successful Meeting in Brazil, and welcomes this opportunity for dialogue on these important issues. International consensus on Internet policies is unlikely to be realized at only one meeting. These debates will continue at future meetings, including the 2014 Internet Governance Forum, WSIS Review, and ITU Plenipotentiary, that, together with the “The Global Multistakeholder Meeting,” promise to make significant contributions to the ongoing global dialogue on Internet governance.
Agree with those who support the idea that NetMundial outcome document should also seek to constitute a concrete contribution and provide tangible improvements for the IG ecosystem. And those steps forward should be clear stated in the roadmap (what currently isn’t)
This comment is a request to extend the public review and comment period for an additional 14 days.
As a creative stakeholder, I would like first to commend NETmundial for its efforts to advance moral norms and intellectual property respect worldwide. As NETmundial says, the goal is to work “toward the development of a broad consensus.”
In that context, it is highly questionable whether a public comment period of only one week that falls entirely concurrent to worldwide Christian holy days can effectively serve the public interest?
As an active participant in policy and technical working groups of consensus standards development bodies in the U.S. and worldwide, I would like to point out that a minimum 30-day public/stakeholder period is customary for first-round draft commentary, with a minimum 15-day additional comment period customary for review and commentary on later substantive changes.
Please consider extending or quickly reopening the comment period for the principles and roadmap.
Thank you and kind regards,
Barry Morse
Songwriter/composer/artist
USA
Saudi Arabia comments on the draft outcome document of the Global Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance (NETmundial) that was published on 14 April 2014
The report of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was recognized by world leaders during the Tunis phase of WSIS and resulted in the Internet governance section of the Tunis Agenda, was the result of a great deal of hard work by a large multi-stakeholder working group of experts. It is, therefore, any document prepared by any group on Internet Governance shall not be in contradiction with the outcome of Tunis Agenda that was adopt by world leaders.
In reviewing the draft output documents we found that, in general, there appears to be a bias towards maintaining the status quo. The effect is to discourage adoption of many of the key WSIS outcomes with regard to Internet governance. There is little mention, for example, of the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholder groups and especially the enhanced cooperation process needed to enable governments to carry out their role in international public policy. There is no mention of the need to eliminate unilateral control of Internet policy by any single entity or government, a situation which challenges the legitimacy of the existing Internet governance structure. We also noted a bias towards retaining the technical and operational characteristics of the existing Internet with little view of the future internet. Notwithstanding that there are many good things about the existing Internet, this is like saying, for example, that since Nordic Mobile network (AMPS) worked there was no need for GSM or 3G or 4G or 5G. In addition, we found a degree of lack of coherence and incompleteness in the documents which render them less than authoritative.
The following points, as well as our detailed comments on the documents, provide further amplification of our issues.
1- Article 34 of the Tunis Agenda stipulated that the working definition of Internet governance is: “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”. Principles regarding Internet governance should therefore derive from that definition and be fully consistent with it. Paragraph 34 emphasized development and application based on the respective roles of the stakeholder groups. These roles and responsibilities must be respected and not be confused or neglected.
2- Article 35 identified the roles of the stakeholder groups with regard to Internet governance. It recognized that the policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.
3- Article 68 recognized that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. It also recognized the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders.
4- Article 69 recognized the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact on international public policy issues. In this light, it should be noted that the “multi-stakeholder” approach is not fully implemented as envisaged by WSIS. There is currently no mechanism for governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities regarding policy authority for international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The Tunis Agenda called for both enhanced cooperation and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and both the CSTD and the UNGA have recognized them as distinct and complementary processes.
5- Since the early days of WSIS (Article 61 of the Tunis Agenda) the world has recognized that there is a need to initiate, and to reinforce as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process on Internet governance. Unfortunately, unilateral control of the Internet still exists. The Internet is a global infrastructure which must be managed by a body or bodies which are not under the control or jurisdiction of any single entity or country. All governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the existing Internet and the future internet. The evolving usage of the Internet has led to significant international R&D efforts on the future internet, following both an evolutionary approach and a clean slate approach, and these should be welcomed as a natural growth process.
6- We must not limit the scope of how to enhance the existing Internet. Instead, we should be innovative and supportive of future internet initiatives and projects that will provide better stability and security. And most importantly, international public policy must be developed by governments, on an equal footing, rather than by a single entity or country.
Finally, the NetMundial outcome documents must be developed based on the agreed WSIS outcomes, such as the above paragraphs. In addition, they must consider all received contributions to Netmundial in a transparent and balanced manner.