Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Internet Governace
Internet Governace
Internet Governace
(No.145) Threats to multi-stakeholder internet governance is it worth protecting? | IGF Workshop Management System -beta 1
wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no145-threats-multi-stakeholder-internet-governance--it-worth-protecting
1/3
12/20/13
(No.145) Threats to multi-stakeholder internet governance is it worth protecting? | IGF Workshop Management System -beta 1
http://dcexpression.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/meeting-report-from-the-igf... (http://dcexpression.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/meeting-reportfrom-the-igf-2010-of-the-freedom-of-expression-and-freedom-of-the-media-on-the-internet-dynamic-coalition/)
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...
(http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposalsReports2010View&wspid=126)
Submitted Workshop Panelists: (All confirmed) Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International (Civil society, Malaysia) Bertrand de La Chapelle, International Diplomatic Academy (Academic, Austria) Theresa Swineheart, Verizon (Business, US) Franklin Silva Netto, Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations (Government, Brazil) Bitenge Ndemo, Permanent secretary of the Kenyan Ministry of Information and Communication (Government, Kenya) Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (Civil Society, South Africa) Philip Verveer, US Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy (Government, US) Moderators: Dixie Hawtin (Global Partners and Associates) and Marilia Maciel (Fundao Getlio Vargas) Name of Remote Moderator(s): Marianne Franklin, University of Goldsmiths Assigned Panellists: Malcolm - Jeremy (/2012/panellist/malcolm-jeremy) de La Chapelle - Bertrand (/2012/panellist/de-la-chapelle-bertrand) Swinehart - Theresa (/2012/panellist/swinehart-theresa) Silva Netto - Franklin (/2012/panellist/silva-netto-franklin) Ndemo - Bitange (/2012/panellist/ndemo-bitange) Esterhuysen - Anriette (/2012/panellist/esterhuysen-anriette) Verveer - Philip (/2012/panellist/verveer-philip) Transcript: 08 Nov 2012 IGF WS 145.docx (http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/08 Nov Gender Report Card Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: About half of the participants were women To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: It was mentioned briefly in the presentations and discussions Report Reported by: Dixie Hawtin A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: Moderators: Dixie Hawtin (Global Partners and Associates), Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Fundao Getulio Vargas) Panellists: Philip Verveer (US Department of State, Benedicto Fonseca Filho (Ministry of External Relations Brazil), Bertrand de la Chapelle (International Diplomatic Academy), Anriette Esterhuysen (Association for Progressive Communications), Jeremy Malcolm (Consumer International), Theresa Swinehart (Verizon), Multi-stakeholder governance is a central value of internet governance - beginning with the evolution of engineer-driven bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, confirmed in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society and practised in a range of institutions and processes where internet governance and policy occurs. The multi-stakeholder approach is based on the idea that those who will be affected by decisions have a right to be involved in the making of them, and that a diverse body of viewpoints will contribute to better decisions, and more successful policy implementation. Arguably this is especially important in the realm of the internet where traditional regulatory tools do not work as effectively and power is intrinsically distributed. However, multi-stakeholder governance of the internet faces a range of threats. Both intrinsically - who participates? What legitimacy do they have? How are decisions made? - and externally as governments and businesses, for example, increasingly look to processes which are not adequately multi-stakeholder to make internet governance decisions, be it the International Telecommunications Union or multi-lateral processes such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In the context of these existing and growing threats and the WSIS ten year review beginning this year this workshop sought to unpick the concept and practical challenges of multi-stakeholder internet governance. Conclusions and further comments: Some key findings: Multi-stakeholder participation is necessary due to the trans-border character of internet issues. The involvement of many different viewpoints allows for better, and more legitimate, decisions. In an environment where there are no clear separations of jurisdiction, shared governance norms are crucial. There should be work to develop a set of global multi stakeholder principles
wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no145-threats-multi-stakeholder-internet-governance--it-worth-protecting 2/3
12/20/13
(No.145) Threats to multi-stakeholder internet governance is it worth protecting? | IGF Workshop Management System -beta 1
for internet governance at the Internet Governance Forum. Multi-stakeholder governance works well when it comes to the functional aspects of the internet, the challenge is to develop the appropriate tools for multi-stakeholder governance of what happens on the internet. Brazils national multi-stakeholder process to develop the Marco Civil was pointed to as an example which should be studied and applied in other forums and processes. Governments in general need to make more commitment to implementing the multi-stakeholder principles. Multi-stakeholder governance is a developing concept and it is important for governance structures to include mechanisms which will allow for the structures to develop and improve. While there is widespread support for multi-stakeholderism in theory, in practice it often seems to be just lip service with new laws and practices being formed without consulting all stakeholders. This is a problem both at the national level (e.g. SOPA, PIPA, the new laws on cybercrime in the Philippines and Malaysia) and at the international level (e.g. ACTA and the TPP). It is also a problem with corporations for example Googles response to the Innocence of Muslims video was unilateral. The Internet Governance Forum is the only global, multi-stakeholder internet governance forum which deals with internet governance (beyond functional governance). However there are many problems which need to be overcome. The IGF is lacking leadership at present a special advisor and executive secretary should be appointed as a matter of urgency. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group has proved resistant to evolving the IGFs processes, and there is a lack of adequate funding. At the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications there is a chance that the ITUs mandate will be expanded to include more of the internet. There appeared to be consensus that the ITU was not the appropriate forum for this due to, for example, a lack of transparency and of adequate civil society participation. The US is going to oppose an extension of the ITU mandate and while Brazil has not yet finalised its position the ambassador announced that he does not anticipate Brazil supporting an extension of the ITU mandate. Both the Brazilian and American government representatives agreed with the idea of creating a multi-stakeholder working group on enhanced cooperation. The upcoming WSIS +10 Review was identified as another potential threat to multi-stakeholder governance (alternatively, another opportunity to promote better implementations of multi-stakeholder governance). The WSIS review process is likely to look at how policy decisions are made, the ability of stakeholders to engage and gaps which need to be filled.
wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no145-threats-multi-stakeholder-internet-governance--it-worth-protecting
3/3