TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO Internet Governance Forum 2014, Istanbul, Turkey. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

Transcription

1 TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO 2015 Internet Governance Forum 2014, Istanbul, Turkey International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS) IGF 2014 Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance 1

2 CONTENTS PART I: TAKING STOCK AND LOOKING FORWARD TO GENERAL COMMENTS... 3 THEMES AND HIGHLIGHTS OF IGF PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT... 6 HIGH LEVEL MEETING... 9 FOCUS SESSIONS IN THE MAIN ROOM... 9 BEST PRACTICE FORUMS (BPFS) YOUTH WORKSHOPS AND SESSION OPENING AND CLOSING SESSION IMPORTANT IGF Announcements 2015 AND OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF IGF INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM SUPPORT ASSOCIATION PART II: LOOKING FORWARD TO IGF 2015 IN BRAZIL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A STRONGER INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM IN INTERSESSIONAL WORK AT THE IGF STRUCTURE OF THE IGF...30 SUGGESTED INTERSESSIONAL THEME FOR CONCLUSION ANNEXURE I ANNEXURE II

3 This submission by ICC BASIS is in two parts: PART I Taking stock of IGF starting with the preparations at the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meeting in February 2014, through the conclusion of the IGF and its follow up beyond September PART II: Looking forward to IGF 2015 in Brazil - including recommendations for a stronger Internet Governance Forum in 2015 and intersessional work PART I TAKING STOCK OF IGF 2014 GENERAL COMMENTS I. ICC BASIS members congratulate the host country of Turkey, the organizers (in particular the multistakeholder group ID-IGF), the IGF secretariat team, and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) on a successful event, and look forward to working with all stakeholders to prepare another successful IGF The host country provided a warm welcome to all participants and the special contributions of Tayfun Acarer, Chairman of the Board and President of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA). We also would like to express our special thanks and recognition to Chengetai Masango and the IGF Secretariat team, as well as the MAG Chair, Janis Karklins, whose tireless efforts under a curtailed time period to host the IGF deserve much appreciation. Special thanks to UN DESA for providing the institutional home for, and administrative support to the IGF Secretariat, and for supporting the IGF process in general. II. The ninth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Istanbul, Turkey, 2 5 September The title of this year s IGF was Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance and among the key topics were Improvements to the IGF, Net Neutrality and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition stewardship. 3

4 More than 2,400 participants and 1,163 remote participants were registered representing six different regions of the world and 155 countries (breakdown: 571 from government, 581 from business, 267 from the Internet technical community, 779 from civil society, 96 from intergovernmental organizations and 111 participants from the media attended). Tayfun Acarer, Chairman of the Board and President of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA), Turkey delivered the welcoming message on behalf of the host country, Turkey. Thomas Gass, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs of United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), and Getachew Engida, Deputy Director-General, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) formally opened the ninth Internet Governance Forum. THEMES AND HIGHLIGHTS OF IGF 2014 The overarching theme for the 2014 IGF, derived by consensus of the MAG together with all IGF stakeholders, was: Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance Sub-themes of IGF 2014 were: Highlights Policies Enabling Access Content Creation, Dissemination and Use Internet as an Engine for Growth and Development IGF and The Future of the Internet Ecosystem Enhancing Digital Trust Internet and Human Rights Critical Internet Resources Emerging Issues Over 3,500 registrations nearly 50% higher than 2013 with 581 private sector participants compared to approximately 400 in the previous year meant that participation this year was stronger as compared to previous years. A more than 50% increase in registrations demonstrated the importance of IGF to all 4

5 stakeholders: private sector, civil society, technical community/academia, government and international organizations. The IGF 2014 successfully brought together an extensive range of leaders from the many communities interested in Internet governance, and provided a unique opportunity to have frank and open discussions on a wide range of issues. Like its predecessors, the IGF 2014 brought together many stakeholders and experts from a variety of disciplines and areas of responsibility that otherwise do not have opportunities to engage with each other. A major value-add for all is the constructive exchange of best practices and considerations of the best policy approaches and options as they relate to respective situations or cultures, which in turn resonate in policy discussions and decisions around the world and at national and regional levels. The high-level event organized by Turkey before the IGF, provided an opportunity for exchange, again, amongst a range of stakeholders who may otherwise not have had the opportunity to meet or be aware of the IGF. We also recognize the effort to include participants from 144 countries around the world in the IGF and the more than 1,200 remote participants for the workshops and open forums in addition to main sessions. Fortunately, excellent organizational planning positively impacted the ability of a number of people to participate in the IGF this year. The early confirmation of the host-country location made it practical and possible for many people to participate, particularly from emerging countries, thus raising the participation by over 50% over Additionally, visas for Turkey were available to most if not all, through the e-visa process which took barely a couple of minutes to download. This further enabled the participation of several stakeholders from developing countries (from Africa in particular). 5

6 PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT 2015 is another important year for the IGF, and we believe that the programme development for 2014 was undertaken in an efficient and effective manner, around issues relevant to participants from all sectors and stakeholder groups. This development occurred, despite a severe constraint on time with the IGF being held in early September nearly 2 months earlier than its usual timing. Progress was made in ensuring that workshop proposals were updated and completed in a timely way, and that the workshop selection process was improved, carried out, and prepared for vigorously. Those efforts should continue. Workshop proposers should also be encouraged to continue to seek greater participation of speakers from as wide a group as possible and continue to encourage a greater number of experts to participate in the IGF. In particular, future workshops would benefit from an increased number of participants representing the engineering and technical community. We encourage and support the continued evolution of the agenda and the responsiveness to community input. Business noted a much improved participation level for all stakeholder groups that balanced their engagement in main sessions and workshops in 2014 as compared to The new, U-table format for focus/main sessions, with moderators standing and moving between panelists and delegates, was a major improvement and more interactive vis-á-vis IGF Reconfiguration of the main room in a U-Table with seating on three sides was very useful and promoted interactive discussion. Future venues should have the flexibility to provide the same opportunity to adapt the room configurations to the types of sessions that will be held in them. While we endorse the enhanced interactivity, we caution that some restraint should be applied to find an optimal number of speakers and suggest that some breaks are needed between long panel sessions. Business appreciated the well-balanced mixture of workshops and the range of participants at the IGF The high number of participants, especially from civil society (779) and government (571) was particularly encouraging. Governments increased participation proved the value that governments including from developing countries, derive from participating in the IGF. Over 60% of all participants were from developing countries including Turkey. 6

7 Going forward, it is very important to continue to strive for greater geographical diversity with on-going outreach to potential participants from developing countries for the IGF ICC BASIS supports outreach efforts to subject matter experts as a component of expanding participation. We also think it is important to broaden the conversation to include business and government experts from outside the ICT and telecommunications sectors. ICC BASIS is engaged in a concerted effort to reach out across business sectors. The digital economy essentially is the economy. It therefore is imperative that non ICT stakeholders who capitalize on the innovative power of the Internet participate in policy discussions that ultimately will affect how they do business. In addition, it is imperative to move the multistakeholder dialogue on Internet governance forward, while extending IGF s outreach, so that new members of the various stakeholder groups can be active participants. Business therefore encourages the host country and all stakeholders to make an effort to engage new participants from all regions to join the IGF meetings to diversify attendance. The Chairman s summary once again captured the substantive outcomes of the discussions during the focus sessions. The increased efforts to ensure workshops (and other events) submitted a complete and usable report, have been important. Further progress to ensure reports capture the many substantive policy options and choices discussed should be made. Business supports the recommendation in the Chairman s Summary on IGF 2014 under the section Road to IGF 2015 where it has been recommended that the community consider concentrating intersessional activities around themes of a developmental nature. 7

8 As we consider these themes, we should note that the intersessional work should focus on finding options and opportunities that can be the subject matter of IGF panels and workshops. Intersessional work should not be confused with drafting research papers or setting out policy pronouncements. Further business supports the Chairman s Summary on IGF 2014, which suggests use of best practice forums or other modalities, such as intersessional work, could be brought forward through the national and regional IGF initiatives, dynamic coalitions and other ad hoc working groups within the IGF structure. Recommendations For future IGFs, MAG members will need to increase their engagement and be firmly committed to the preparation of sessions in the main room and the selection process for workshops. We suggest that a document be developed that outlines the responsibilities and commitments of all MAG members to ensure active engagement from MAG members across stakeholder groups. Lead contacts for sessions in the main room should be required to have preparatory calls with panellists prior to the IGF. Workshop organizers should be strongly encouraged to likewise hold preparatory calls with relevant materials for panellists prior to the IGF. Further, it is recommended that specific principles for participation of MAG members as speakers and moderators in main sessions and workshops should be discussed and adopted through consensus by the MAG for 2015 and beyond. It would also be helpful if organizers of main sessions can hold discussions amongst themselves to ensure that a few select speakers who could be relevant for more than one session, are approached in a structured manner, to avoid duplication. Equally, the role of moderators and substantive rapporteurs should be clearly identified and linked to the specific skill of carrying through the work of managing sessions and workshops in the most effective manner possible. In particular, the substantive rapporteurs play a critical role in capturing workshop and plenary session recommendations, which enable the IGF to serve as a unique laboratory for the exchange of best practices and capacity building expertise. They should be acknowledged in workshop descriptions and their selection should reflect an effort by workshop organizers to diversify based on region, gender, and stakeholder group. 8

9 HIGH LEVEL MEETING In line with established practice, the host country arranged a high-level meeting based on the theme Capacity Building for Economic Development. Several senior government officials including ministers, representatives of international organizations, heads of regulatory bodies, and individuals leading civil society, private sector and technical organizations spoke at the session. Thirty-three high level leaders were invited to speak at the session. FOCUS SESSIONS IN THE MAIN ROOM Setting the scene Overview Immediately following the orientation session, participants convened for an interactive Setting the Scene dialogue that provided topical insight and debate related to the sub-themes of the IGF. The session aimed at allowing stakeholders to review the overall programme and decide which sessions they would like to attend to get the most out of their IGF experience. Organizers of main sessions and experts were invited to provide unique insights into the main themes of the meeting and also previewed the main sessions and other key sessions that would take place. Recommendations It is recommended that such a session much continue in Further, organizers of main sessions should be invited to complete the briefing of the delegates before inviting experts to comment on the themes. That way the main purpose of the session is better achieved. The session should also be used to provide a graphical description of the building, workshop rooms, main session rooms, registrations, lunch and food facilities, etc. This could be a five minute module by the host country to increase awareness amongst participants. 9

10 Policies Enabling Access, Growth and Development on the Internet Overview There were one billion Internet users when the Tunis Agenda was adopted, in Nine years later, there are approximately seven billion mobile subscriptions and nearly three billion Internet users. Home Internet access is almost saturated in developed countries, but only 31% in developing countries with Asia-Pacific and Africa lagging behind the rest of the world. Public Internet access, infrastructure sharing and access as a human right for the socially disadvantaged, vulnerable sections and persons with disabilities are critical access issues that need global attention. The session had a U-table format and invited 21 speakers, 13 of whom were from developing countries and two from international organizations. It was noted that nearly half the participants were women. The session was the most well attended of all main sessions with nearly 90% occupancy across the entire three hour period. Highlights UNESCO underlined that infrastructure must go beyond connectivity. International goals and perspectives must consider context, content and competencies. UNESCO s research pointed to the important and complex relationship between access to networks and the development of local content and information knowledge flows. The European Commission underscored that cooperating and communicating across continents is beneficial. Leapfrogging in African countries such as Kenya and Nigeria is stimulating European efforts to generate access. The access debate needs to be opened to include different sectors and disadvantaged groups. The community must reflect on social impacts of access such as human rights. Work on access should seek to build new competencies. 10

11 Access problems are not solved by government solutions alone, but by inclusion of private sector and non-profit entities. The access debate should also include different types of technologies such as TV. Providers should start competing with mobile to develop an ecosystem where everyone's user needs are met. Recommendations The session on Access and Development must continue for It is recommended that the number of speakers be limited to at most, across multistakeholder groups. Depending on the intersessional work for 2015, this session could become a major contributor and discussion theme for The 2015 session should build on the substantive rapporteurs report from the 2014 session, which was presented at the Taking Stock session. Network Neutrality: Towards a Common Understanding of a Complex Issue Overview Network neutrality was one of the most polemic issues, as was also witnessed at NETmundial in April At NETmundial there were diverging views as to whether or not to include the specific term as a principle in the outcomes. However, NETmundial participants agreed on the need to continue the discussion regarding network neutrality and recommended this discussion be addressed at forums such as the IGF. The session looked at the issue from different perspectives: technical, economic, social and human rights as well as two cross-cutting perspectives, developmental and regulatory. The discussions showed that all these issues are intertwined and multifaceted. Given the differences between developing and developed country perspectives, there was a sense that the search for a one-size fits all policy solution would not be the best way to proceed globally. While there was a divergence of views on many issues, such as the concept of appropriate network management, the 11

12 impact on innovation or zero-rating, there was also a convergence of views on the importance of enhancing users experience or the need to avoid the blocking of legal content. The first segment of the session explored the technical aspects of network neutrality. The second segment focused on the economic aspects, human rights implications of network neutrality made up the last segment of the session. Net neutrality was also an extremely well attended session with nearly 70-80% of the main room filled to capacity across three hours. Highlights: The diversity of views expressed established clearly that there was no established definition for net neutrality. In fact, it seemed that net neutrality was yet to be discussed in several developing countries, even as a concept. Without the protections of a free and open Internet, innovation and investment will be stifled. Business needs the freedom to innovate and the liberty to manage for end customers benefit. Discussion of the open Internet should include how to enable freedom of expression, competition, consumer choice, meaningful transparency, and appropriate network management. A multistakeholder approach is required to define a network neutrality problem. User demands or citizen demands should be assessed before and during the formal legislative or rule making processes. Views and concepts of net neutrality should link to principles about human rights that are applicable to all media and technologies should be provided. It is challenging to separate the technical, economic, and social issues embedded in Net neutrality. Recommendations IGF should take the discussion on network neutrality forward. 12

13 A precondition to any such discussion would be neutral moderators/organizers and a diversity of participants and panelist representing multistakeholder groups and developing country perspectives. Workshops on the issue of network neutrality in 2015 should be welcomed, while ensuring diversity of speakers representing all points of view. Business in general, and especially from developing countries, must consider joining and contributing to the Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality. Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem and the Role of the IGF Overview As the Internet continues to grow and its benefits reach more people, more stakeholders are entering the Internet governance debates, with the aim of addressing concerns they have about the use and potential misuse of the Internet. Existing organizations, such as UN agencies, upon request by the governments, examine their roles in relation to Internet related issues while newer organizations that follow more of a bottom up governance approach, such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), now co-exist alongside intergovernmental organizations. In addition, since 2006, the IGF has been a platform for stakeholders to come together on an equal footing to discuss, exchange ideas and share good practices with each other. While many are embracing the engagement of stakeholders more directly in decisions and governance, others remain concerned that more intergovernmental involvement in the Internet is needed, especially on public policy issues. This main session was planned at an important point in the discussions about Internet governance, with numerous Internet governance related meetings being held in 2013 and 2014 and the current mandate of the IGF due to expire in This main session drew excellent attendance with the main room filled upwards of 80% across the duration of the session on the morning of day two. 13

14 Highlights The Internet ecosystem is defined as all the interested and affected parties, both natural and artificial, institutions and individuals. Implementation is a key challenge. Problems and solutions must be evenly distributed and not contained to one authority. IGF s main challenge is to ensure the ecosystem evolves in a multistakeholder, inclusive, and transparent manner. Industries are critical in the discussion of Internet governance. Stakeholders must link Internet governance processes to the policy process, otherwise governments will intervene and the multistakeholder process may be lost. Stakeholders must reflect on how IGF outcomes can affect the digital sphere globally. Regional IGFs and funding play a vital role in making the IGF stronger. Recommendations It is recommended that learning captured from IGFs is taken back to other forums discussing Internet governance issues. The importance of regional and national IGFs in both strengthening the IGF and encouraging more stakeholders to participate in Internet governance, would be an important step. There was strong consensus that the IGF s mandate should be renewed beyond 2015; in fact there was work across stakeholder groups in support of not just renewing the mandate, but doing so for more than a five year period The IGF needs sustained and predictable funding. Intersessional work could be one strong improvement/evolution for This must be achieved through consensus and without diluting the mandate and basic structure of IGF. 14

15 IANA Functions: NTIA s Stewardship Transition and ICANN s Accountability Process Overview This topical session was a response to two developments in the first half of 2014: (1) the announcement by the United States National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in March 2014 to transition its stewardship of the IANA function to the global multistakeholder community; and (2) prompted by that announcement, a call by many in the ICANN community to examine ICANN s accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship with the United States Government. Both these issues also appeared in the NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement of Sao Paulo as issues with relevance to the broader Internet governance ecosystem. The aim of the session was to help participants gain a better understanding on the two interrelated processes of IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability. This session was extremely well attended. There was approximately 70% occupancy in the main hall. Highlights IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) update: - ICG has appointed officers to the committee and drafted a charter. - A framework has been developed including the next steps to reach out to the communities. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group s role: - Transition group s function is not to create proposals, but to assemble all proposals from the operational community proposals. - ICG must ensure the proposal complies with the United States National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) transition programme. - Business community has requested all proposals to be tested and validated. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group and communities: - ICG members speak on behalf of their own groups. They do not speak on behalf of the group as a whole unless so specified. - Operational communities must start organizing to develop proposals 15

16 - ICANN accountability is a separate, but related topic to accountability in the IANA transition proposals. ICG has asked each proposal to describe its accountability mechanisms. - Stakeholders are encouraged to provide input directly into operational community proposals or through their representatives but may also go directly to the committee. - Everyone in the community must be engaged early on to ensure the deadline is met and controversial issues are solved. ICANN accountability: - ICANN accountability is related to, but different than the accountability functions within the IANA transition. - Improvements made to the ICANN and IANA system not related to the transition or specific concerns of post United States National Telecommunications and Information Administration accountability are best considered post-transition not during transition to avoid increased complexity. - A major priority of business is the continued security, stability and resiliency of the Internet. Taking Stock and Open Microphone Sessions Overview The traditional IGF Taking Stock session reflected on the main outputs of the IGF main sessions. Participants identified issues that could lend themselves to ongoing inter-sessional work and discussed appropriate ways to pursue this work. Some other overall suggestions were considered regarding the role of the IGF in the evolving Internet governance ecosystem. It was stressed during this session and throughout the week that while the IGF structure and process is certainly effective and unique, there is opportunity to do more to revitalise and strengthen the IGF going forward. It was said that the capacity building and knowledge transfer made possible by the IGF and IGF national and regional initiatives must be increasingly more actionable, practical, portable and applicable. The community needs to better capture IGF learning and make it accessible and applicable to a wider group of people. Case studies, best practices and capacity building on gaining the benefits of the digital opportunity, especially geared toward developing countries, should also be prioritized in coming IGFs. 16

17 The session saw less than half the main hall occupied.. Highlights Policies enabling access, growth and development on the Internet: - Broadband access should be recognized as a universal right and a key to digital social inclusion. - Increase of sector participation is required in ICT government and business. - Private enterprises must engage local communities and small enterprises to provide sustainable development. Network Neutrality: Towards a common understanding of a complex issue: - Session clarified issues and provided new areas of the net neutrality debate fuelling support for further research and consideration. - Role of the IGF discussion did not come to closure. - IGF should continue, alongside the Dynamic Coalition. - How to bring the Dynamic Coalition into the process of net neutrality. Evolution of Internet governance ecosystem and the role of IGF: - IGF should transport awareness, knowledge, and information sharing into action. - Support to extend the IGF mandate, and to create support mechanisms for IGF secretariat. - IGF should create inclusive mechanisms during and before the forum. - MAG should enable and facilitate more participation, especially from developing countries. - Youth should be recognized as one of the leading users and not end users. IANA functions: NTIA s stewardship transition and ICANN s accountability process: - Generating input from broad stakeholder groups is challenging due to deadlines. - Opening up the scope of the process to engage stakeholders and deal with issues will bring in more legitimacy and trust. - Community needs to consider how this topic and this theme will be addressed next year. 17

18 BEST PRACTICE FORUMS (BPFS) Five best practice forums which had been discussed during the MAG meetings in the lead-up to IGF 2014 were held on the following topics: Developing Meaningful Multistakeholder Mechanisms Regulation and Mitigation of Unwanted Communications (Spam) Establishing and Supporting CERTS for Internet Security Creating an Enabling Environment for the Development of Local Content Online Child Safety and Protection Highlights Participants representing the five sessions discussed during the wrap-up session in the main room, some of the challenges with using the term best practices, and came to an agreement that the IGF process moving forward could use instead best practices to date or lessons learned to date. This will reflect that the IGF needs to be very forward looking and very flexible in the development of any recommendation for best practices, because those will continue to evolve with the Internet. There was also agreement that to make the exercise more effective, there is a need for both more time and more resources to support the efforts. The process definitely needs to be an iterative collaborative process, working for consensus, not negotiating final outcome text. Finally there was also agreement that in the future there needs to be more effort to understand the situation in developing countries, what kind of practices would be useful to people from those countries, and also to bring in youth. Executive summaries of the best practice forums sessions were distributed on the last day. YOUTH WORKSHOPS AND SESSION Approximately 40 youth and student participants attended the IGF Several of them participated in the sessions, and some volunteered to help arrange main 18

19 sessions and workshops. The youth held their final session in the main room with two members of the MAG in attendance. The youth emphasized the need for strengthening mechanisms that empower the youth in attending and participating in the Internet Governance Forum and ecosystem. Youth also sought to gain a full stakeholder level participation at the IGF through the MAG, to be better organized. They expressed a strong desire to participate in the policy dialogue as the intense users of Internet and related technologies. 19

20 OPENING AND CLOSING SESSION Opening session overview Thomas Gass, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs of United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), formally opened the ninth IGF. Gass stressed that the United Nations Secretary General was committed to the multistakeholder model for Internet governance championed by the IGF and the long-term sustainability of the IGF. Tayfun Acarer, Chairman of the Board and President of the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) of the Republic of Turkey, expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to host the ninth IGF in Istanbul and stressed the importance of enabling access to information resources in helping to bridge the digital divide. Closing session overview In keeping with IGF tradition, several speakers, representing all stakeholder groups, addressed the closing session. Gratitude to the host country and all those who had participated and made the ninth IGF a success was expressed by everyone. Speakers reaffirmed the importance of the multistakeholder process and cooperation, and emphasized the importance of dialogue. In his concluding address, the Chair of the ninth IGF, Tayfun Acarer, Chairman of the Board and President of Information and Communication Technologies Authority of Turkey, reiterated the call of His Excellency Lütfi Elvan, Minister of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communication of Turkey regarding an Internet Universal Declaration, expressing that details related to this important issue needed to be studied in due course. He highlighted the high levels of interest and participation in the ninth IGF. IMPORTANT ANNONCEMENTS REGARDING IGF IN 2015 AND 2016 IGF 2015: the Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Hartmut Glaser came to the stage to invite participants to the 10 th IGF, November 2015, in Joao Pessoa, Brazil. 20

21 IGF 2016: The representative of the United States of Mexico extended an invitation to all participants to attend the eleventh IGF meeting in the United States of Mexico in 2016, subject to the extension of the IGF mandate. OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF IGF 2014 A human rights roundtable was held, in addition to 47 workshops directly or indirectly focused on human rights issues, at IGF National and regional IGF roundtable. The 2014 national/regional IGF session was arranged as an interactive session bringing together coordinators and participants from national and regional IGFs. A Feminist principles of Internet session was arranged as a pre-event by the Association for Progressive Communications. ICANN held a town hall meeting on Enhancing ICANN s Accountability and Governance. A WSIS+10 high-level event was held. UNESCO invited contributions to its comprehensive study on Internet. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) released a version of updated guidelines for the industry on child online protection. INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM SUPPORT ASSOCIATION The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) was officially launched to support the IGF. The goal of IGFSA is to provide stable and sustainable support for the IGF secretariat and to fund related activities. IGFSA will be the channel for additional funding from individuals, companies, and foundations to keep the IGF, the Go To event, for everyone who is interested in Internet governance issues. Recommendations We strongly recommend that future host countries make every effort to ensure that the date and location of the IGF are confirmed early and that comprehensive arrangements are made for visas well in advance of the IGF, to be issued as well. 21

22 This will help to ensure the broadest participation from a diverse range of stakeholders will be possible for future IGFs just as in case of IGF Equally, we recommend that potential IGF host destinations in developing countries are easily accessible, preferably served by direct international flights, and provide a range of hotel accommodations, thus reducing cost and travel time. This was the case for 2014 IGF in Istanbul, Turkey, which was very successful in attracting unprecedented levels of stakeholder participation. For future IGFs, we recommend that building locations should be chosen that are particularly user friendly for people with disabilities/special needs. In addition, hosts should be encouraged to provide multilingual staff who can work with session/workshop organizers, especially with regard to technical, administrative, seating, and audio visual requirements, especially before and during the sessions/workshops. Finally sufficiently large spaces for lunch, tea and coffee should be made available to ensure to ensure fast and efficient service. 22

23 PART II: LOOKING FORWARD TO IGF 2015 IN BRAZIL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A STRONGER INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM IN 2015 As the global business community reflects on the 2014 Internet Governance Forum (IGF), we are also considering the key areas of improvement as we build a path toward the 2015 IGF. Based on business participation in past IGFs, the multistakeholder advisory group (MAG), and various other multistakeholder forums, we submit this paper which provides our recommendations regarding the evolution of the IGF, how intersessional work at the IGF may move forward, and how the IGF should be structured moving forward. I. THE EVOLUTION OF THE IGF A. The Tunis Agenda mandate The IGF s mandate is contained in the 2005 Tunis Agenda of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda outlines the IGF s principal structure as a discussion forum intended to facilitate dialogue between the IGF s participants. The Tunis Agenda states that the IGF may "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations." Within the boundaries of this mandate, different stakeholders are encouraged to strengthen engagement, capacity building for developing countries and the drawing out of local resources. At its sixty-fifth session, the United Nations General Assembly decided to extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the IGF with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global Internet governance, and decided that specific consideration should be given to inter alia, enhancing participation from developing countries, exploring further voluntary options for financing the forum, and improving the preparation process modalities, and the work and functioning of the forum s secretariat. Several of these recommendations and new innovative measures were implemented at the IGF in Istanbul in September

24 Substantive improvements at IGF 2014 on which further progress can be made 1. The broader dialogue on global Internet governance was linked to the IGF through discussion about the NETMundial process, achievements, and challenges it presented. The IGF continued to foster this discussion through a special event on Monday, 1 September. Such initiatives could be further expanded to include more breath of representation. 2. In a departure from dealing with established themes and sub-themes, IGF 2013 in Bali embraced and dealt with the issue of surveillance in a main plenary session. More significantly, IGF 2014 in Istanbul held a full multistakeholder main session on net neutrality, one of the key outcomes of the NETmundial document, thus demonstrating the potential of the IGF to complement and move forward work begun in other important Internet governance platforms. 3. A main session on IANA Stewardship transition was organized to gather inputs from a wide range of Internet governance community members on the process for replacing the current US Government National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) stewardship arrangement. This was both timely and important. The issues were discussed in an open and transparent manner, notwithstanding the complexities involved. 4. The community has actively expanded participation, especially from developing country governments, and civil society. Business made a concerted effort in this regard, reaching out to our partners in developing countries. Developing country representatives, especially governments, played a substantive role in several of the main sessions. 5. IGF embraced the idea of best practices based on community inputs. For the first time, IGF 2014 had five best practice sessions, involving wide multistakeholder participation. Importantly, work resulting from these sessions continues even after the IGF Two new voluntary methods of contributing to the IGF were created: (1) the Tides Fund, launched by Google, and (2) the IGF Support Association (IGFSA), created by the Internet Society (ISOC). These were created to 24

25 provide funding alternatives that will broaden the IGF support base. There are ongoing discussions on ways in which to improve the preparation process modalities and the strengthening of the IGF Secretariat s office. 7. The MAG Chair issued a call for input from the Internet governance community, concerning actions taken by stakeholders as a result of participation in IGF. 8. Enhancing Digital Trust which first emerged as a discussion topic at IGF 2013 in Bali, was further strengthened at IGF 2014 in Istanbul. The theme was reinforced in several sessions, specific workshops, and best practice sessions. A main plenary session and several workshops focused on the importance of including youth and students in Internet governance discussions. Youth and students emphasized their need to be recognized as full IGF stakeholders, freely contributing to the dialogue. This represented another first for the IGF. 9. Human rights was a major subtheme. This topic attracted the largest number of workshops, nearly 45, which were directly or indirectly linked to the issue of human rights in a digital environment. 10. IGF 2014 saw a record total of 3,537 registrations, of which 2,374 were on onsite and 1,163 were remote. This was 50% higher than IGF Civil society was the largest stakeholder group with 30 % representation. Contrary to the impression that government participation at the 2014 IGF was weak, governments represented the second largest set of participants (23%) alongside business. Further, over 65% of the participants represented Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean Islands, Eastern Europe and host country. Western Europe and others contributed 31%. As the Internet governance community works to further improve the IGF, business believes it is important that we not lose sight of nor diminish the importance of its original mandate. The IGF was designed to be a forum where multistakeholder policy dialogue could best be advanced among the various stakeholder groups. The fact that the IGF is not a decision making body, and does not involve the negotiation of documents, has allowed for the broadest participation and the most candid dialogue among stakeholders. The free flow of information, sharing of best practices, and development of a knowledge agenda has largely benefitted the global community s understanding of difficult policy issues, influenced the adoption of policies that promote the growth and usage of the Internet by governments, and assisted businesses in addressing emerging 25

26 issues as they continue to innovate to improve the Internet experience of users across the globe. To change the IGF into a forum where text is negotiated would not only fall outside of the Tunis Agenda s mandate, it would fundamentally undermine the value of the free flow of discussion, exchange of best practices, focus on a knowledge agenda, and commitment to capacity building and strengthened engagement for developing countries, which the current structure supports. As we focus on IGF in 2015, on improvements and structure, we must ensure that the value we intend to add does not subtract the unique current value the forum affords and that our improvements are sustainable and take into account funding requirements. It is important to ensure that any changes and continued improvement to the IGF contribute to enhancing the security, stability, privacy, resiliency, and interoperability of the global Internet, while also ensuring the rule of law and economic and social benefits. The IGF s focus on the exchange of best practices, policy approaches and experiences is its strength, as it maximizes the time all relevant stakeholders spend on substantive exchanges instead of negotiated texts. Business believes that a range of possibilities exists for IGF improvement, but that these are not uniform across all topics. The IGF is more complex and varied than a set of principles or a road map, making a unitary outcome impossible. The needs of the IGF must be responsive to both the needs of the participants and the nature of the topic at issue. Some topics will lend themselves to toolkits, others to references to existing work; some to existing or emerging best practices, while still others are only at the stage of conversation. In each of these cases, we must work collectively to improve the portability of the learning from the IGF. Capacity building and the unique potential of IGF value add cannot occur if the lessons learned are limited to an annual meeting in a far off location. Better communication with regional and national IGFs is one important element of possible improvement, and this communication has to be bi-directional in relation to needs, opportunities, diffusion of knowledge, and capacity building. One of the most important improvements and most valuable roles of the IGF remains enabling conversation outside of a negotiated text, which may become the stepping stones to understanding and consensus. A good example of this was the main session on net neutrality. The dialogue among the panellists was valuable, and should be considered an outcome even though a specific conclusion was not reached. It helped to clarify issues and provided new areas for research and consideration. Better management and documentation of these 26

27 conversations is required so that they have complementary effects that can build across successive conversations. Thus, BASIS believes that to improve the IGF is not to remake it in the image of other successful meetings but to strengthen the present value of IGF to advance several solutions over multiple topics. B. Knowledge agenda Under the Tunis Agenda, the IGF is intended to discuss public policy issues on key elements of Internet governance to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability, and development of the Internet. The IGF adds tremendous value, particularly to developing countries and emerging economies, through its focus on a knowledge agenda. This educational component should be further advanced by a strong focus on developing country issues, emerging global issues, and continued support of a laboratory type of structure that allows for the ready exchange of best practices and the sharing of related research on key Internet issues around the world. By definition, a laboratory is a place that provides opportunity for experimentation, observation, teaching, or practice in a field of study. As the IGF continues to explore emerging issues, advancing this laboratory environment and knowledge agenda will be a strong foundation for the intersessional work that the IGF may undertake in the future. C. IGF outputs Another important improvement for the 2015 IGF will be the strengthening, cataloguing, and sharing of IGF outputs. Based on the Tunis Agenda s mandate, IGF outputs cannot be binding or negotiated, but as the IGF prepares to conduct intersessional work for 2015 the idea of developing a compendium of inputs to produce policy menus could serve as a valuable output. The intention should be to create outputs in a more concrete way. In order to further foster the connection between the global IGF and the regional and national IGFs, this compendium should primarily consist of contributions from these national and regional initiatives in addition to the online discussions. Each national IGF would represent a section in these inputs, and the aim to create such inputs could further assist in the bottom up capacity building of these IGFs. This would be entirely consistent with IGF s mandate. The new knowledge, information, and research presented in the various workshops and other sessions should be captured and catalogued appropriately, as the dialogue itself is an important output of the IGF. 27

28 D. Extension of the IGF Global business supports the continued improvement and strengthening of the IGF and joins other stakeholder groups in urging a more stable and predictable mandate of authorization. We believe that an extended authorization longer than the present five year renewal cycle would facilitate the strengthening of IGF procedures, enable participants to secure long-term funding for projects, and support the IGF trust fund. E. Influence and coordination with other multistakeholder models The IGF has also inspired the creation of other, similar types of multistakeholder fora. In 2014, Brazil launched NETmundial, a new type of multistakeholder meeting focused around the creation of Internet Principles and a Roadmap for Internet Governance. NETmundial was what many consider a successful experiment that fulfilled a specific need to bring stakeholders together around principles and a roadmap at a complex point in time. The study of the format and processes of the IGF and NETmundial show that they are complimentary, yet different, as both are structured to achieve different goals. The fact that the IGF has influenced the evolution of new multistakeholder models is a positive development. However, we must not let these new models supplant the IGF or its mandate under the Tunis Agenda. Rather, we should continue to find ways where these different models continue to complement each other and build broader, global support for the multistakeholder approach. II. INTERSESSIONAL WORK AT THE IGF Developing a formal process in which intersessional work may be undertaken at the IGF will be a challenging new part of the forum s evolution in As the community considers how such work should be structured, business believes it is important that the issues of transparency, consensus-based decision-making, process, and topic selection are thoroughly vetted. In order for the intersessional work to be a successful improvement, without turning into an exercise in reproducing a negotiated document or binding recommendations, we must develop a workable and transparent structure with clear parameters so that the full Internet governance community can best participate and understand how the work will progress. The private sector supports the call by the Chair of the MAG to consider intersessional work during