INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES
The Internet is a common empowering resource for all people and all stakeholder groups. It should not be owned or controlled by any single group or entity and therefore internet governance processes should be inclusive, open and transparent, and enable good management, fair use and the evolution of the internet as a safe and secure platform for economic, social, political and cultural development. To achieve this, Internet governance need to be based on a set of common principles rooted in human rights and the broadest possible public interest. (source: APC)
I. Human Rights
Reinforce the right to privacy
Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights law. Surveillance is a direct and imminent threat to privacy, therefore societies must not be placed under surveillance. Individuals should be protected against [unlimited] collection, storage, use and disclosure of their personal data.
(source: Necessary & Proportionate + Informational self-determindation concept)
Right to development
Support this. Internet governance should support the vital role of the internet as an enabler of development.
II. Culture and linguistic diversity
III. Unified and unfragmented space
Explicitly address Net Neutrality
Should be reinforced in the following sections: Unified and unfragmented space; Open and distributed architecture and Accessibility and low barriers
Internet should be a globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique identifiers and that allows the free, not discriminating flow of data packets/information, or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.
(aditions in bold made as comments to the original text)
IV. Security, stability and resilience of the Internet
V. Open and distributed architecture
Explicitly address Net Neutrality
“The Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative environment based on an open system architecture, with voluntary collaboration, collective stewardship and participation, recognizing technical management principles for efficient and improved network operation and preserving the end-to-end nature of the network, protocol equality, network neutrality and seeking to resolve technical issues at a level closest to their origin.”
VI. Enabling environment for innovation and creativity
Reinforce right to access to knowledge and the right to share
The internet enables knowledge-sharing and collaborative knowledge-creation. Protection of the interests of creators must occur in a way consistent with open and free participation in scientific and cultural knowledge flows. The Internet should remain neutral and free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship.
VII. Internet governance process principles
Set some clear language for a balanced Multistakeholder approach:
Internet governance processes, policy and decisions should respect and support full participation of all affected internet users [and future users] and stakeholders,
including governments, civil society, technical community, private sector and academia. Any multistakeholder approach should particularly enable meaningful participation from developing countries and underrepresented groups. When stakeholder representatives need to be appointed, they should be selected through open, participatory and transparent processes, in which different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined, well-documented and accountable mechanisms.
(APC language + language of paragraphs 6, 8, 10 of the roadmap)
Accessibility and low barriers
Explicitly address Net Neutrality
Internet governance should promote universal, equal opportunity, affordable and high quality Internet access, in accordance with the principle of net neutrality, so it can be an effective tool for enabling human development and social inclusion. There should be no unreasonable barriers to entry for new users.
VIII. Open standards
Internet governance should promote the use and production of free and open source software and open public standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience and decisions made by open consensus, that allow for a interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected networks, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation.
ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE
I. Issues that deserve attention of all stakeholders in the Internet governance future evolution.
SKIP on the basis of: Multi-stakeholderism was addressed in the principles document
II. Issues dealing with institutional improvements.
IANA / ICANN
IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends has to take place through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community, striving towards a completed transition by September 2015.
The transition of the key domain name function to the global multistakeholder community should be discussed and designed with full deliberative participation of all relevant stakeholders in a variety of fora. The Internet is a global resource so everyone has a stake in its future, this should be represented in the open, inclusive and participative deliberation process. To achieve this the transparency and accountability of ICANN in general, and of the board specifically, should be improved.
It is desirable to keep an adequate separation between the policy process and its operational aspects as well as strong independent oversight. All stakeholders must be able to meaningfully contribute to the deliberative IANA transition process in which will be decided whether structural or functional separation is the best way to do this.
Coordination mechanism/”policy knowledge connector” (Bill) / clearing house
#Support and straighten ¶24: “There should be adequate communication and coordination among existing forums, task forces and organizations of the Internet governance ecosystem. Periodical reports, formal liaisons and timely feedbacks are examples of mechanisms that could be implemented to that end. It would be recommendable to analyze the option of creating Internet governance coordination tools to perform on-going monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing functions.
Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder “coordination mechanism/policy knowledge connector” could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making.
#Suggest We deal with the issue about where the coordination function should sit, ie. the disagreement over whether it be the CSTD or IGF. Also whether it should be the same body that hosts working groups for orphan issues.
III. Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics
[III/1. Security and stability — Do we want do add here?]
Internet surveillance – Mass surveillance, which comprises collection, processing and interception of all forms of communication undermines internet security and trust in all personal, business and diplomatic communication. Mass surveillance is fundamental human rights violation.
Targeted interception, and collection of personal data should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law. Critical and intermediate infrastructure must not be tampered with in service of targeted intercept. Personal computing devices are the core of our personal lives – their sancitity must not be violated.
No system, protocol or standard should be weakened to facilitate interception or decryption of communication or data.
Future dialogue requires full disclosure of technical sources and methods for democratic discussion on this topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects and their implementation. The Necessary and Proportionate principles should be the vantage point of this discussion
III/3. Capacity building
Capacity building and financing are key requirements to ensure that diverse stakeholders have an opportunity for more than nominal participation, but in fact gain the knowhow and the resources for effective participation. Capacity building is important to support the emergence of true multistakeholder communities, especially in those regions where the participation of some stakeholders groups needs to be further strengthened
IV. Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial
V. Way Forward