Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, at IGF2015, the Internet Governance Forum 2015, at João Pessoa, Brazil, on November 10, 2015–as prepared for delivery–(emphasis added):
Thank you. At the outset, let me congratulate our host nation, Brazil, as the first country to have hosted two meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It is fitting that Brazil, with its strong tradition of supporting multistakeholder Internet governance, be the first country to earn this honor.
Over the past 10 years, the IGF has proven itself to be an indispensable platform for addressing Internet issues. I look forward each year to attending the IGF and meeting with this diverse collection of stakeholders to tackle the challenges facing the Internet. This year I am pleased to see important innovations in the IGF’s intersessional work on items such as the best practices forums and the IGF policy options document on connecting the next billion. These and other innovations will enrich the conversations this week in Brazil.
As we mark the 10-year anniversaries of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the IGF, it is important to take stock of where we have come and the challenges ahead. There is much to celebrate in how the Internet has evolved into a platform for global economic growth, innovation and free speech. The open Internet is helping the economies and societies of both developed and developing nations. Not only has it created a dynamic and growing digital economy, it has transformed just about every facet of our day-to-day lives. Every one of us has a stake in ensuring the continued growth, job formation and wealth creation that an open Internet brings.
In the United States, we attribute that success in large part to the bottom-up, multistakeholder approach to resolving technical and policy challenges facing the Internet. This is why we are such strong supporters of the IGF – one of the preeminent international examples of this approach – and have called for an extension of the IGF that is consistent with its original mandate. We are pleased that so many countries have echoed this call. If collectively, we continue to support multistakeholder Internet governance, if we make it more inclusive of developing countries and more responsive to all stakeholders, then we can truly achieve the Information Society we envisioned 10 years ago.
In the United States, we are committed to multistakeholder Internet governance, as convincingly demonstrated by our announcement in March 2014 that the U.S. government would transition its historical stewardship role over the Internet Domain Name System to the multistakeholder community. Since that time, the response from the community of technical experts, academics, civil society and industry has been inspiring. Over the past year and a half, stakeholders have worked hundreds of hours to complete a transition proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. We are hopeful the working groups will complete their work in the coming weeks.
This work is tiring; sometimes contentious; perhaps exasperating. No doubt, this is not an easy task. But it is an important one. All of us should appreciate the effort and level of commitment demonstrated by all the participants in this process. Most importantly, the process is working and I am confident it will be successful. It will be a testament to the strength of the multistakeholder process when the transition is completed.
But even with the growth of international support for multistakeholder governance, there is continued cause for concern. Freedom House’s 2015 report on Internet freedom finds that Internet freedom around the world is in decline for a fifth consecutive year. More governments are censoring information from their citizens and attempting to put up barriers to the open Internet within their borders.
The growth of sophisticated malware and other cyber security threats, the need to protect the privacy of Internet users and the mounting online theft of intellectual property online have challenged governments’ ability to balance these important interests with the equally important need for openness. Governments increasingly feel compelled to do something they see as meaningful – if not outright drastic – to protect their citizens and their businesses from these threats.
Regrettably, in their attempts to do something to protect their citizens and businesses, governments sometimes rush to put up digital walls between their countries and the rest of the world, between their citizens and people abroad. In recent years, we have seen governments institute data localization laws, as well as impose limitations on data storage and data transfer.
Historically, these kinds of restrictive policies have tended to be pursued by authoritarian governments that want to try to control information and monitor the activities of their citizens. In recent years, however, even democratic countries have considered restrictions on data flows.
Such proposals do far more harm than good. Restricting data flows and competition between firms increase costs for Internet users and businesses, retard technological innovation, and may curb freedom of expression.
This assessment may seem like common sense to many of us in this room. But it is not accepted by everyone. And that is why it is imperative that we continue multistakeholder venues like the IGF. They allow us – as representatives of diverse stakeholder communities – to come together, to offer our unique perspectives, to work through our most difficult problems, and to make a case for policies and practices that encourage the development of an open and innovative Internet.
In closing, I urge all nations to step up in support of the free and open Internet and the multistakeholder process that has led to its success. If we want to maintain a vibrant and growing Internet, we must all take action to ensure that the multistakeholder approach continues to define the future of Internet governance. Thank you for listening.
Source: US Government - NTIA
Showing posts with label Multistakeholder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multistakeholder. Show all posts
02 September 2015
US Ambassador at 7th Annual Summit on Cyber and Network Security
U.S. Ambassador Richard R. Verma’s Remarks at ASSOCHAM’s 7th Annual Summit on Cyber and Network Security - Ashok Hotel, New Delhi | August 26, 2015 (As Prepared for Delivery):
Good morning and thanks for the generous introduction. I’m delighted to be here and thank ASSOCHAM for the chance to speak to you on this important topic. Of course, the Internet today is part of just about everything we do. This digital age has opened countless windows of opportunity, to the great benefit of the U.S. and India. Both our societies and our economies have been enriched by the many advantages of greater connectivity; and I know this first hand, since I continue to marvel and how instantly connected I have felt to Indians of all ages since I have started my Twitter account. In fact just two weeks ago I visited Twitter’s India headquarters and took part in an online chat with a number of tech savvy Indians.
When we talk about digital technology, it is natural to think about potential risks, but it is the possibilities that should motivate us. From the campuses of Silicon Valley to the tech parks of Bangalore, our countries have emerged as leaders in the field of IT development. The Indian diaspora has played a particularly large role. Just two weeks ago Sundar Pichai, a native of Chennai, was named CEO of Google, one of America’s tech giants. He is one of countless similar examples. Indeed, when Prime Minister Modi visits California next month, he will be welcomed by a vibrant Indian-American community which, over the last two decades, has helped to transform the high-technology sector.
Similarly, here in India, technology has been integral in powering economic growth, whether it be through e-commerce, IT services, or product development. The Prime Minister’s “Digital India” initiative highlights India’s commitment to enhancing digital capacity, across a variety of sectors, bridging the divide between urban and rural communities. Secretary John Kerry also recently launched a new initiative to increase internet connectivity, in partnership with government, development banks, engineers, and industry leaders. I applaud these efforts, as broadening the reach of the Internet is a powerful way to promote global development. Every time a country increases its internet penetration by ten percent, its total economic growth can expand by up to two percent.
The Internet is part of the critical infrastructure that we have come to depend on. We use it in so many ways – as a communication tool, a marketplace, a forum for expressing new ideas. Digital technology promotes transparency and helps to hold governments accountable. It is a means to fight against repression, and protect human dignity. Yet we must ensure that cybersecurity tools are not inappropriately used to undermine these important benefits.
But, as transformative as the Internet is, there are risks. And the more reliant we become on the Internet, the greater those risks become. This means we need sound policies to protect this essential resource, as it is vital to advancing human progress in the 21st century. Therefore, promoting an open, secure, and reliable Internet is a key component of our economic policy.
Protecting the Internet cannot be the task of just one country, however, and requires cooperation between government, industry, academia, and every user. It is a shared resource, and thus its stewardship is a shared responsibility. The Internet has flourished because of the bottom-up, consensus-based process that allows multiple stakeholders to participate in its governance. Likewise, all stakeholders have a critical role in cybersecurity and cybercrime as well. The multistakeholder approach reaches beyond government and includes the private sector, civil society, academic institutions, and all internet users. Multistakeholder Internet governance has served us well thus far, and it is critical to broaden this approach to other areas of cyber policy because all institutions and users share a responsibility to keep the internet operating in a safe, secure, and reliable manner.
To that end, India’s recent decision to support the multistakeholder approach to internet governance is not only a win for India’s people, but an example of India’s ever-expanding role as a democratic world leader. We look forward to working closely with India and other partners to preserve the multistakeholder model, wherever it is challenged.
Of course, there are other, serious threats to the internet. As recent headlines have shown, cyber-attacks are a real and persistent concern. Internet misconduct has resulted in billions of dollars in economic damage. Criminal networks misuse the Internet to steal information and profit at the expense of private citizens, businesses, and governments. Extremist groups see it as a means to disseminate violent extremist propaganda and mislead youth into joining their causes. It is in our shared interest to seek collaborative solutions to these challenges.
We believe that the best defense is to promote what we call “international cyber stability.” This means we are seeking broad consensus on what constitutes responsible behavior in cyberspace. Our goal is to create a climate in which people everywhere are able to enjoy the benefits of the digital world. There is general consensus that the basic rules of international law apply in cyberspace, but there are a number of additional principles that should underpin countries’ behavior in cyberspace.
First, we posit that no country should support or conduct online activity that intentionally damages or impedes another country’s use.
Second, no country should seek to prevent emergency teams from responding to a security breach, or allow its own teams to cause harm.
Third, no country should engage in cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential information for commercial gain.
Fourth, every country should confront malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil. This includes the activities of extremist groups who seek to engage in criminal and terrorist behavior.
And finally, every country should do what it can to help states that are the victims of a cyber-attack.
Agreeing to and abiding by these principles would move us a long way towards ensuring a more secure cyberspace. In order to get there, however, we must work to improve our own and our partners’ capacity to protect against cyber threats. This includes a preventative component – through strong legal frameworks and improved training. It also means enhancing our capability to respond to threats, by improving the resiliency of our networks, and strengthening the relationships between our law enforcement communities.
Perhaps the greatest protection against such threats is the regular and substantive sharing of information on cyber threats, and stronger coordination in response to cyber-attacks and cybercrime. This is an area in which the United States and India continue to partner. We recently provided information on a high-profile hacking group operating from India, enabling our two countries to take concerted action against its threat. We are also engaged in efforts to improve the process through which other countries can obtain bank records and other forms of electronic evidence from the United States, for use in legal proceedings against illicit actors.
We should continue to build information-sharing mechanisms through law enforcement and intelligence channels, as well as within our private sector, as the bulk of our networks lie outside of public and government control. We must also continue to work through differences in our legal systems that can sometimes slow the sharing of information used during criminal investigations. Given the risks involved, these are worthwhile efforts.
Just two weeks ago, our governments participated in the U.S.-India Cyber dialogue. The United States and India held open and constructive conversations about substantive measures to increase cyber cooperation, ranging from coordinating on internet governance issues, deepening our existing cyber security collaboration, streamlining the exchange of information related to cybercrime, and U.S. support for India’s ambitious but essential cybersecurity skills development initiative. These, and other common objectives, highlight the criticality of the U.S.-India relationship, leverage the inseparable ties of our IT communities, and emphasize yet another example of our joint efforts to safeguard critical infrastructure and national security.
Our populations are among the most interconnected on the planet, which is in part a reflection of our shared values. The Internet is an unparalleled platform where voices from every corner of the globe can contribute to political, economic, and social discourse. Discussions on how to manage cyberspace can be difficult, because they touch on the core of our democratic values, including ethics, the role of government in society, and economic liberty. But if we commit ourselves to protecting internet freedom, the digital revolution will continue to power the opportunities our societies cherish most – by helping to strengthen governments, make us safer, boost economic growth, and promote free expression. And those are goals worth fighting for.
Thank you.
source: Speeches & Remarks | New Delhi, India - Embassy of the United States
Good morning and thanks for the generous introduction. I’m delighted to be here and thank ASSOCHAM for the chance to speak to you on this important topic. Of course, the Internet today is part of just about everything we do. This digital age has opened countless windows of opportunity, to the great benefit of the U.S. and India. Both our societies and our economies have been enriched by the many advantages of greater connectivity; and I know this first hand, since I continue to marvel and how instantly connected I have felt to Indians of all ages since I have started my Twitter account. In fact just two weeks ago I visited Twitter’s India headquarters and took part in an online chat with a number of tech savvy Indians.
When we talk about digital technology, it is natural to think about potential risks, but it is the possibilities that should motivate us. From the campuses of Silicon Valley to the tech parks of Bangalore, our countries have emerged as leaders in the field of IT development. The Indian diaspora has played a particularly large role. Just two weeks ago Sundar Pichai, a native of Chennai, was named CEO of Google, one of America’s tech giants. He is one of countless similar examples. Indeed, when Prime Minister Modi visits California next month, he will be welcomed by a vibrant Indian-American community which, over the last two decades, has helped to transform the high-technology sector.
Similarly, here in India, technology has been integral in powering economic growth, whether it be through e-commerce, IT services, or product development. The Prime Minister’s “Digital India” initiative highlights India’s commitment to enhancing digital capacity, across a variety of sectors, bridging the divide between urban and rural communities. Secretary John Kerry also recently launched a new initiative to increase internet connectivity, in partnership with government, development banks, engineers, and industry leaders. I applaud these efforts, as broadening the reach of the Internet is a powerful way to promote global development. Every time a country increases its internet penetration by ten percent, its total economic growth can expand by up to two percent.
The Internet is part of the critical infrastructure that we have come to depend on. We use it in so many ways – as a communication tool, a marketplace, a forum for expressing new ideas. Digital technology promotes transparency and helps to hold governments accountable. It is a means to fight against repression, and protect human dignity. Yet we must ensure that cybersecurity tools are not inappropriately used to undermine these important benefits.
But, as transformative as the Internet is, there are risks. And the more reliant we become on the Internet, the greater those risks become. This means we need sound policies to protect this essential resource, as it is vital to advancing human progress in the 21st century. Therefore, promoting an open, secure, and reliable Internet is a key component of our economic policy.
Protecting the Internet cannot be the task of just one country, however, and requires cooperation between government, industry, academia, and every user. It is a shared resource, and thus its stewardship is a shared responsibility. The Internet has flourished because of the bottom-up, consensus-based process that allows multiple stakeholders to participate in its governance. Likewise, all stakeholders have a critical role in cybersecurity and cybercrime as well. The multistakeholder approach reaches beyond government and includes the private sector, civil society, academic institutions, and all internet users. Multistakeholder Internet governance has served us well thus far, and it is critical to broaden this approach to other areas of cyber policy because all institutions and users share a responsibility to keep the internet operating in a safe, secure, and reliable manner.
To that end, India’s recent decision to support the multistakeholder approach to internet governance is not only a win for India’s people, but an example of India’s ever-expanding role as a democratic world leader. We look forward to working closely with India and other partners to preserve the multistakeholder model, wherever it is challenged.
Of course, there are other, serious threats to the internet. As recent headlines have shown, cyber-attacks are a real and persistent concern. Internet misconduct has resulted in billions of dollars in economic damage. Criminal networks misuse the Internet to steal information and profit at the expense of private citizens, businesses, and governments. Extremist groups see it as a means to disseminate violent extremist propaganda and mislead youth into joining their causes. It is in our shared interest to seek collaborative solutions to these challenges.
We believe that the best defense is to promote what we call “international cyber stability.” This means we are seeking broad consensus on what constitutes responsible behavior in cyberspace. Our goal is to create a climate in which people everywhere are able to enjoy the benefits of the digital world. There is general consensus that the basic rules of international law apply in cyberspace, but there are a number of additional principles that should underpin countries’ behavior in cyberspace.
First, we posit that no country should support or conduct online activity that intentionally damages or impedes another country’s use.
Second, no country should seek to prevent emergency teams from responding to a security breach, or allow its own teams to cause harm.
Third, no country should engage in cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential information for commercial gain.
Fourth, every country should confront malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil. This includes the activities of extremist groups who seek to engage in criminal and terrorist behavior.
And finally, every country should do what it can to help states that are the victims of a cyber-attack.
Agreeing to and abiding by these principles would move us a long way towards ensuring a more secure cyberspace. In order to get there, however, we must work to improve our own and our partners’ capacity to protect against cyber threats. This includes a preventative component – through strong legal frameworks and improved training. It also means enhancing our capability to respond to threats, by improving the resiliency of our networks, and strengthening the relationships between our law enforcement communities.
Perhaps the greatest protection against such threats is the regular and substantive sharing of information on cyber threats, and stronger coordination in response to cyber-attacks and cybercrime. This is an area in which the United States and India continue to partner. We recently provided information on a high-profile hacking group operating from India, enabling our two countries to take concerted action against its threat. We are also engaged in efforts to improve the process through which other countries can obtain bank records and other forms of electronic evidence from the United States, for use in legal proceedings against illicit actors.
We should continue to build information-sharing mechanisms through law enforcement and intelligence channels, as well as within our private sector, as the bulk of our networks lie outside of public and government control. We must also continue to work through differences in our legal systems that can sometimes slow the sharing of information used during criminal investigations. Given the risks involved, these are worthwhile efforts.
Just two weeks ago, our governments participated in the U.S.-India Cyber dialogue. The United States and India held open and constructive conversations about substantive measures to increase cyber cooperation, ranging from coordinating on internet governance issues, deepening our existing cyber security collaboration, streamlining the exchange of information related to cybercrime, and U.S. support for India’s ambitious but essential cybersecurity skills development initiative. These, and other common objectives, highlight the criticality of the U.S.-India relationship, leverage the inseparable ties of our IT communities, and emphasize yet another example of our joint efforts to safeguard critical infrastructure and national security.
Our populations are among the most interconnected on the planet, which is in part a reflection of our shared values. The Internet is an unparalleled platform where voices from every corner of the globe can contribute to political, economic, and social discourse. Discussions on how to manage cyberspace can be difficult, because they touch on the core of our democratic values, including ethics, the role of government in society, and economic liberty. But if we commit ourselves to protecting internet freedom, the digital revolution will continue to power the opportunities our societies cherish most – by helping to strengthen governments, make us safer, boost economic growth, and promote free expression. And those are goals worth fighting for.
Thank you.
source: Speeches & Remarks | New Delhi, India - Embassy of the United States
21 July 2015
NTIA Larry Strickling's Remarks at the Internet Governance Forum USA
Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at the Internet Governance Forum USA 07/16/2015 | NTIA:
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
The Internet Governance Forum USA [IGF-USA]
Washington, D.C.
July 16, 2015—As Prepared for Delivery—
Thank you, Shane, for the introduction. I also want to thank the U.S. IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Planning Committee for planning this event and George Washington University for hosting. I have enjoyed having the opportunity to speak at each of these IGF-USA events since they started back in 2009.
When I look at your agenda for the day, much of it mirrors our agenda at NTIA. Rather than devoting my remarks to one specific issue, I will use my time this morning to take stock of the multistakeholder process as a tool for addressing the key issues that exist in the Internet policy space and to reaffirm our strong support for the model in the work we do.
An appropriate starting point for these remarks is the ongoing work of the global Internet community to develop the plan to transition NTIA’s stewardship role with respect to the Internet Domain Name System [DNS].
In a testament to the success of the multistakeholder model, technical experts and representatives of private industry, academia, civil society and governments are working around-the-clock to complete a transition proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. This work is tiring; sometimes contentious; perhaps exasperating. No doubt, this is not an easy task. But it is an important one, and I greatly appreciate the effort and level of commitment demonstrated by all the participants in this process. Most importantly, it is working and I am confident it will be successful.
The effort is a compelling demonstration that bringing together all stakeholders, including businesses, technical experts, civil society and government, to resolve issues on a consensus basis is the best way to set the future direction of the Internet. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has flourished. It has driven economic growth, innovation and free expression around the globe. And a big part of its success can be attributed to this multistakeholder approach to resolving technical and policy challenges.
It is not hard to understand why this has been the case. Like the Internet itself, the multistakeholder model is characterized by its open participation and decentralized processes. The Internet thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. The multistakeholder model reflects this fact by enabling a diversity of stakeholders to participate, fostering a diversity of opinions and ideas. The result is more creative problem solving. It is a nimble, flexible approach, much better suited to rapidly changing technologies, business practices, and markets than traditional regulatory or legislative models.
This is not to say that multistakeholder processes are easy. They can be chaotic and they do require a serious commitment of time and energy from participants. But they have a record of success. The Internet works seamlessly today because a cadre of technologists, policy wonks and others through such groups as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) put their heads together to standardize voluntary programming languages, security protocols, and other web technologies.
Stakeholders continue to update these standards on an ongoing basis. If these technological challenges had been handed off to the typical Washington regulatory or legislative processes to resolve, we might still be waiting for a resolution. Worse, we might have technical protocols that are hopelessly out of date, hamstringing technologists and users from creating the robust, evolving Internet we enjoy today. One shudders to imagine an HTML standard drafted by a government committee.
And of course we have seen the model work in the context of ICANN, where the Internet community has come together to resolve technical and policy issues related to the Internet Domain Name System for nearly 17 years. This system ensures that users are able to easily access content by typing in simple names like www.doc.gov rather than confusing numeric addresses.
So we know this model can work. That’s why we continue to embrace it as the best tool to meet our mission at NTIA to preserve and protect the Internet as a platform for economic growth, innovation, and the free flow of information. This mission places us front and center at every major Internet policy debate today – privacy, Internet governance, cybersecurity and more. We are committed to making progress where we can to ensure that our digital economy continues to grow and thrive. But we cannot do it by ourselves. We need you to come to the table, roll up your sleeves and work with us to find solutions to these complex issues.
In the next several weeks, NTIA will be kicking off two new multistakeholder processes. The first will tackle issues related to privacy, transparency and accountability regarding unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Our first meeting is scheduled for August 3.
The second new process will focus on cybersecurity vulnerability disclosures and will get underway in September. We will also be reconvening the facial recognition privacy multistakeholder process on July 28. In all three instances, we selected the topics after soliciting broad input from the community. In any multistakeholder process, the community must decide when a topic is ripe for discussion and possible consensus in order for it to be successful.
We are putting our time and resources in the multistakeholder process because we know it can help build trust in the digital ecosystem. For the sustainability and continued growth of the Internet, it is imperative that we preserve the trust of all actors on the Internet. The multistakeholder process has the ability to produce – in a timely way – meaningful guideposts for industry and consumers in this rapidly evolving technological environment. That cannot be said for the legislative or regulatory processes in Washington.
As we continue to engage the community in these multistakeholder efforts, we are constantly reassessing how we employ the process. We welcome the community’s ongoing feedback on how to improve our processes. That’s part of the beauty of the model – it’s adaptable and flexible in a way that regulatory approaches could never be.
We are particularly concerned about identifying and reducing the barriers to participation in these processes. For example, we have heard concerns about the time it takes to reach consensus. I grant you that reaching consensus on challenging policy issues does not happen overnight. In our first multistakeholder process on privacy, it took over one year to reach consensus on a code of conduct aimed at improving disclosures on mobile devices. But today, enhanced privacy notices based on the code are now live in apps used by 200 million consumers and the numbers are growing.
A one-year process to make substantial progress on a policy issue impacting millions of consumers – that’s lightning speed in Washington. Complex policy issues typically take years to make their way through the regulatory and legislative morass of Washington. Most efforts end in failure. The few that do reach a conclusion inevitably solve a problem that no longer exists or has been overtaken by newer issues that themselves need to be addressed.
Washington policymakers have struggled mightily to update laws impacting core technology policy issues – even when nearly everyone agrees updates are desperately needed. For example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted in 1986 – almost 30 years ago. It governs a range of key issues regarding electronic communications, but it has not been significantly revised since its enactment. ECPA has created frustrations for law enforcement, judges and advocates for decades. All key stakeholders agree that the law should be updated to take account of developments -- like the development of powerful mobile devices, widespread email use, and cloud computing – that were unforeseen in the mid-80s and are handled clumsily by ECPA. Experts have called for Congress to amend ECPA to ensure the standard of protection for online, digital content is consistent with that afforded to data in the physical world. Proposal after proposal has been floated over the years. Despite the best of intentions, lawmakers have not been able to break the logjam and update a law that is sorely in need of revision.
So in evaluating the time it takes to reach consensus in a multistakeholder process, consider the alternatives. They are no faster.
Some stakeholders have also shared their concerns that multistakeholder processes are too resource-intensive. I understand that participants have to pick and choose their battles. Meetings can be lengthy. And some participants have spent countless hours working through drafts of documents. We want to encourage broad participation in the three multistakeholder efforts that will be proceeding on parallel tracks this summer. We suggest to those companies and organizations that find it hard to attend all of these events to find a way to pool resources with other like-minded organizations to lighten the load of direct participation.
But, as with the concern about the time the process takes, some of the concerns may simply reflect that it takes time to acclimate to this new style of dealing with policy issues. Our processes are still less burdensome than working through regulatory proceedings or preparing for litigation. Every important proceeding at the FCC attracts thousands of pages of comments, which then require hundreds of hours for participants to read and digest and prepare their own filings. But people are used to that process and perhaps do not question it the same way as they might a new and less familiar process.
So in evaluating the resources it takes to reach consensus in a multistakeholder process, consider the alternatives. They are no less burdensome.
Nonetheless, we want to improve our process. If the community feels our process takes too long and uses too many resources, perhaps we should ask ourselves, are we setting the bar too high for consensus agreement? At the outset of each process, we need a shared understanding of consensus. Should the stakeholder community consider whether “rough consensus” is good enough in some instances? When stakeholders reach a point of exhaustion – where they have come to a place that the output could be operationalized in the marketplace, and later improved upon – it could be time to press pause and move forward. Stakeholders in IETF often commit themselves to “rough consensus and running code” – there could be a lesson there for our stakeholder engagements. At the end of the day, we leave it up to the community to decide when the work is done and we look forward to your input on that issue as our multistakeholder work starts up or resumes this month.
The last aspect of the multistakeholder process I will address is also perhaps the toughest. For these efforts to succeed, we need players to come to the table with open minds, committed to collaborating fully in the process. Everyone needs to be committed to reaching a consensus outcome and be willing to compromise to achieve that goal.
The strategy of some participants in legislative and regulatory proceedings may be simply to preserve the status quo – that approach will not work in a multistakeholder process. Moreover, I suggest to you that a strategy of accepting the status quo as an outcome of the discussions on the Internet policy issues we face today is not a strategy for success for your company or organization.
Just as the Internet economy is constantly evolving and disrupting existing business models, our policy responses also need to evolve. We cannot leave issues untended – all that will do is slow down innovation on the Internet and perhaps leave our businesses at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. Alan Deutschman’s business adage, “Change or Die,” applies just as aptly to Internet policy debates as it does to companies trapped in business models that are rapidly becoming obsolete.
Where does this discussion leave us? We have to ask ourselves whether we are better off playing the legislative and regulatory waiting game where progress perhaps never occurs. Or are we better off taking up these issues in discussions where we might reach consensus on some critical issues? Are we better off with laws and regulations that are obsolete when they are passed, or even a patchwork quilt of state rules and regulations, leaving millions of consumers subject to different protections depending on where they reside? Or are we better off with a process that is flexible and allows businesses to adjust in response to the rapid changes in their environments? I think the answers are clear.
So I encourage everyone who works on Internet policy issues to join in our multistakeholder processes. And when discussions get tough – as they inevitably do – double down to work past disagreements. Do not sit on the sidelines – observing but not participating in discussions. Multistakeholder processes work best when a broad range of stakeholders with differing viewpoints fully participate. Most importantly, stay in the room.
I realize these multistakeholder processes collide with the culture of Washington. It is more comfortable for companies to hire a team of lobbyists to work the regulatory agencies, lobby the Hill, and hire litigation specialists to represent their interests. It is how things have been done in this town for decades.
But we’re talking about the Internet here. The Internet has disrupted many entrenched industries from newspapers to travel to taxicabs. Perhaps it’s time for some Internet thinking by businesses to disrupt how business is done in Washington. Imagine what could be accomplished with the brightest technologists, policy makers and academics who come together in good faith to debate and reach consensus on the solutions for our most important policy challenges in the Internet age. That’s the promise of the multistakeholder model.
Come join us. And thank you for listening.
source: US Department of Commerce, NTIA (emphasis added)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
The Internet Governance Forum USA [IGF-USA]
Washington, D.C.
July 16, 2015—As Prepared for Delivery—
Thank you, Shane, for the introduction. I also want to thank the U.S. IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Planning Committee for planning this event and George Washington University for hosting. I have enjoyed having the opportunity to speak at each of these IGF-USA events since they started back in 2009.
When I look at your agenda for the day, much of it mirrors our agenda at NTIA. Rather than devoting my remarks to one specific issue, I will use my time this morning to take stock of the multistakeholder process as a tool for addressing the key issues that exist in the Internet policy space and to reaffirm our strong support for the model in the work we do.
An appropriate starting point for these remarks is the ongoing work of the global Internet community to develop the plan to transition NTIA’s stewardship role with respect to the Internet Domain Name System [DNS].
In a testament to the success of the multistakeholder model, technical experts and representatives of private industry, academia, civil society and governments are working around-the-clock to complete a transition proposal that meets the criteria we have outlined. This work is tiring; sometimes contentious; perhaps exasperating. No doubt, this is not an easy task. But it is an important one, and I greatly appreciate the effort and level of commitment demonstrated by all the participants in this process. Most importantly, it is working and I am confident it will be successful.
The effort is a compelling demonstration that bringing together all stakeholders, including businesses, technical experts, civil society and government, to resolve issues on a consensus basis is the best way to set the future direction of the Internet. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has flourished. It has driven economic growth, innovation and free expression around the globe. And a big part of its success can be attributed to this multistakeholder approach to resolving technical and policy challenges.
It is not hard to understand why this has been the case. Like the Internet itself, the multistakeholder model is characterized by its open participation and decentralized processes. The Internet thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. The multistakeholder model reflects this fact by enabling a diversity of stakeholders to participate, fostering a diversity of opinions and ideas. The result is more creative problem solving. It is a nimble, flexible approach, much better suited to rapidly changing technologies, business practices, and markets than traditional regulatory or legislative models.
This is not to say that multistakeholder processes are easy. They can be chaotic and they do require a serious commitment of time and energy from participants. But they have a record of success. The Internet works seamlessly today because a cadre of technologists, policy wonks and others through such groups as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) put their heads together to standardize voluntary programming languages, security protocols, and other web technologies.
Stakeholders continue to update these standards on an ongoing basis. If these technological challenges had been handed off to the typical Washington regulatory or legislative processes to resolve, we might still be waiting for a resolution. Worse, we might have technical protocols that are hopelessly out of date, hamstringing technologists and users from creating the robust, evolving Internet we enjoy today. One shudders to imagine an HTML standard drafted by a government committee.
And of course we have seen the model work in the context of ICANN, where the Internet community has come together to resolve technical and policy issues related to the Internet Domain Name System for nearly 17 years. This system ensures that users are able to easily access content by typing in simple names like www.doc.gov rather than confusing numeric addresses.
So we know this model can work. That’s why we continue to embrace it as the best tool to meet our mission at NTIA to preserve and protect the Internet as a platform for economic growth, innovation, and the free flow of information. This mission places us front and center at every major Internet policy debate today – privacy, Internet governance, cybersecurity and more. We are committed to making progress where we can to ensure that our digital economy continues to grow and thrive. But we cannot do it by ourselves. We need you to come to the table, roll up your sleeves and work with us to find solutions to these complex issues.
In the next several weeks, NTIA will be kicking off two new multistakeholder processes. The first will tackle issues related to privacy, transparency and accountability regarding unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Our first meeting is scheduled for August 3.
The second new process will focus on cybersecurity vulnerability disclosures and will get underway in September. We will also be reconvening the facial recognition privacy multistakeholder process on July 28. In all three instances, we selected the topics after soliciting broad input from the community. In any multistakeholder process, the community must decide when a topic is ripe for discussion and possible consensus in order for it to be successful.
We are putting our time and resources in the multistakeholder process because we know it can help build trust in the digital ecosystem. For the sustainability and continued growth of the Internet, it is imperative that we preserve the trust of all actors on the Internet. The multistakeholder process has the ability to produce – in a timely way – meaningful guideposts for industry and consumers in this rapidly evolving technological environment. That cannot be said for the legislative or regulatory processes in Washington.
As we continue to engage the community in these multistakeholder efforts, we are constantly reassessing how we employ the process. We welcome the community’s ongoing feedback on how to improve our processes. That’s part of the beauty of the model – it’s adaptable and flexible in a way that regulatory approaches could never be.
We are particularly concerned about identifying and reducing the barriers to participation in these processes. For example, we have heard concerns about the time it takes to reach consensus. I grant you that reaching consensus on challenging policy issues does not happen overnight. In our first multistakeholder process on privacy, it took over one year to reach consensus on a code of conduct aimed at improving disclosures on mobile devices. But today, enhanced privacy notices based on the code are now live in apps used by 200 million consumers and the numbers are growing.
A one-year process to make substantial progress on a policy issue impacting millions of consumers – that’s lightning speed in Washington. Complex policy issues typically take years to make their way through the regulatory and legislative morass of Washington. Most efforts end in failure. The few that do reach a conclusion inevitably solve a problem that no longer exists or has been overtaken by newer issues that themselves need to be addressed.
Washington policymakers have struggled mightily to update laws impacting core technology policy issues – even when nearly everyone agrees updates are desperately needed. For example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted in 1986 – almost 30 years ago. It governs a range of key issues regarding electronic communications, but it has not been significantly revised since its enactment. ECPA has created frustrations for law enforcement, judges and advocates for decades. All key stakeholders agree that the law should be updated to take account of developments -- like the development of powerful mobile devices, widespread email use, and cloud computing – that were unforeseen in the mid-80s and are handled clumsily by ECPA. Experts have called for Congress to amend ECPA to ensure the standard of protection for online, digital content is consistent with that afforded to data in the physical world. Proposal after proposal has been floated over the years. Despite the best of intentions, lawmakers have not been able to break the logjam and update a law that is sorely in need of revision.
So in evaluating the time it takes to reach consensus in a multistakeholder process, consider the alternatives. They are no faster.
Some stakeholders have also shared their concerns that multistakeholder processes are too resource-intensive. I understand that participants have to pick and choose their battles. Meetings can be lengthy. And some participants have spent countless hours working through drafts of documents. We want to encourage broad participation in the three multistakeholder efforts that will be proceeding on parallel tracks this summer. We suggest to those companies and organizations that find it hard to attend all of these events to find a way to pool resources with other like-minded organizations to lighten the load of direct participation.
But, as with the concern about the time the process takes, some of the concerns may simply reflect that it takes time to acclimate to this new style of dealing with policy issues. Our processes are still less burdensome than working through regulatory proceedings or preparing for litigation. Every important proceeding at the FCC attracts thousands of pages of comments, which then require hundreds of hours for participants to read and digest and prepare their own filings. But people are used to that process and perhaps do not question it the same way as they might a new and less familiar process.
So in evaluating the resources it takes to reach consensus in a multistakeholder process, consider the alternatives. They are no less burdensome.
Nonetheless, we want to improve our process. If the community feels our process takes too long and uses too many resources, perhaps we should ask ourselves, are we setting the bar too high for consensus agreement? At the outset of each process, we need a shared understanding of consensus. Should the stakeholder community consider whether “rough consensus” is good enough in some instances? When stakeholders reach a point of exhaustion – where they have come to a place that the output could be operationalized in the marketplace, and later improved upon – it could be time to press pause and move forward. Stakeholders in IETF often commit themselves to “rough consensus and running code” – there could be a lesson there for our stakeholder engagements. At the end of the day, we leave it up to the community to decide when the work is done and we look forward to your input on that issue as our multistakeholder work starts up or resumes this month.
The last aspect of the multistakeholder process I will address is also perhaps the toughest. For these efforts to succeed, we need players to come to the table with open minds, committed to collaborating fully in the process. Everyone needs to be committed to reaching a consensus outcome and be willing to compromise to achieve that goal.
The strategy of some participants in legislative and regulatory proceedings may be simply to preserve the status quo – that approach will not work in a multistakeholder process. Moreover, I suggest to you that a strategy of accepting the status quo as an outcome of the discussions on the Internet policy issues we face today is not a strategy for success for your company or organization.
Just as the Internet economy is constantly evolving and disrupting existing business models, our policy responses also need to evolve. We cannot leave issues untended – all that will do is slow down innovation on the Internet and perhaps leave our businesses at a disadvantage in the global marketplace. Alan Deutschman’s business adage, “Change or Die,” applies just as aptly to Internet policy debates as it does to companies trapped in business models that are rapidly becoming obsolete.
Where does this discussion leave us? We have to ask ourselves whether we are better off playing the legislative and regulatory waiting game where progress perhaps never occurs. Or are we better off taking up these issues in discussions where we might reach consensus on some critical issues? Are we better off with laws and regulations that are obsolete when they are passed, or even a patchwork quilt of state rules and regulations, leaving millions of consumers subject to different protections depending on where they reside? Or are we better off with a process that is flexible and allows businesses to adjust in response to the rapid changes in their environments? I think the answers are clear.
So I encourage everyone who works on Internet policy issues to join in our multistakeholder processes. And when discussions get tough – as they inevitably do – double down to work past disagreements. Do not sit on the sidelines – observing but not participating in discussions. Multistakeholder processes work best when a broad range of stakeholders with differing viewpoints fully participate. Most importantly, stay in the room.
I realize these multistakeholder processes collide with the culture of Washington. It is more comfortable for companies to hire a team of lobbyists to work the regulatory agencies, lobby the Hill, and hire litigation specialists to represent their interests. It is how things have been done in this town for decades.
But we’re talking about the Internet here. The Internet has disrupted many entrenched industries from newspapers to travel to taxicabs. Perhaps it’s time for some Internet thinking by businesses to disrupt how business is done in Washington. Imagine what could be accomplished with the brightest technologists, policy makers and academics who come together in good faith to debate and reach consensus on the solutions for our most important policy challenges in the Internet age. That’s the promise of the multistakeholder model.
Come join us. And thank you for listening.
source: US Department of Commerce, NTIA (emphasis added)
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
10 July 2015
US Ambassador Sepulveda, World Summit on the Information Society
Remarks at the First Preparatory Meeting on the Ten-year Review of the World Summit on the Information Society: Remarks at the First Preparatory Meeting on the Ten-year Review of the World Summit on the Information Society, US Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda, Coordinator and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy to United States Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, New York, NY, July 1, 2015 - AS DELIVERED:
Madam and Mister co-facilitator, excellencies, and respected colleagues, the United States of America is honored to participate in the first preparatory meeting of the UN General Assembly ten-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society.
We thank the permanent representatives from the Missions of Latvia and the United Arab Emirates for stepping forward to ably lead these important discussions. We especially thank the co-facilitators for focusing our discussions today on the three issues we all agreed last year should be the subject of the WSIS+10 review: taking stock of the progress made in the implementation of WSIS outcomes; addressing potential ICT gaps and areas for continued focus; and addressing challenges, including bridging the digital divide, and harnessing ICTs for development.
Wisely, the President of the General Assembly has asked the multistakeholder community to address these same issues tomorrow. Their viewpoints are as valuable as ours and we look forward to participating in those discussions as well.
As we take stock of the implementation of WSIS, let us recognize progress, salute the stakeholders that have enabled it, and reaffirm our commitment to preserving and building on that progress. Take a minute to consider the world we live in today compared to where we were a decade ago: mobile phone subscriptions have increased from 40% of the world’s population during the time of WSIS to over 96% today. That includes over 4 billion new subscriptions in developing countries alone. During that same time, the number of people using the Internet increased from around1 billion to over 3 billion people. Mobile broadband subscriptions, for which statistics were not even kept in 2005, have increased in developing countries from around 42 million subscriptions in 2007 to over 2.3 billion subscriptions today. At the time of WSIS, top-level domains were limited to a small subset of characters. Today, Internet domain names are available in a multitude of scripts including Cyrillic, Chinese, and Arabic, which better reflects the world’s diversity of languages and people. In many places, mobile communications are leapfrogging wired broadband development as the main conduit of information because people are demanding the ability to move themselves, ideas, and information seamlessly, without being tethered.
This is remarkable and unprecedented growth. It is a record of global achievement.
Our specific task during this preparatory process is to chart a course towards a consensus outcome at the High Level Meeting of the General Assembly in December. But our primary objective throughout the review process, has been to ensure that WSIS continues to facilitate the development and deployment of ICTs as tools for achieving our shared economic and social development goals for the people we serve.
So how do we use this final stage of the ten-year review to accomplish that task?
First, let’s identify what has worked and build on it.
It is clear that a major contribution to the rapid growth of ICTs over the past ten years has been private sector innovation, investment, and build-out of ICTs and telecommunication networks. Other stakeholders, including the technical community, academia, and civil society, have also driven innovation and adoption, as well as held public and private sector leaders to high standards of scrutiny, challenging us all to perform better.
It is this community that operates, interconnects, uses, and builds on the ICT platforms. They are the subject matter experts, and they are the ones driving the evolution and growth of the Information Society.
We, as governments, can and should enable the deployment and use of ICT products and services by creating an environment that rewards investment, sparks innovation, and facilitates the free flow of information. It is in this manner that we will make our greatest contribution to the future success of the Information Society. Governments will not capitalize on the opportunities of the digital world or solve the challenges it presents by acting alone, nor will we solve them by centralizing regulation or control over other stakeholders. We live in an age where the key ingredients for innovation and growth are cooperation and collaboration, flexibility and ingenuity. And we need the community’s multistakeholder support because they bear the largest share of the burden toward implementing solutions.
In order to ensure that WSIS continues to serve as a constructive and positive platform to facilitate ICTs for development and help us achieve the post-2015 development agenda, we should remain true to the principles set forth during the original World Summit a decade ago.
Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch on this task. Over the past few years, these principles have been reaffirmed by other WSIS review events. Throughout these intensive efforts and negotiations, we have benefitted from a spirit of mutual respect and a common mission to support the global public interest. And the WSIS outcome documents have provided a common vision and set of principles to guide our work. As we continue our efforts towards a consensus outcome document this December, we must follow that formula again.
We must ensure the WSIS+10 outcome document reaffirms the principles agreed at the World Summit and focuses on a review of our collective efforts to achieve the WSIS outcomes of building a people-centered, development-oriented Information Society. It should welcome continued practical implementation measures. It should welcome continued efforts to connect people to the Internet and ensure that they have the skills and freedom to use that connectivity productively. It should support efforts to use ICTs to achieve the SDGs. And it should once again reinforce the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, which continues to serve us well.
Further, we believe the Action Lines are broad enough to address a range of new and emerging technologies and to guide us towards the fulfillment of a new and ambitious post-2015 development agenda. We agree with those who have called for a concise and focused outcome document that addresses all the Action Lines in a holistic manner.
The WSIS outcomes clearly recognize the role of the multistakeholder community, and the Internet as one of the most powerful tools we have to enable other development goals. The United States believes that connecting people to the Internet and ensuring that they have the skills and freedom to use that connectivity productively is one of the primary missions of WSIS.
In that regard, two important elements came out of the Tunis phase of WSIS in order to facilitate discussion of Internet issues. The first is the Internet Governance Forum. The United States is a staunch supporter of the IGF and strong proponent for the continuation of its mandate. We believe that it is a critical forum for candid, multistakeholder dialogue on crosscutting Internet policy issues. It has matured and improved over the course of its ten years, and continues to produce valuable contributions to the sustainability and development of the Internet for interested stakeholders around the world. We must ensure that the IGF remains an inclusive, respected, and neutral convener of the international multistakeholder community for sharing ideas and engaging in dialogue.
The second issue out of Tunis was the process towards enhanced cooperation, which we recognize has different interpretations. The United States believes enhanced cooperation was meant to improve and strengthen the cooperation between and within existing institutions and organizations, and in forums like the IGF. On this front, we believe enhanced cooperation has been a tremendous and ongoing success for the key issues of concern to governments and all stakeholders. We believe we should recommit ourselves to such multistakeholder cooperation, and look for even more ways to work together to achieve it.
In closing, I would like to once again thank all the participants for attending this session. ICTs and the Internet are among the most powerful tools the world has seen to bring economic and social development to all people in every corner of the world, and to do so they must remain dynamic and open. We look forward to the opportunity to work together with each and every one of you to ensure that WSIS continues to facilitate that goal.
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Madam and Mister co-facilitator, excellencies, and respected colleagues, the United States of America is honored to participate in the first preparatory meeting of the UN General Assembly ten-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society.
We thank the permanent representatives from the Missions of Latvia and the United Arab Emirates for stepping forward to ably lead these important discussions. We especially thank the co-facilitators for focusing our discussions today on the three issues we all agreed last year should be the subject of the WSIS+10 review: taking stock of the progress made in the implementation of WSIS outcomes; addressing potential ICT gaps and areas for continued focus; and addressing challenges, including bridging the digital divide, and harnessing ICTs for development.
Wisely, the President of the General Assembly has asked the multistakeholder community to address these same issues tomorrow. Their viewpoints are as valuable as ours and we look forward to participating in those discussions as well.
As we take stock of the implementation of WSIS, let us recognize progress, salute the stakeholders that have enabled it, and reaffirm our commitment to preserving and building on that progress. Take a minute to consider the world we live in today compared to where we were a decade ago: mobile phone subscriptions have increased from 40% of the world’s population during the time of WSIS to over 96% today. That includes over 4 billion new subscriptions in developing countries alone. During that same time, the number of people using the Internet increased from around1 billion to over 3 billion people. Mobile broadband subscriptions, for which statistics were not even kept in 2005, have increased in developing countries from around 42 million subscriptions in 2007 to over 2.3 billion subscriptions today. At the time of WSIS, top-level domains were limited to a small subset of characters. Today, Internet domain names are available in a multitude of scripts including Cyrillic, Chinese, and Arabic, which better reflects the world’s diversity of languages and people. In many places, mobile communications are leapfrogging wired broadband development as the main conduit of information because people are demanding the ability to move themselves, ideas, and information seamlessly, without being tethered.
This is remarkable and unprecedented growth. It is a record of global achievement.
Our specific task during this preparatory process is to chart a course towards a consensus outcome at the High Level Meeting of the General Assembly in December. But our primary objective throughout the review process, has been to ensure that WSIS continues to facilitate the development and deployment of ICTs as tools for achieving our shared economic and social development goals for the people we serve.
So how do we use this final stage of the ten-year review to accomplish that task?
First, let’s identify what has worked and build on it.
It is clear that a major contribution to the rapid growth of ICTs over the past ten years has been private sector innovation, investment, and build-out of ICTs and telecommunication networks. Other stakeholders, including the technical community, academia, and civil society, have also driven innovation and adoption, as well as held public and private sector leaders to high standards of scrutiny, challenging us all to perform better.
It is this community that operates, interconnects, uses, and builds on the ICT platforms. They are the subject matter experts, and they are the ones driving the evolution and growth of the Information Society.
We, as governments, can and should enable the deployment and use of ICT products and services by creating an environment that rewards investment, sparks innovation, and facilitates the free flow of information. It is in this manner that we will make our greatest contribution to the future success of the Information Society. Governments will not capitalize on the opportunities of the digital world or solve the challenges it presents by acting alone, nor will we solve them by centralizing regulation or control over other stakeholders. We live in an age where the key ingredients for innovation and growth are cooperation and collaboration, flexibility and ingenuity. And we need the community’s multistakeholder support because they bear the largest share of the burden toward implementing solutions.
In order to ensure that WSIS continues to serve as a constructive and positive platform to facilitate ICTs for development and help us achieve the post-2015 development agenda, we should remain true to the principles set forth during the original World Summit a decade ago.
Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch on this task. Over the past few years, these principles have been reaffirmed by other WSIS review events. Throughout these intensive efforts and negotiations, we have benefitted from a spirit of mutual respect and a common mission to support the global public interest. And the WSIS outcome documents have provided a common vision and set of principles to guide our work. As we continue our efforts towards a consensus outcome document this December, we must follow that formula again.
We must ensure the WSIS+10 outcome document reaffirms the principles agreed at the World Summit and focuses on a review of our collective efforts to achieve the WSIS outcomes of building a people-centered, development-oriented Information Society. It should welcome continued practical implementation measures. It should welcome continued efforts to connect people to the Internet and ensure that they have the skills and freedom to use that connectivity productively. It should support efforts to use ICTs to achieve the SDGs. And it should once again reinforce the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, which continues to serve us well.
Further, we believe the Action Lines are broad enough to address a range of new and emerging technologies and to guide us towards the fulfillment of a new and ambitious post-2015 development agenda. We agree with those who have called for a concise and focused outcome document that addresses all the Action Lines in a holistic manner.
The WSIS outcomes clearly recognize the role of the multistakeholder community, and the Internet as one of the most powerful tools we have to enable other development goals. The United States believes that connecting people to the Internet and ensuring that they have the skills and freedom to use that connectivity productively is one of the primary missions of WSIS.
In that regard, two important elements came out of the Tunis phase of WSIS in order to facilitate discussion of Internet issues. The first is the Internet Governance Forum. The United States is a staunch supporter of the IGF and strong proponent for the continuation of its mandate. We believe that it is a critical forum for candid, multistakeholder dialogue on crosscutting Internet policy issues. It has matured and improved over the course of its ten years, and continues to produce valuable contributions to the sustainability and development of the Internet for interested stakeholders around the world. We must ensure that the IGF remains an inclusive, respected, and neutral convener of the international multistakeholder community for sharing ideas and engaging in dialogue.
The second issue out of Tunis was the process towards enhanced cooperation, which we recognize has different interpretations. The United States believes enhanced cooperation was meant to improve and strengthen the cooperation between and within existing institutions and organizations, and in forums like the IGF. On this front, we believe enhanced cooperation has been a tremendous and ongoing success for the key issues of concern to governments and all stakeholders. We believe we should recommit ourselves to such multistakeholder cooperation, and look for even more ways to work together to achieve it.
In closing, I would like to once again thank all the participants for attending this session. ICTs and the Internet are among the most powerful tools the world has seen to bring economic and social development to all people in every corner of the world, and to do so they must remain dynamic and open. We look forward to the opportunity to work together with each and every one of you to ensure that WSIS continues to facilitate that goal.
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
03 May 2015
Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit | NTIA:
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling--As Prepared for Delivery--
Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling--As Prepared for Delivery--
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
Internet2 Global Summit
Washington, D.C.
April 28, 2015
I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit. Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant. With this grant, Internet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network. This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research and education networks. Several of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of learning.
However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband. My topic today is Internet governance. This is an important and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2. As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2 community.” Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic community decades ago.
The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the Internet evolved, were universities: UCLA, Stanford, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah. The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history.
New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders. As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet? Who should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like? How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today?
The debate has focused on two very different choices. One choice is that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the Internet. This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that want to restrict the information available to their citizens. The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
What do we mean by the multistakeholder model? One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[1]”
From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize: participation and consensus decision-making.
Let me start with participation. Internet policy issues draw a much larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues. One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage all interested parties. Such parties can include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic experts and even the general public. The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative problem solving.
The second key attribute is consensus decision-making. It is important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing. The best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a consensus basis. Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communities involved.
Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are directly responsible for its success. Within the Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet.
There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed. Congress agrees. Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the “United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a consensus fashion.”
Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture. We are continuing to oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision making with a process limited only to governments. This debate came to a head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. At this meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control over the Internet. A majority of countries there supported greater governmental control.
However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing countries. Democracies in the developed world have long supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation. The OECD principles state, “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy challenges.”
What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing countries. A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with each other. At this meeting not only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation.
Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance. The United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity issues.
This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time. Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to websites.
The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community. We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues. Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control over how the Internet is governed.
When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes place. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet.
We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security and openness of the Internet. The community is in the process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.
I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.
Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussions to design the transition plan. Others of you are no doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you. The members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress.
Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses. Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root.
The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the multistakeholder community. All of you can play a role to ensure a good outcome. First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning process. You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition progresses. Second, stay informed on the progress of the transition. When the community completes its consensus plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic community played a central role in the development of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future. Thank you for listening.
[1] Mueller, M.2010. Networks and States, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, at 82, quoting Karen Banks.
Internet2 Global Summit
Washington, D.C.
April 28, 2015
I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit. Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant. With this grant, Internet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network. This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research and education networks. Several of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of learning.
However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband. My topic today is Internet governance. This is an important and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2. As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2 community.” Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic community decades ago.
The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the Internet evolved, were universities: UCLA, Stanford, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah. The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history.
New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders. As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet? Who should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like? How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today?
The debate has focused on two very different choices. One choice is that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the Internet. This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that want to restrict the information available to their citizens. The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
What do we mean by the multistakeholder model? One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[1]”
From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize: participation and consensus decision-making.
Let me start with participation. Internet policy issues draw a much larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues. One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage all interested parties. Such parties can include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic experts and even the general public. The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative problem solving.
The second key attribute is consensus decision-making. It is important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing. The best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a consensus basis. Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communities involved.
Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are directly responsible for its success. Within the Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet.
There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed. Congress agrees. Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the “United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a consensus fashion.”
Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture. We are continuing to oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision making with a process limited only to governments. This debate came to a head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. At this meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control over the Internet. A majority of countries there supported greater governmental control.
However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing countries. Democracies in the developed world have long supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation. The OECD principles state, “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy challenges.”
What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing countries. A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with each other. At this meeting not only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation.
Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance. The United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity issues.
This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time. Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to websites.
The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community. We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues. Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control over how the Internet is governed.
When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes place. First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet.
We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security and openness of the Internet. The community is in the process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.
I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.
Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussions to design the transition plan. Others of you are no doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you. The members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress.
Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses. Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root.
The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the multistakeholder community. All of you can play a role to ensure a good outcome. First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning process. You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition progresses. Second, stay informed on the progress of the transition. When the community completes its consensus plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition. We all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic community played a central role in the development of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future. Thank you for listening.
[1] Mueller, M.2010. Networks and States, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, at 82, quoting Karen Banks.
27 April 2015
Multistakeholder Guidance on DMCA Notice and Takedown Best Practices
U.S. Dept. of Commerce Releases Multistakeholder Guidance on DMCA Notice and Takedown Best Practices | Proskauer - New Media & Technology - JDSupra:
Multistakeholder Guidance on DMCA Notice and Takedown Best Practices
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Multistakeholder Guidance on DMCA Notice and Takedown Best Practices
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
25 March 2015
Internet Governance Forum 2015, João Pessoa, Brazil, 10-13 Nov 2015
Internet Governance Forum: "IGF 2015 The Tenth Annual IGF Meeting is scheduled to take place in João Pessoa, Brazil, on 10-13 November 2015. [NEW] Overarching Theme and Sub-Themes After consulting the wider Internet community and discussing the overarching theme of the 2015 IGF meeting, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group decided to retain the title “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development”. This theme will be supported by eight sub-themes that will frame the discussions at the João Pessoa meeting: Cybersecurity and Trust; Internet Economy; Inclusiveness and Diversity; Openness; Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation; Internet and Human Rights; Critical Internet Resources; Emerging Issues. Refer to the MAG Chair's Blog for further information."
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
27 September 2014
ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, US Government Preparations
A continuation of yesterday's post: The Internet, US Government, ICANN, ITU Plenipotentiary Conference--
So the US government has been feverishly preparing for next month's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Korea, hopeful of avoiding the spectacle of having to walk out again (see WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies)--
Preparing for Busan: Regional Unity in Inter-American Proposals to the 2014 International Telecommunications Union Plenipotentiary Conference | DipNote: (September 17, 2014) "... With only two days to get the job done, the United States and our friends in other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Colombia, Paraguay, the Dominican Republic, and The Bahamas, hammered out an unprecedented 46 Inter-American Proposals for the upcoming International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference this October-November in Busan, Korea. As a statement of regional unity and shared values, the importance of these proposals cannot be overstated. With the leadership of an incredibly able Chairman from Canada and the good will of all involved, delegates formed a sensible center on some of the most controversial issues that the ITU conference will face, including those surrounding Internet governance... All in all, we found a way to manage a complex dance with multiple moving parts without stepping on each other’s toes. And in this case, the number of partners was more than two. In short, it was a very successful final regional preparatory meeting for the United States– a success we share with others in our region and that we believe establishes a sound platform for success in October in Busan."-- Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy in the State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB)."
Joint Press Statement for the U.S.-Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the Internet Economy - The Sixth Director General-Level Meeting: September 19, 2014--"The United States and Japan held the sixth Director General-level meeting of the U.S.-Japan Policy Cooperation Dialogue on the Internet Economy in Washington, D.C. on September 16 and 17, 2014. "In this dialogue, which included a session with private sector representatives, participants held candid and vibrant discussions on important Internet and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) topics, such as: U.S.-Japan cooperation for ensuring the multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance; the use of personal data and protection of privacy; improving awareness of cyber security risks; telecommunications services; open data; R&D cooperation; and ICT for development. In particular, the United States and Japan continued their joint coordination in preparation for the upcoming Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU PP-14). (1) U.S.-Japan Cooperation for Securing the Multi-Stakeholder System of Internet Governance - Participants underscored the importance of an inclusive, open, and transparent system of Internet governance based on the multi-stakeholder approach endorsed in international fora, such as the “NETmundial” conference held in Sao Paolo, Brazil in April 2014. Participants noted satisfaction with increasing global support for multi-stakeholder Internet governance and shared the view that international cooperation on Internet policy issues is vital to ensuring the free flow of information and further development of the global Internet Economy. Specifically, participants concurred that both governments will steadfastly support free and open Internet policies at ITU PP-14, to be convened in Busan, Republic of Korea, in October 2014. Participants further concurred that sustaining the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance is essential to preserving the free and open Internet... The Japanese government expressed its support for the U.S. government’s announcement to transition stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to the global multi-stakeholder community as the final phase of the privatization of the Domain Name System (DNS), as outlined by the U.S. government in 1997. Participants expressed satisfaction with the growing role of the multistakeholder community in Internet Governance activities.... the United States and Japan share core values such as democracy and the free flow of information and that both will cooperate to lead development of the global Internet Economy. Participants commented that this public event symbolized solid cooperation between the two countries on Internet Economy issues, and noted that this event helped draw attention to the importance of bilateral and multilateral cooperation in this field... "
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
So the US government has been feverishly preparing for next month's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Korea, hopeful of avoiding the spectacle of having to walk out again (see WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies)--
Preparing for Busan: Regional Unity in Inter-American Proposals to the 2014 International Telecommunications Union Plenipotentiary Conference | DipNote: (September 17, 2014) "... With only two days to get the job done, the United States and our friends in other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Colombia, Paraguay, the Dominican Republic, and The Bahamas, hammered out an unprecedented 46 Inter-American Proposals for the upcoming International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference this October-November in Busan, Korea. As a statement of regional unity and shared values, the importance of these proposals cannot be overstated. With the leadership of an incredibly able Chairman from Canada and the good will of all involved, delegates formed a sensible center on some of the most controversial issues that the ITU conference will face, including those surrounding Internet governance... All in all, we found a way to manage a complex dance with multiple moving parts without stepping on each other’s toes. And in this case, the number of partners was more than two. In short, it was a very successful final regional preparatory meeting for the United States– a success we share with others in our region and that we believe establishes a sound platform for success in October in Busan."-- Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy in the State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB)."
--Stay tuned.
more info:
http://www.itupp2014.org/en_main/?en_popup=1
http://www.itupp2014.org/en_main/?skin=1010
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2014/Advisory-13.aspx#.VB6ApfldUdp
http://www.itupp2014.org/en_main/?skin=1010
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2014/Advisory-13.aspx#.VB6ApfldUdp
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
03 September 2014
IGF 2014, Featured Sessions Wednesday
Internet Governance Forum 2014, featured Wednesday sessions:
No. 23 WS23: Accountability in MultiStakeholder Governance Regime ICANN
Discussion of how accountability goals are achieved at ICANN under its multi-stakeholder governance processes. To whom is ICANN accountable and what are the mechanisms for ensuring that accountability is adequate? In what way do these mechanisms need strengthening or further improvements, particularly in light of NTIA’s announcement to transition out its current role? How do checks and balances on power, such as structural separation of key DNS operations encourage accountability? How have ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments and the Accountability and Transparency Review Team fostered (or undermined) accountability goals at ICANN? What lessens were learned from the AoC and ATRT processes on achieving accountability under a multi-stakeholder governance regime? What is the role of ICANN's Ombudsman Office in achieving accountability for the institution?
Wednesday, September 3 • 11:00am - 12:30pm
No. 185: WS185: ICANN Globalization and the Affirmation of Commitments
Discussion of how accountability goals are achieved at ICANN under its multi-stakeholder governance processes. To whom is ICANN accountable and what are the mechanisms for ensuring that accountability is adequate? In what way do these mechanisms need strengthening or further improvements, particularly in light of NTIA’s announcement to transition out its current role? How do checks and balances on power, such as structural separation of key DNS operations encourage accountability? How have ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments and the Accountability and Transparency Review Team fostered (or undermined) accountability goals at ICANN? What lessens were learned from the AoC and ATRT processes on achieving accountability under a multi-stakeholder governance regime? What is the role of ICANN's Ombudsman Office in achieving accountability for the institution?
No. 185: WS185: ICANN Globalization and the Affirmation of Commitments
Should the bilateral (US Gov-ICANN) relationship be replaced by a “Web of Affirmation of Commitments” between ICANN and the world’s governments and relevant nongovernmental actors, as advocated by an ICANN Strategy Panel? Could the US role simply be removed from the equation, rather than being replaced by formal agreements with other parties? Would another arrangement better promote globalization and multistakeholderism while preserving the security, stability and unity of the Internet? How far can ICANN’s globalization be advanced while preserving ICANN’s legal status and nexus of contractual relationships? Could the innovative AOC serve as a model for other global Internet governance issue-areas? The workshop would bring together architects of the AOC with other leading proponents of ICANN’s globalization.
Wednesday, September 3 • 2:30pm - 4:00pm
No. 191: ICANN Globalization in an Evolving IG Ecosystem
IGF 2014 Schedule
This workshop is targeted toward those with an interest in the evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem, and will address a range of issues in this area including:
• ICANN accountability and transparency mechanisms;
• Globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, including the NTIA transition dialogue;
• Enhancing global multi-stakeholder Internet governance cooperation, including reflections on Netmundial;
• Roadmap toward collaborative and inclusive Internet Governance, including the output of the High-Level Panel.
IGF 2014 Schedule
31 August 2014
Internet Governance Forum, Istanbul, Sept 2-5, ICANN Activities
 |
| ICANN activities at IGF 2014 |
The ninth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Istanbul, Turkey, September 2-5
IGF 2014 Schedule
Update: Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance Town Hall Meeting to take place at Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul - ICANN: "ICANN staff invites all interested stakeholders to a Town Hall Meeting to discuss the Enhancing ICANNAccountability and Governance Process during the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Istanbul, Turkey. The Town Hall Meeting will provide an opportunity for an open dialogue to address and clarify any remaining questions about the Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance Process."
Date/Time: Tuesday 2 September 2014 06:00-07:30 UTC (Time zone conversions can be found here) [2 AM EDT (US)]
Location: ICEC in the Topkapi A Room, Istanbul, Turkey
Remote Participation Information:
Online Meeting Room: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?MTID=md43f4ed6d6fb2922239ea63ba730800f
Meeting Number: 959 336 622
Meeting Password: ICANN
Audio Conference Information:
Call-in toll number (UK): +44 203 478 5289
Global call-in numbers: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=312692962&tollFree=0
Access code: 959 336 622
Other ICANN related events:
No. 185: WS185: ICANN Globalization and the Affirmation of Commitments Wednesday, September 3 • 11:00am - 12:30pm
No. 191: ICANN Globalization in an Evolving IG Ecosystem Wednesday, September 3 • 2:30pm - 4:00pm
IGF 2014: Main/Focus Session: IANA Functions: NTIA...: Friday, September 5 • 9:30am - 11:00am Main/Focus Session: IANA Functions: NTIA's Stewardship Transition and ICANN's Accountability Process (Time Conversion)
Pre-Events
Side-Meetings
As underlined in the Tunis Agenda, the IGF is a multistakeholder, democratic and transparent forum which facilitates discussions on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. Given its inclusive nature, the Forum welcomes the participation of all stakeholders in the Internet governance ecosystem, including all entities accredited by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), as well as other institutions and individuals with proven expertise and experience in all matters related to Internet governance. The main theme of the ninth IGF is "Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance" – a theme inspired by the location of the meeting itself and agreed upon after wide consultation among stakeholders. Discussions during the four-day meeting will address a wide range of Internet governance issues, grouped in the following sub-themes: Policies Enabling Access; Content Creation, Dissemination and Use; Internet as an Engine for Growth & Development; IGF & The Future of the Internet Ecosystem; Enhancing Digital Trust; Internet and Human Rights; Critical Internet Resources and Emerging issues. More than 100 different sessions are expected to be held, allowing for comprehensive debates reflecting the voices of various stakeholders from different parts of the world and building upon the discussions and outcomes of other Internet governance meetings, fora and organisations. The ninth IGF will also actively respond to the outcomes of the NETmundial by taking forward the issues discussed there in a variety of ways. The programme will also include orientation sessions and capacity building opportunities for those interested, as well as the possibility for national and regional IGF initiatives to share their respective work and experiences. (source: IGF)
More info on the IGF: Internet Governance Forum - Wikipedia
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
No. 185: WS185: ICANN Globalization and the Affirmation of Commitments Wednesday, September 3 • 11:00am - 12:30pm
No. 191: ICANN Globalization in an Evolving IG Ecosystem Wednesday, September 3 • 2:30pm - 4:00pm
Pre-Events
Side-Meetings
As underlined in the Tunis Agenda, the IGF is a multistakeholder, democratic and transparent forum which facilitates discussions on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. Given its inclusive nature, the Forum welcomes the participation of all stakeholders in the Internet governance ecosystem, including all entities accredited by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), as well as other institutions and individuals with proven expertise and experience in all matters related to Internet governance. The main theme of the ninth IGF is "Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance" – a theme inspired by the location of the meeting itself and agreed upon after wide consultation among stakeholders. Discussions during the four-day meeting will address a wide range of Internet governance issues, grouped in the following sub-themes: Policies Enabling Access; Content Creation, Dissemination and Use; Internet as an Engine for Growth & Development; IGF & The Future of the Internet Ecosystem; Enhancing Digital Trust; Internet and Human Rights; Critical Internet Resources and Emerging issues. More than 100 different sessions are expected to be held, allowing for comprehensive debates reflecting the voices of various stakeholders from different parts of the world and building upon the discussions and outcomes of other Internet governance meetings, fora and organisations. The ninth IGF will also actively respond to the outcomes of the NETmundial by taking forward the issues discussed there in a variety of ways. The programme will also include orientation sessions and capacity building opportunities for those interested, as well as the possibility for national and regional IGF initiatives to share their respective work and experiences. (source: IGF)
More info on the IGF: Internet Governance Forum - Wikipedia
more news links below (on mobile go to web version link below)
Follow @expvccom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
