1

ICC BASIS Statement Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014

Statement of ICC BASIS on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Business Reaffirms the Value of the IGF and the Multistakeholder Model ICC and BASIS members have been actively contributing to and supporting the IGF since its inauguration in 2006 because it provides a unique opportunity to exchange views and best practices on a wide variety of important policy issues that affect continued development of the Internet. The IGF is a unique forum that was founded to not just include, but be managed and organized by stakeholders from government, industry, academia, and civil society, with all participants on an equal footing. Multistakeholderism has to-date become more of a mainstream concept, and we have started to take for granted the ability to have open multistakeholder conversations. The IGF’s initial role was trailblazing in this regard, and its focus was on establishing the legitimacy of the multistakeholder concept and the value-add of participation in the conversation. IGF is maturing, and the needs of the governance community have evolved. This IGF is taking place at an inflection point, not just within the IGF’s own story, but in the complex international environment in which it exists. This statement is focused on setting forth the ICC-BASIS views on ways to improve the IGF. Business recognizes that the diverse issues affecting continued development of the Internet are best addressed if all stakeholders involved participate both in discussions and definition of issues as well as in their resolution. This was an aim of the Geneva Declaration of Principles. In this way, the IGF has not only advanced diverse and critical thinking, but the IGF also builds community. The simple idea of MEETING has turned out to be of extraordinary importance in a world of constant contact over the Internet. It is a way for people to focus and have face-to-face interactions, which cements relationships and orients actions that would otherwise not only be amorphous, but also, lack the standing to be drawn from multistakeholder engagement. The possibility of remote participation also allows those that are unable to travel to interact and participate in a meaningful way with a global audience. To this end, BASIS is pleased that key Internet governance meetings of the past year have not only reinforced the importance of meaningful multistakeholder participation in existing Internet governance processes and forums, but also, reaffirmed the importance and value of the IGF. Paragraph 20 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles states, in relevant part, that “[b]uilding a people-centered Information Society is a joint effort which requires cooperation and partnership among all stakeholders.” The IGF continues to fulfill this important role and responsibility in the development and governance of the Internet.

2

ICC BASIS Statement Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014

Business Recognizes not only the Improvements that the IGF has already Undertaken, but also, the Diverse Outcomes the Model has Fostered Since its institution by the UN Secretary General in July 2006, eight IGFs have been held – all in prominent capital cities of developing countries. In its first phase, the IGF was organized around the themes of Openness, Security, Diversity, and Access. Critical Internet Resources was introduced in 2007. Between 2009 and 2012, it entered a second phase and expanded on these themes while adding discussions under a new sub theme – Emerging Issues. And by 2013, the current and third phase, four original main themes were broadened to include Human Rights, Freedom of Expression, Inclusion, and Free Flow of Information on Internet. The new themes expanded to include Legal Frameworks, Spam and Cybercrime. And further, the IGF began to see discussions on Enhanced Cooperation, Principals of Multistakeholder Cooperation, and Internet Governance Principals. The IGF has taken some significant steps in 2014 under the leadership of its new permanent chair and a new, rejuvenated MAG, to become contemporary and relevant on global Internet governance issues. Apart from the important themes of Policies Enabling Access; Internet as an Engine for Growth and Development; Internet and Human Rights; Critical Internet Resources; and Emerging Issues; the IGF in 2014 will also see discussions on: Content Creation, Dissemination, and Use; IGF and the Future of Internet Ecosystem; and Enhancing Digital Trust. Furthermore, three main sessions on the IANA Transition and Accountability, Net Neutrality, and the Evolution of IGF and its Engagement with other Global Internet Governance Platforms, have been planned. A serious effort is also underway to fulfill the IGF’s original mandate to “identify Emerging Issues, bring them to the attention of relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations,” by focusing on a “Knowledge Agenda” for IGF beginning 2014. This agenda will include introduction of Best Practices Forums on a range of current issues addressing Development of Local Content, Regulation and Mitigation of Unwanted Communication (SPAM), Developing Meaningful Multistakeholder Mechanisms, Child Protection Online, and Establishing and Supporting CERTS for Internet Security. All of these topics are especially timely and relevant for developing country governments and multistakeholder groups. Since its inception, the IGF has made important contributions to implementing the concept of enhanced cooperation, and it is becoming an important laboratory for the discussion and dissemination of best practices and capacity-building initiatives that further the WSIS goals of expanded interconnectivity and inclusiveness. The strength of the current distributed, bottom-up Internet governance process is not only in its open and inclusive participation model, and the legitimacy and credibility that the model fosters, but also its flexibility to rapidly adapt to changing technologies and issues. For that reason, we believe that the IGF’s many accomplishments should be highlighted in the WSIS+10 Review currently underway.

3

ICC BASIS Statement Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014

For example, local and regional IGF processes continue to be an effective way to expand participation in Internet governance dialogues and create a healthy exchange of ideas at the grassroots level, while also feeding into the global IGF. The CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) engaged in an exercise in early 2014 aimed at identifying existing mechanisms that address a broad range of Internet public policy issues – a process in which business actively participated. Of the 24 mechanisms identified by the WGEC as enabling enhanced cooperation, initiatives undertaken at the IGF or as a result of IGF workshops and session discussions were cited in 19 of these mechanisms, covering topics as wide-ranging as human rights, multilingualism and cultural diversity, Internet uses and applications, and capacity building, to name a few. BASIS members have also raised their own examples of how the IGF has generated important new initiatives aimed at remote learning and participation, building capacity, sharing best practices, and strengthening Internet governance more broadly.1 These developments, the capacity building they have fostered, and the inter-linkages between the IGF and regional fora are all examples of key outcomes that had been identified as goals in the WGEC’s 2012 Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum.2 BASIS members firmly support the Report and believe that its implementation on an immediate basis will go a long way toward strengthening IGF processes. How the IGF can Improve 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.

1 E.g., Based on collaboration to prepare a workshop for the IGF Bali, Disney and the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) launched the ITB Apprentice Awards, to reward young innovators with cash and mentoring opportunities to develop app concepts and animation and promote local cultural and economic advancement. Based on active discussions at each of the 2011 through 2013 IGF’s, Disney also launched a schools based online safety curriculum in Latin America, developed in partnership with an NGO, that has reached 785 schools, nearly 2000 teachers and 300,000 children. Similarly, based on meetings with participants from East Africa at the first IGF in Athens and discussions at subsequent IGFs on improving Internet access and content, Verizon Communications, the Internet Society, the Uganda Communications Commission, and the Uganda Martyrs University organized a 2010 multistakeholder symposium on Maximizing the Value and Impact of East African Broadband for Higher Education. 2 See, e.g., UN General Assembly Economic and Social Council, Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (16 March 2014), particularly ¶¶ 2 and 47 and §§ IV and V.

4

ICC BASIS Statement Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014

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. Better management and documentation of these 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. To that end, to further improve the IGF, we should: 1) Reaffirm the importance of the IGF as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and advance the portability and relevance of its tangible outputs. While the IGF remains a forum that generates inputs to other fora, such discussions, lessons, pragmatic solutions to priority challenges, and capacity building should be better documented and summarized in order to enable these fora, organizations, national governments or other IGFs to build on them. This can be advanced by making key policy questions and emerging themes required and documented elements across all workshops, main sessions, dynamic coalition discussions, etc. Divergence in opinion relating to such policy questions must be included. Further, the Chair’s Report, session transcripts and other reports by substantive rapporteurs must get formal recognition, be presented in a timely fashion, and be used as benchmarks for future sessions to measure progress in the discussions linked to specific issues. 2) Strengthen the IGF itself. This would particularly be achieved through ensuring guaranteed, stable and predictable funding through a broadened donor base from all stakeholder groups. It would also require improving the institutional continuity of the IGF through changing its present 5-year renewal cycle to a 10-year extension. 3) Reinforce linkages between IGF and other relevant Internet governance entities. There is a need to consciously incorporate IGF discussions at other important and related meetings such as the WSIS, CSTD, ITU, and any other meetings such as NETmundial, national and regional IGFs, etc. Similarly, the discussions at these meetings should be

5

ICC BASIS Statement Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014

consciously reflected in development of the workshops and main sessions of the IGF. Cross participation in these fora – by the chair of the MAG and MAG members, in addition to observers – is one way to ensure regular exchanges between the various Internet governance forums and IGF through the year. 4) Restructure and expand the IGF secretariat so that, with adequate long term funding, the secretariat has the resources to prioritize IGF topics of relevance to the community, and ensure adequate documentation of policy discussions and best practice recommendations. Key goals for any restructure and expansion of the secretariat would be to strengthen interactions between the global IGF and the national and regional IGFs and to allow for a more inclusive process of participation and continuity of discussions. Any change should also establish a means to provide capacity building and technical support to enable the launch of national and regional IGFs, particularly in developing countries. 5) Advance the IGF’s knowledge agenda and drive increased participation from developing countries. The goal is to better enable both developing country participation at the IGF and year-round access to the work product and outcomes of Internet governance discussions, including through the build-out of capacity building and technical initiatives. Stakeholders (particularly developing economies) should be encouraged to engage at the IGF (whether in person or remotely), and also, be able to participate in discussions remotely once they leave and see this exchange of information wherever they may be based, to demonstrate their capabilities, share best practices and measure progress. Remote moderators, remote hubs, linguistic diversity, facilities for people with disabilities and translations must be considered basic and necessary facets to any IGF meeting. Such dynamic engagement and opportunities for wider and year-round participation would firmly establish the IGF as a conference with a serious knowledge agenda. Finally, the knowledge agenda needs to build over time, so IGF programs need to accommodate conversations of different complexity in a way that enhances the value of the IGF across participants of various skills and backgrounds. 6) Reinforce the importance of the IGF in order to ensure a more inclusive discussion of key Internet governance topics. Even though the IGF was initiated in 2006, the participation from developing countries, number of national IGFs and participation at regional IGFs show that the awareness and importance of the IGF remains inadequate, especially amongst developing countries – in Africa, Asia and Middle East and parts of Latin American. A conscious effort to increase awareness about the IGF and its benefits in these countries needs to occur through all resources available. Unless the IGF truly represents a bottom-up, democratic process that is substantially diverse, its acceptability and relevance will remain high but relegated to limited pockets of the world. 7) Strengthen IGF transparency. UN rules and processes related to IGF funding and IGF trust-fund account could be further clarified for stakeholders (or donors). Similarly the procedures for the IGF meeting site selection process could be more open and transparent.

6

ICC BASIS Statement Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

28 August 2014

Both areas are important and can be improved, through publication to the multi-stakeholder community of all the relevant procedures. 8) Solidify the procedures and composition of the MAG. Although there are high-level criteria available on the UN’s process for MAG appointments, each constituency group has its own unique process for making MAG recommendations. These procedures should be collected and shared with all, and the UN’s selection criteria should be clear and the process transparent. Further, issues of a MAG mandate and operational processes that reflect the essential multistakeholder nature of the MAG should be promulgated to better articulate responsibilities, expectations and commitments. These deficiencies to the transparency, order and processes of the MAG should be addressed as part of the improvement of IGF.

*** *** ***