IGF 2016: Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth

1. Roll Call, Introduction, adoption of Agenda (Olivier Crépin-Leblond) - 5 minutes

2. Brief presentation of Core Internet Values Paper (Olivier Crépin-Leblond) - 10 minutes

The DC's published paper is on: http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3737/169

3. Addition of a new Core Value (Vint Cerf; Maarten Botterman) - 40 minutes
- Vint Cerf (confirmed)
- Maarten Botterman (confirmed)
- Alejandro Pisanty (confirmed)
- Lise Fuhr (confirmed)

Here, we will build on the last paragraph of the DC-CIV substantive paper:

"Finally, there has been a sustained increase in malicious software exploiting weak security in devices to launch attacks to impact the Internet negatively. It was not an issue in the early Internet development. Times have changed. Should there be a new core value that should drive efforts at standardization and protocol development?"

Dr. Cerf will propose a new Core Internet Value: "freedom from harm". "we have a lot of work to do to protect users from harmful experiences when making use of the Internet and the services that it supports. "

After comments from the other panellists, the floor will open for a discussion.

4. DC on Core Internet Values work program (Olivier Crépin-Leblond) - 30 minutes
(in this section we'll discuss the organisational instruments of the DC, as well as a leadership plan)

5. Conclusions and Next Steps (5 minutes)

The IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things (IoT) brings together stakeholders from all over the world to engage in a dialogue on “good practice” in IoT, with the intent to find a realistic and long term sustainable way forward.

Since the 3rd Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Hydrabad (2008), IoT has been on the agenda for multi-stakeholder discussions of all IGFs, and the Dynamic Coalition on IoT continues to raise attention for the potential as well as challenges of the emergence of a world in which increasing proliferation of sensors and actuators connected to the Internet, which collect, act and share data, both among other things and with people.

The Internet of Things is still in early stages, and in many ways new possibilities are developed and discovered beyond our imagination, and we welcome it for its potential to help alleviate specific societal challenges where it can. The Internet of Things has, however, been around long enough to already a history with consequence.  Following the DC meeting during the IGF in Istanbul in 2014 and subsequent meetings during 2015, we came to the conclusion that in order to foster both innovation and user trust in the Internet of Things, like the Internet, a careful balance should be struck between regulation and innovation. In 2015, this lead to the publication of a draft document on Global IoT Good Practice that was shared on the IGF platform and subject of discussion during the DC IoT meeting during the IGF in Joao Pessoa.

We came to understand that the way forward is to be found in taking ethical considerations into account from the outset, both in the development, deployment and use phases of the life cycle, thus to find a sustainable way ahead using IoT helping to create a free, secure and rights enabling environment.

In addition, in 2016 we witnessed the first large-scale use of IoT objects vulnerabilities as IoT devices are now deployed for massive DDOS attacks. Responsibility for ensuring abuse of devices for such action should be attributed thus to ensure action will be taken to counter such abuse towards the future.

Following the IGF meeting, taking into account feedback on the IGF online platform and having discussed this face to face during meetings in Brussels (EuroDIG, 8 June 2016) and Washington DC (USA IGF, 14 July 2016), an updated paper is presented at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamiccoalitions/2015-dynamic-coalition-outputs   and more information is available at  http://www.iot-dynamic-coalition.org/.

This declaration is on the table for this session. During the session, and over the coming year we want to further zoom in to what “good” looks like from a global multistakeholder perspective, and how sustainable development of IoT that is trusted, useable, accessible, affordable and  profitable (in societal and/or business sense) can take place.

The DC workshop will be oriented around 5 key ideas that are reflecting our current thinking working towards a common appreciation of IoT good practice in 2016.  These ideas are at the core of the draft declaration on IoT best practice that has been published on the IGF website. The ideas on which we would like to receive feedback are:

1. Defining “Ethical IoT”: Explaining “ethical” in IoT perspective requires a multistakeholder dialogue: In terms of “ethical” it was remarked that a proposed “ethical approach” should find a balance in being “sufficient” from a civil society point of view, and “do-able” from a business point of view, and sustainable from a technical point of view, in the end leading to a balance of trust and “profitability” (in societal and/or business sense) that fosters a fertile environment for further development of connected technologies and services including those that make it possible to tackle societal challenges that could not be tackled, before.
2. IoT to address societal challenges: Overall, IoT was seen as “coming” and “promising” and necessary to be able to address specific societal challenges. In this it is important to ensure developing countries can and will benefit from IoT applications as well, such as in agriculture and disaster warning systems. Possibly a “Principle” on “using the most available technology possible” so that for instance GSM networks can already facilitate creation of and interaction with IoT ecosystems in developing countries. Aim is to develop an annex to the declaration with examples of good practice in a variety of applications.
3. Global Ontology for IoT: IoT is not one big animal: it is an ecosystem with many elements. It is important to distinguish the specific IoT application, before becoming more specific than “generic”. We need to develop an ontology for IoT applications with respect to: a. Privacy sensitivity; b. Security level required, not only for protecting data but also for avoiding unauthorized tampering; c. Safety level required, much depending on the type of application and sector.
4. Awareness raising: Need for IoT awareness with citizens and consumers: In terms of “making people aware” it was pointed out that “meaningful transparency” also means that people should not be expected to be technical experts.
   1. a.       One way of dealing with this is using simplified codes (like the washing labels on clothing), and clear language reference sites, like a “Wikipedia for IoT”, where possible;
   2. b.        Another important factor is for users to have choice and ownership, and where this is not possible, for business to commit to “fairness” –a concept to be further developed over the coming year;
   3. c.       The third element is the “expertise” element: how can we ensure independent trusted expertise is available to explore further whether systems are doing what they promise - possibly to be guaranteed by governments
5.       Securing the IoT infrastructure has two aspects that need to be addressed:
   a.       IoT devices are inherently vulnerable themselves, as both sensors and actuators may be compromised via hacks and cyber attacks. Depending on the IoT application, appropriate measures will need to be taken that are proportional to the security and/or safety challenge;
   b.       IoT devices are often connected to the Internet and, when not well protected, can be “recruited” to become part of increasingly massive size botnets that can be used for DDOS attacks. Proper security avoiding easy capture is therefore also a necessity. This will need to come with appropriate attribution of responsibility in ensuring this to be the case.

Agenda

1. Opening, introduction of the why and what of the draft declaration on IoT Best Practices by Maarten Botterman, Chairman DC IoT (5 min.)
2. Background to the draft declaration: history and thoughts on ways forward by Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, University of Arhus, ICANN Board (technical community) (5 min.)
3. Panel, moderated, with representatives from all sectors preparing short statements on one or more of the ideas above or the Best Practice paper as “committed contributors” to this session 

Confirmed “committed contributors” include:

1. Karen Rose (Information Society)
2. Olga Cavelli (ITU WS20)
3. Jari Arkko (Ericcson, Chair IETF)
4. Vint Cerf
5. Grace Abuhamed (NTIA)
6. Megan Richards (EU Commission)
7. Max Senges (Google)
8. Joseph Alhadef (ORACLE, Chair ICC BASIS)

  4. Open discussion with all participants and panel), moderated by Avri Doria

What exactly is gender and internet governance all about? Is it about bringing more women's voices and perspectives into internet governance? Yes, of course. (But it's about much more than that). Is it about bringing more women online or bridging the gender gap in access to ICTs? Yes, of course. (But it's about much more than that). Is it about preventing gendered online abuse, harassment and violence? Yes, of course. (But it's about much more than that too). 

At this interactive meeting, the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance (DC-GIG) will present a draft sexual harassment policy for the IGF - as agreed at last year's DC-GIG meeting. We'll present the findings from the latest edition of the Gender Report Cards measuring gender diversity at IGF 2015, AprIGF 2016 (for the first time), and the African IGF (for the first time). How many women participated in these regional IGFs and the global one? How many women moderated or presented at sessions? How much was gender mentioned at sessions? These are some of the things we'll discuss.

And we'll end with a discussion on what participants view as the latest trends in Gender and Internet Governance. What's still missing? What are the key issues?

Background paper
http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3680/137

Presenters
Bishakha Datta, Executive Director, Point of View, India (sexual harassment policy)
Jac SM Kee, APC, Malaysia (new trends in gender & Internet governance)
Smita Vanniyar, Second Lead - Digital Projects, Point of View, India (gender report cards)

The annual session of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN) promotes a debate between the authors of the various Report contributions and the session participants. Panellists will debate the findings of the 2016 Report, which is structured in three sections analysing (i) Zero Rating Policy; (ii) Zero Rating Pros and Cons; (iii) Net Neutrality Exceptions and Violations.

In 2016, Zero Rating was by large the most debated net neutrality issue, as reflected by the considerable number of contributions focusing on the topic within the DCNN Report. Besides zero rating practices, the Report analyses a selection of very important topics, such as specialised services, ad blocking and reasonable traffic management, providing useful insight on some of the most recent policy evolutions in a variety of countries.
The authors of the DCNN Report chapters (or their spokespersons) will present their findings, fostering a dynamic discussion with all participants. The Report is the annual outcome of the DCNN. The Report outline can be accessed here. Free hard copies of the Report will be distributed at the DCNN session (courtesy of Internet Governance @ FGV project).
Session outline:
 

• Keynote by Guy Berger, Director of Freedom of Expression at UNESCO

Speakers include:

• Luca Belli, Center for Technology and Society at FGV
• Robert Pepper, Facebook 
• Tomiwa Ilori, Paradigm Initiative
• Javier Pallero, Access Now
• Ornulf Storm, Norwegian Communications Authority
• Carlos Brito, Red en Defesa de los Derechos Digitales (R3D)
• Roslyn Layton, Aalborg University

This meeting marks seven years since of the the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition (IRPC) and the collaborative work on the IRPC Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet, a document which is now firmly grounded as a working document translated into 9 different languages and used across different stakeholders and around the world to make a clear impact in human rights advocacy for the Internet. 

Considering that human rights should apply online as they do offline (UNHRC 2014), now is the time for concrete discussion on the roles and responsibilities of online service providers and regulators to ensure that human rights  are protected and fulfilled in the online  environment. This meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss local human rights issues and to work on concrete solutions that will protect human rights online.

The first half of the meeting will be a roundtable discussion co-organised by Amnesty International that assembles members of the IRPC, invited Human Rights experts and activists and online services providers representatives and will be covering issues such as cyber harassment and other emerging forms of techno-censorship - in particular the growing trend in orchestrated troll networks on Twitter - and how online service providers, regulators and civil society can manage these threats to ensure the protection of human rights online. A couple of case studies will be presented to open up the roundtable discussion  

The second half will be the IRPC's Annual General Meeting. 

PART I  - Roundtable Discussion: 

IRPC with Amnesty International

"When death threats go viral: defending human rights in the face of orchestrated harassment campaign on social media” 

The panel will focus on the very concerning trend in Mexico, which is also emerging in other countries around the world. We will explore the problem and what can be done about it, looking at the role of social media companies in particular.

Panel

• Tanya O’Carroll, Amnesty International
• Alberto Escorcio, Blogger, Yo Soy Red
• Paulina Gutierrez, Article 19
• Amalia Toledo, Karisma Foundation
• Marcel Leonardi, Google
• Hanane Boujemi, IRPC

Moderator

Marianne Franklin, IRPC

Rapporteur

Isadora Hellegren, GigaNet

DC3 Annual Meeting

The Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (DC3) explores the potential of community networks in order to promote sustainable Internet connectivity and foster the full enjoyment of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and self-determination. This session will propose a selection of analyses aimed at moving forward the discussion on Internet connectivity and debate, in an inclusive fashion, the ways in which community networks may help create sustainable Internet connectivity while empowering Internet users. The panelists will explore the various technical, governance and policy aspects of community connectivity as well as a number of case studies, included in the DC3 Report Community Connectivity: Building the Internet from Scratch. The DC3 Report and the Guadalajara Declaration on Community Connectivity are the DC3 annual outcomes. Free hard copies of the Report will be distributed at the DC3 session (courtesy of Internet Governance @ FGV project).

Keynote presentation by Bob Frankston, IEEE Consumer Electronics Society  

Panelists include:

• Luca Belli, Center for Technology and Society at FGV
• Nicolas Echaniz, Altermundi
• Roger Baig, ISOC-CAT
• Maureen Hernandez, Independent researcher
• Leandro Navarro, Technical University of Catalonia
• Anya Orlova, UNESP/Fonias Jurua Project
• Carlos Rey-Moreno, University of the Western Cape
• Ritu Srivastava, Digital Empowerment Foundation  

Public access to the Internet is having a moment.

In the past year, we’ve seen a number of reports and processes suggest that there’s no way to get everyone online without supporting public access to the Internet. The Global Commission on Internet Governance, the Alliance for Affordable Internet and the Global Connect Initiative are all calling out public access as a great tool for increasing connectivity. The IGF’s Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion (2016) emphasizes the value of public access for getting people online, and last year’s Stanford Deliberative Polling Exercise identified public Internet access in libraries as the top-rated solution to the digital divide.  

Why Libraries? Libraries not only provide connectivity, they also help people overcome the more significant barriers – lack of awareness of the internet’s value, lack of skills, and lack of cultural and social acceptance.  The ITU stated in its annual report last month that access is not enough. Policy-makers must address broader socio-economic inequalities and help people acquire the necessary skills to take full advantage of the internet.  Public libraries - trusted institutions, staffed by skilled information professionals - are uniquely placed to overcome these challenges by providing public access to the internet for individuals who might otherwise not have it, helping people to understand the internet’s value, training people to get online, and building trust and familiarity with online services.

The Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries is meeting in Guadalajara to talk about how we can harness the momentum around public access. Join speakers from IFLA, EIFL, Gigabit Libraries Network, Google, IEEE and People Centred Internet to talk all things public access.

 

Agenda

• Welcomes and introductions (Chair: Stuart Hamilton, IFLA)
• Recap of PAL-DC-related activity since the last IGF:
  • Reports from the regional IGFs
    • Guest reporter: Mandiaye Ndiaye (Cheikh Anta Diop University)
  • Principles of Public Access in Libraries
  • The Human Rights Principles for Connectivity and Development
• Reflections on the Stanford Deliberative Poll and other library musings
  • Vint Cerf, Google
• DISCUSSION: The role of public access in the SDGS, the Global Connect Initiative, and other initiatives to bring the next billion online:
  • Don Means (Gigabit Libraries Network)
  • Janet Sawaya (Electronic Information for Libraries)
  • Jane Coffin (ISOC)
  • Karen McCabe (IEEE)
  • Mei Lin Fung (People Centered Internet)
• Wrap-up and close

The demographic of people yet to be connected to the Internet poses a complex challenge to policy makers, businesses and researchers alike: as of July 2015, only 3.1 billion of 7.3 billion people were connected to the Internet. Rates of Internet adoption in most parts of the developing world are of concern, where over two thirds of the population is yet to reap the benefits of connectivity.

Against this backdrop, new strategies for connecting the next billion have been initiated in various parts of the world by businesses, civil society organizations and governments. The Dynamic Coalition on Innovative Approaches to Connecting the Unconnected seeks to collect and disseminate information about innovative technological and business practices that have proven effective in improving broadband adoption, as well as explore various supply and demand side drivers of adoption in unconnected communities.

After a short presentation of the newly created Dynamic Coalition and a description of the work that has already been done under the initiative by the speakers in the first twenty minutes, Professor Christopher Yoo will moderate a highly interactive discussion with the panelists and the audience, with a view to identify what are the most important supply and demand-side issues in the short term. Everyone present at the meeting as well as remotely will be given an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, and all comments and suggestions will be taken into account in order to elaborate the roadmap for the Dynamic Coalition. 

Confirmed speakers:

1. Christopher S. Yoo, University of Pennsylvania (Civil Society)

2. Michael Kende, ISOC (Technical Community)

3. Helani Galpaya, LIRNEAsia (Civil Society)

4. Rajan S. Mathews, COAI (Business)

5. Anriette Esterhueysen, APC (Civil Society)

6. Alex Wong, WEF (Business)

7. Karen McCabe, IEEE (Technical Community)

THE INTERNET OF THINGS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 
  
The session will address the linkages between the Internet of Things (IoT) and the rights of the children. The Internet of Things is defined as “a system of interrelated computing devices, mechanical and digital machines, objects, animals or people that are provided with unique identifiers and the ability to transfer data over a network without requiring human-to-human or human-to-computer interaction.” (1) Millions of users all over the world, from all age ranges are provided with the opportunity to be connected to the Internet through objects. This happens not only via cars, watches and fridges but it also concerns the toy industry in a major way (2) as well as the manufacturers of others goods that may be widely used by children. Additionally, there are devices like cameras embodied in other objects used by children  of all ages or in close proximity to them. 
  
This evolution entails societal and economic challenges, and triggers questions around privacy and data collection among others. “…With multifunctional devices, going online does not need to be a conscious decision….”. (3)  There is an obvious need to look at the implications of this, specifically with regards to children as recipients/users of these connected objects or as  recipients/ users who will  or may habitually be in close proximity to connected devices. 
  
This triggers numerous unanswered questions regarding possible tensions between companies’ ability  and desire to collect data from the devices and children’s rights, such as their right to privacy or to be protected from abuse and exploitation. Might those rights be compromised? How can we or should we deal with this as a society? How should our legal systems tackle these issues? Could manufacturers build-in security features to prevent their devices from being misused to violate the rights of the children? Do they have a legal or ethical obligation to do it? 
  
Those will be some of the questions which will be explored by the speakers.   

(1) Accessed 20 June 2016,  <http://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/definition/Internet-of-Things-IoT> 
(2)Accessed 20 June 2016, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7430049> 
(3) Jutta Croll, White Paper for the ICT Coalition for Children Online, published,  Jan. 11th, 2016. Accessed 20 June 2016.<http://www.ictcoalition.eu/gallery/100/REPORT_WEB.pdf>  

Speakers confirmed:

• Mr. John Carr - Expert Adviser to the European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online. Writes and consults about internet safety and security.
• Mr. Maarten Botterman - Chair of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet of Things 
• Ms. Sonia Livingstone - Full Professor in the Department of Media and Communications at London School of Economics 
• Ms. Jutta Croll - Managing Director, German Centre for Child Protection on the Internet 
• Ms. Arda Gerkens - Member of the Dutch Senate and Director of the Dutch “Meldpunt kinderporno” (hotline for child pornography)
• Moderator: Ms. Marie-laure Lemineur, ECPAT International 

Participate Online!

DC Coordination Session

Thursday 8 December, 16.30-18.00

Workshop Room 9

Proposed Guiding Questions

I. Organizational Best Practices

1. What works well in your coalition, what doesn't? 

2. How do your meetings take place throughout the year? Virtually, face-to-face, and how often? 

2. How strong is your participation and output?


 

II. Co-Facilitators and IGF Secretariat Role

1. Are coordination meetings helpful? How could they be done better?

2. Is having a DCs main session and coordinating efforts toward the session valuable to you?

3. Is there an additional role the co-facilitators or Secretariat should play? 

4. The Secretariat maintains/monitors established parameters for forming a DC and for considering it "active": are these adequate and fair? 


 

III. Coordination Moving Forward 

1. Should DCs' terms for coordination be expanded upon? Is the current ToR satisfactory?

2. The ToR mentions identifying synergies and facilitating collaboration. What opportunities could there be for substantive collaboration? Should DCs take on a joint substantive project? 

3. There was support for the issue surveys from DCs in the recently held webinar. Should DCs repeat the survey exercise next year? If so, what could a potential timeline look like?

3. Outside of planning for a possible main session next year, what expectations do DCs have for coordinated work in 2017?

 

Accountability of Internet governance organizations has increasingly become the focus of Internet governance debates and discussions in recent years. This is mainly due to the removal of United States oversight from ICANN and the transition of oversight to the multistakeholder community. The question of accountability of ICANN and its multistakeholder governance structure has triggered debates about other IG institutions governance system and their accountability. In this session, we will cover some of the accountability discussions that are at the moment being held at ICANN. The issues that are being discussed are not only specific to ICANN and can also be applied to other Internet governance organizations. By discussing these issues, we will set the scene for the focus of the DC and its methods to help enhance the accountability of Internet governance organizations. 
The session will be divided into two 45 minute segments: the first segment discusses ICANN accountability issues such as jurisdiction, human rights, accountability of stakeholder groups participating in policy making at ICANN, diversity, and other issues.
The second segment will discuss the future of the dynamic coalition what it should focus on and how to proceed. 
We also invite those interested to become a member of the Dynamic Coalition on Accountability of Internet Governance Organizations. You can send an email to farzaneh.badii[at]gmail.com and request to join the dynamic coalition. Or simply subscribe to our mailing list: http://mailman.netgov-accountability.org/listinfo/discuss

Milton Mueller 
Tatiana Tropina
Matthew Shears
Corrine Cath
Steve Del Bianco
 

DCPR 3rd Annual Meeting – 9 December 2016, 11:30-13:00

This annual meeting of the DCPR will consist of two integral parts: first, a stock-taking about initiatives that have relied upon the 2015 DCPR Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights. This will include a short presentation by Mr. Toby Mendel, Executive Director at the Centre for Law and Democracy, presenting CLD´s 2016 Recommendations for Responsible Tech, and Mr. Luca Belli, Senior Researcher at Center for Technology and Society of the Fundação Getulio Vargas, presenting the findings of CTS´s Terms of Service and Human Rights Project. An opportunity will be given to all participants to comment on the featured work, as well as to draw the attention to further initiatives in this space.

The second segment of the meeting will provide a forum for discussion of recent trends and developments about governmental pressures on intermediaries to behave “responsibly”. This discussion will include an overview of the responsibilisation of internet intermediaries in current legislative proposals, co-regulatory measures (such as the recently adopted EU Code of Conduct on Hate Speech) and the evolving Council of Europe framework for intermediary responsibility.

Featured speakers include:
- Megan Richards, Principal Adviser, DG CONNECT, European Commission - Daphne Keller, Director for Intermediary Liability at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society
- Wolfgang Schultz, Research Director at the Humbolt Internet Institute and Chair of the CoE expert group on internet intermediaries;
- Karmen Turk, Lecturer at the University of Tartu and member of the CoE expert group on internet intermediaries;
- Barbora Bukovska, Senior Director for Law and Policy at Article 19.