All posts in Statements

As organisations and individuals who work in the area of Internet policy and human rights, we write to express our grave concern with the Draft Online Regulation Policy recently issued by the Film and Publication Board of South Africa. We perceive that the Board is overstepping its mandate as the statutory body tasked with classifying films and “certain publications”, to push through a draconian, ham-fisted set of regulations to govern online content, that will significantly threaten free expression in South Africa. Although the Board is ostensibly acting to protect users from harmful content, and in particular, to clamp down on the online abuse of children, on closer examination this appears to be no more than a cynical pretext to police what ordinary South Africans can see, hear and say online.

The wording of the regulations, currently in draft form, is so ambiguous that they could in effect apply to any and all forms of online content and any entity that uploads and publishes such content. According to the regulations, all online distributors would need to apply for a license and would be expected to classify content before publication. The Board is overstepping its mandate in an attempt to extend its powers to classify, while at the same time outsourcing the role of classification to distributors, who will be forced simply to comply with the Board’s own rigid classificatory rules.

The very idea of the administrative prior restraint of expression – in this case the FPB insisting that all content is withheld until it is classified – reeks of crude censorship. It is an unjustifiable and excessive limitation on our fundamental right to free expression. We should not have to prove that expression is legitimate before expressing it; the burden of proof must lie with those who are attempting to limit the right.

Perhaps even more worrying is that the Board is giving itself Orwellian powers of enforcement. Distributors that the Board deems non-compliant could have their distribution licenses revoked and be forced to submit all content to the Board for classification. The Board will also be able to send classifiers to the premises of distributors, who would be compelled to hand over any and all content to the classifiers.

What the Board is attempting is reminiscent of an earlier, darker period in South Africa’s history. During apartheid, political dissent was muzzled by a corps of censors who banned films, plays and publications on such moralistic grounds as protecting people’s dignity and upholding public decency and order. Similarly, the FPB refers to vague and subjective notions in its regulations, such as the need to uphold ‘community standards’. It is clear to see how the regulations – in the hands of an increasingly insecure state – would open the door to censorship and abuse by various means.

Lastly, experience of similar censorship regimes shows that the regulations will inevitably be ineffective – they will have a devastating effect where legitimate expression is concerned, while having a negligible effect on combating child abuse content. Child “pornography”, which is usually hidden in the deep recesses of the internet (the so-called Deep Web), is explicitly outlawed and should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. This is not a role for a crusading administrative body.

The Internet is a global asset that belongs to us all! We ask you to heed the voices of the many South Africans and allies from around the world who stand in support of a free and open Internet, by withdrawing this misguided regulation.

Those endorsing this letter are also encouraged to sign the petition on this topic hosted by the Right2Know Campaign, a coalition of activists and progressive organisations that since 2010 has spearheaded the push for freedom of expression and information access in South Africa. In recent years Right2Know has exposed police brutality and the widespread harassment and surveillance of activists and media workers, confronted the notorious Secrecy Bill, pushed back against security sector overreach, and defended the increasingly beleaguered South African media from corporate and government manipulation.

The organizations and individuals listed below offer the following comments on the Draft 2015 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on Internet freedom.

General remarks

Beginning with the title of the draft recommendation, the choice of the phrase “Internet freedom” has unfortunately become a problematic one for a significant number of civil society groups. Although human rights are universal and apply equally online as offline (and in this respect we certainly support paragraph 1 of the recommendation), for some the history of the use of the phrase “Internet freedom” has a more specific connotation, at best involving the incautious imposition of a very particular configuration of global North based deregulatory and self-regulatory norms and practices to the rest of the world, and at worst referencing the hypocritical stance of the governments that advanced this concept while simultaneously engaging in the most egregious mass infringement of users’ privacy in history. It would be better if the Council of Europe could transition to the use of a more neutral phrase such as “human rights on the Internet”.

The recommendation focuses on the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly and the right to a private life. However, there are a range of other rights that apply online as offline, also recognised in the UCHR. The are also certain cultural rights that are absent from the ECHR, that could nevertheless be referenced, such as by citing the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity, to reflect the importance of a multilingual and culturally diverse Internet.

Specific suggestions

We continue by offering some more specific textual suggestions.

The statement in paragraph 5 states, “Laws and policies relating to the Internet are developed by State authorities in an open process which enables the participation of all stakeholders”. This leaves open a possible misinterpretation that states have sovereignty in making policies not having the force of law. In fact this is not the case, as other documents such as the NETmundial Principles recognise. We suggest language from the NETmundial Principles could substitute for this provision, eg. “Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion”.

Addressing paragraph 7 on page 3, on digital literacy, we note that according to Article 27 of the UDHR “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”. This underlines that the right to culture is not only about a passive access to cultural, educational etc. resources as described in this paragraph, but also a right to actively use these.

We are concerned about paragraph 8 on page 3, “The State promotes Internet self-regulation and the development and existence of ethical standards for Internet users”, for several reasons. First, although the Internet has thrived with a light touch regulatory approach, it is not useful to assume that self-regulation is appropriate as a default position for every regulatory problem. Therefore this is not something that the state should promote across the board, devoid of context. Second, the assertion that states should promote ethical standards for Internet users is vague and could be interpreted to justify unwarranted intrusions into their private lives, for example by exerting soft pressure for them to comply with culturally specific norms of conduct. Unless a more specific case can be made for this provision, we recommend its deletion.

Paragraph 1.1 on page 3 contains a double-negative, and we recommend rewording it to eliminate this, perhaps as “The availability, accessibility and affordability of Internet access for all groups of population without any discrimination is facilitated by the absence of infrastructural limitations or financial barriers.”

Paragraph 1.4 on page 4 acknowledges that disconnection of individuals from Internet access is a disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of expression, yet it goes on to authorise this restriction so long as due process and a right of appeal exists. This seems inconsistent—if it is intended to refer to the measure of withholding Internet access from those who are incarcerated, then we suggest it limit the authorisation of the measure to this specific case, or otherwise to remove it.

Paragraph 1.5 on page 4 reads as requiring private Internet service providers to maintain service even in cases of turmoil. This could place independent service providers at the risk or physical and financial harm. We recommend that it be limited to the obligation of states not to require or pressure ISPs to suspend service.

Paragraph 2.1 seems to define ‘surveillance on the Internet’ as inherently ‘bulk’, which doesn’t really make sense. It has the additional adverse effect of presupposing that bulk surveillance can be ok as long as it’s transparent / foreseeable, while some might argue that bulk is inherently disproportionate (depending on how ‘bulk’ is ultimately defined, which is left open here). That’s not good at all. It should just say ‘any surveillance measure’ like all the other clauses. Or it should just say ‘which consists of access to, collection, etc.’ and cut the ‘bulk’.

Also, it shouldn’t be ‘access to, collection and retention of’. At the very least, this needs to be ‘or’ not ‘and’, because each of those actions (access to, collection of, retention of) raise their own problems. Limiting it to ‘and’ is a problem because it sounds like there’s no issue if data is accessed and collected, but not retained, etc. Finally, we should add ‘monitored’ to the list because there’s a tendency to disregard monitoring of communications stream is irrelevant in some jurisdictions. So in all it should become:

2.1. Surveillance on the Internet, which consists of access to, monitoring, collection or retention of communications data (content and metadata including information on individuals, their location and online activities) is done in accordance with the law which is accessible, clear and precise and foreseeable.

Point 2.7 (on page 4) partly recognises that States should have an obligation to inform users of the imposition of and justification for legitimate restrictions of their rights. However it only covers impingements upon freedom of expression. It is not covered with respect to any of the other rights. The recommendation should broaden this point to cover other human rights infringements, or duplicate it with an equivalent provision in the sections on other rights.

Paragraph 4.2 on page 5 singles out defamation laws, specifying that they should be specific and narrowly defined. We suggest that this be broadened at least to include laws on sedition and lèse majesté.

Paragraph 5 on page 8 allows Internet intermediaries to be held liable for content uploaded onto their systems by Internet users or other parties when they do not act expeditiously to remove or disable access to information or services as soon as they become aware of their illegal nature. We find this to be inconsistent with paragraph 2.3 which does not require intermediaries to remove content without a court or administrative order, and is similarly inconsistent with the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability to which many civil society organisations have subscribed (see http://www.manilaprinciples.org/) which require a court order in such cases.

Please note that Access (accessnow.org) has submitted its own comments, which are largely consistent with the comments contained in this joint submission.The submission be found here: https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/04/28/internet-freedom-access-submits-input-to-the-council-of-europe

Introduction

There is broad support within civil society for the continuation of a reformed and strengthened IGF.[0] At the same time, it is undeniable that the almost decade-long evolution of the IGF has been very slow and cautious, in comparison to other fora and events such as NETmundial.[1] This may have spurred the development of a number of other meetings and initiatives which, on some level, compete with the IGF.

Whilst this diversity of initiatives can be positive, there is also the risk that too many of them may sap energy and attention from the IGF itself, which has a particular impact on civil society whose resources to participate in multiple initiatives is the most constrained. This effect could be minimised if the IGF would be more responsive to suggestions that stakeholders have made, often repeatedly,[1] to address observed deficits in the IGF’s structure and format.

One of the difficulties is that there is really no “IGF” to effectively evaluate and implement these suggestions; there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF, and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats.

The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes.  But in the interim, it would also be possible for the periodic open consultation meetings to be facilitated – perhaps by an independent professional – in a way that is more open to blue-sky thinking, rather than being limited to a narrow analysis of the annual meeting themes and the like.

Even the present consultation, which is limited to “format”, “schedule” and “themes”, reveals a certain narrowness of thinking in this regard.  It does not lend itself very well to suggestions about the structural evolution of the IGF that might allow it to more fully execute its mandate, such as significant changes to its management structure,[1] the execution of a coordinating function,[2] or the establishment of issue-specific multistakeholder working groups[2].

Format

Perhaps the most significant departure from previous practice at the Istanbul meeting was the new Best Practice Forum mechanism. This was effectively a compromise between the call by many for outputs from the IGF, and the reluctance of others for the IGF to adopt processes that could produce such outputs by consensus. A result of this compromise is that since the outcome documents (once they are released) do not represent a consensus, they may not be regarded as particularly persuasive or useful by external governance bodies.

More effective use could have been made of the academic community to contribute towards the development of the draft best practice recommendations, rather than expecting a self-selected multi-stakeholder group (and in practice, only a few individuals within the group) to develop these. The most distinctive contribution of a multi-stakeholder group is not its technical expertise in developing policy options, but rather the legitimacy that it provides by bringing multiple perspectives to bear on the task of deciding between those options.

Another relatively new practice, first adopted for the Bali meeting and repeated at the Istanbul meeting, was the call to the community for suggestions of policy questions to be addressed at the meeting. All of these – 49 in Bali and 31 in Istanbul – were simply collected and passed on to session organisers. This was not effective in practice and should not be repeated. Instead, a more collaborative process of developing a smaller list of pressing policy problems (like the five selected for the Best Practice Forums) should be used.

Despite various proposals made from time to time,[1] the IGF has yet to experiment with any large-scale, participatory and deliberative session format aimed towards the development of consensus resolutions on policy issues, somewhat like the NETmundial process, which was a combination of online and face-to-face work utilising both small and large multi-stakeholder groups. The IGF should draw on the services of a specialist in participatory event organisation to experiment with this type of session format.[3]

Schedule

The scheduling of the IGF should cover the full year, including timelines for working groups to develop concrete proposals to be taken further at the IGF. This would give it the capacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern.

Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting. Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF, because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the face-to-face meetings.[1]

The workshop proposal review process remains flawed. There is a perception that workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists’ attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved, which creates a vicious circle, and also provides an incentive for workshop organisers to misstate whether panelists are confirmed. Workshop proponents are given no feedback on why their workshops were not approved, and overall the process is not conducted transparently.

The face to face Best Practice Forums in Istanbul were not helped by being scheduled alongside workshops, with the result that most IGF participants did not take part in them. If the IGF is to develop outputs with the chance of gaining the broadest possible consensus and input from outside a small group of “usual suspects”, as the Best Practice Forums aimed to do, then there should be some focussed time allocated for this, free of the distraction of other simultaneous meetings.[1]

Themes

In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too broadly framed like “openness” and “security” that are not grounded in any specific real-life context. The national IGFs should feed issues into the regional IGFs which should in turn feed issues into the Global IGF so that the the issues at the global level in part reflect the concerns and challenges raised by the national and regional IGFs – a reporting in session by IGFs (as is currently the case) is inadequate.[1]

We propose that the overall theme of the 2015 IGF meeting should be “Internet governance for sustainable development and promotion of human rights”. We are conscious that some governments do not approve of an explicit mention of human rights in the IGF’s overall theme. As the IGF is not a conventional multilateral body but a multi-stakeholder one, we do not believe that a few governments should be able to exercise a veto in this case. As the NETmundial Principles amply demonstrate, there is rough consensus around the centrality of human rights to Internet governance, and this ought to be reflected in the overall theme for the 2015 meeting.

Conclusion

The IGF is in a unique position to democratise participation in Internet governance, by acting as both a coordinating mechanism to connect stakeholders to external Internet governance processes, and also as a policy venue in its own right where emerging or orphan issues can be addressed and consensus-based solutions found and documented. But the IGF has been hampered in fulfilling its potential by its lack of structures and processes appropriate to the execution of these tasks.

To change this will require both bold leadership to drive the required reforms to the IGF (most of which have been well documented by the UN CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements as well as in the NETmundial Statement.[4]), along with a stronger resource base to implement those reforms. The IGF’s present lack of either of these presents it with a chicken-and-egg dilemma. However as a first step, we strongly encourage UNDESA to forthwith appoint a new high-level Executive Coordinator to the IGF who can prioritise the implementation of the necessary reforms.

[0] http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/
[1] http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/
[2] http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
[3] http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/
[4] http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/

Executive Summary

1. ITU transparency and openness
2. ITU and Internet governance
3. The post-2015 development agenda
4. Capacity Building
5. Cyber-security
6. International Connection and Net Neutrality
7. Spectrum
8. Counterfeit Devices

Executive Summary

To the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and its Members at the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Korea, from the public interest signatories.

The ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference is taking place at a watershed moment. The growth of the open, borderless Internet and the increasing availability of ICTs are revolutionising access to knowledge, commerce and creativity. The free flow of information and communications has never been so critical to the prosperity of nations or the realisation of human rights as it is right now. Building on the ITU’s nearly 150 years of experience in expanding humanity’s capacity to communicate, the Plenipotentiary provides an historic opportunity for the ITU to craft strategic approaches to closing the digital divide.

This statement has been prepared by a diverse global group of civil society organisations with expertise in internet and information and communication technology (ICT)-related issues. Although we come from many different places (Asia, Africa, South America, North America and Europe) we share a common belief that the International Telecommunications Union has an important role to play in assisting all stakeholders confront critical future challenges through the use of and access to ICTs. We believe the ITU should focus on areas where it has greatest expertise and mandate, collaborate with other agencies and organizations without duplication or fragmentation of efforts, and dedicate its resources and its efforts to ensure that the benefits of ICTs can be fully harnessed for wider social and economic development.

In this spirit, we make the following recommendations to the ITU and its Members:

1. ITU transparency and participation. The ITU should update its own procedures, improving transparency and allowing greater scope for participation of civil society and other actors in its deliberations – including by making all documents publicly available on the ITU website, with the exception of cases in which disclosure would cause potential harm to a legitimate private or public interest.
2. ITU role in internet governance. The ITU should work with other actors to contribute to furthering multistakeholder internet governance, rather than attempting to take on new responsibilities for the development of international internet public policy. The ITU should not seek a role in the development of policies on core Internet resources such as domain name and addresses. The ITU should continue to focus on ever more important core issues such as access, infrastructure and related capacity building.
3. ITU and the WSIS. The ITU along with other relevant agencies such as UNESCO and stakeholders around the globe should work in a multistakeholder manner consistent with the WSIS+10 review MPP in implementing the WSIS High Level Event outcomes. The ITU should work towards ensuring that the modalities for the WSIS+10 review in 2015 are similarly open, transparent and inclusive.
4. ICTs in the post-2015 development agenda. The Plenipotentiary should express strong support for ambitious and measurable commitments in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to build an inclusive information society. The role of ICTs in achieving the SDGs is generally recognized but reference to ICTs in the SDGs themselves is minimal and the ITU, along with other UN agencies, should address this deficiency.
5. Capacity-building. The ITU should enhance the provision of capacity-building support to developing countries through ITU-D, ITU-T and ITU-R, in their respective roles and through collaboration, whilst also ensuring that these efforts are coordinated with those of standard-setting and other bodies that do similar or associated work.
6. Cybersecurity. Although concerns about strengthening cybersecurity are legitimate and important, it is premature to instruct the ITU to begin discussions on developing a global cyber-security treaty, given the lack of consensus on key issues, including what constitutes the use of force in cyberspace and how to govern activity which falls short of that threshold, as well as the organisation’s currently lack of transparency and openness. Further multistakeholder discussion should be encouraged.
7. International interconnection and net neutrality. The ITU should not attempt to address access and infrastructure issues in developing countries through policy and regulatory changes to global peering and interconnection, but encourage IXPs, infrastructure build-out, local content development and enabling environments that promote investment and competition.
8. Spectrum. The Plenipotentiary should assign a high priority to the development and implementation of global standards for dynamic spectrum access, which should be a central outcome of the World Radio Conference in 2015;
9. Counterfeit devices. The ITU should ensure that whilst addressing counterfeit devices, end-user connectivity should not be limited.

We, the undersigned below wish to present the following notes and recommendations to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and its Members at the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Korea, from the public interest signatories.

1. ITU transparency and openness

Resolutions 64, 66, 102, 145, 167 and 169; ITU PP-10 Decision 12; General Rules

Modifications to Resolutions 64 (AFCP/69A1/6, CUB/70/1, ARB/79A2/3), 102 (IAP/34R1-AI/22, RCC/73A1/14, ARB/79A3/2, EUR/80A1/2), 167 (IAP/34R1-AI/34, AFCP/69A1/11, ARB/79A2/9) and 169 (IAP/34R1-AI/2, ACP/67A2/6, ARB/79A1/8, CL/89/3, EUR/80A1/9); Modifications to ITU PP-10 Decision 12 (IAP/34R1-A1/26, AFCP/69A1/4, RCC/73A1/7, ARB/79A2/1)

Background

In recent years, the ITU has facilitated the participation of civil society and experts on specific occasions. Specifically, experts, including from civil society, were invited to participate in the Informal Expert Group of the World Telecommunication Policy Forum, and all interested stakeholders were able to participate in the ITU-facilitated WSIS+10 Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform. These initial and welcome steps towards a more open and inclusive ITU must now be expanded.

Access to information is critical to enable wider participation in ITU processes. At the moment, ITU policy does not allow for public disclosure of meeting documents. This policy is reflected in two relevant ITU documents – the Information Circular and the Multiple-destination letter – neither of which have been reviewed or updated since 2000. This means that the ITU is lagging behind other UN agencies in terms of access to documents. Several UN agencies have adopted information disclosure policies in recent years, and those that do not have formal access/disclosure policies regularly provide a wealth of information related to their operations and governance to the public.

Public access to ITU documents would not only allow the ITU to catch up with other UN agencies, but would benefit the ITU’s work by generating increased public interest in the organisation, as well as knowledge and research that could contribute to the work of the Union. For example, having access to ITU documents would have enriched public participation to the ITU’s recent consultations.

Recommendations

The ITU should embrace a more inclusive approach to its work, including by opening meetings to the public and the press and by ensuring that all interested stakeholder can actively participate in and contribute to work of the ITU, in particular Council Working Group- Internet. At a minimum, the Secretary-General should seek the contribution and participation of non-member experts whose input will benefit the global community.

The ITU should update its guidelines and policies regarding access to documents, with the underlying principle of making all documents publicly available on the ITU website, without password protection, with the exception of cases in which disclosure would cause potential harm to a legitimate private or public interest that outweighs the benefits of accessibility.

2. ITU and Internet governance

Resolutions 101, 102, 133, 140 and Role of the ITU (ITR Resolution 3 and ITU PP-10 Decision 11); Strategic Plan for the Union for 2016-2019

Modifications to Resolutions 101 (ARG/B/PRG/76/1, ARB/79A3/1, EUR/80AI/1), 102 (IAP/34R1-AI/22, RCC/73A1/14, ARB/79A3/2, EUR/80A1/2), 133 (EUR/80A1/3) and 140 (IAP/34R1-A1/27, ACP/67A2/5, RCC/73AI/19, ARB/79A2/7, EUR/80AI/10); Modifications to ITU PP-10 Decision 11 (UAE/86/1)

Background

There are a number of proposals that seek to greatly expand upon Resolution 102 to increase the ITU’s roles and responsibilities in the Internet policy and governance space. We do not support this expansion of scope; we see the ITU as an important player in the Internet governance ecosystem that should be working with other stakeholders to build multistakeholder approaches to further its goals, but not the place for the development of international Internet public policy.

Recommendations

We support the inclusion of reference to the WTPF and the six multistakeholder developed opinions. We also support proposals that call for the ITU to work with other stakeholders to contribute to multistakeholder Internet governance, for the ITU CWG Internet to be open to all interested stakeholders and for the documents of the CWG Internet to be available free of charge and without a TIES account. The ITU should work in an inclusive, transparent and open manner similar to other organizations in the Internet governance ecosystem that deal with Internet issues. We also support proposed changes that would draw more attention to the need to focus on international connectivity, access issues, capacity building, availability and cost.

We do not support changes that call for the ITU to 1) become an Internet Registry of sorts and to assign IP addresses; 2) become a platform for the development of international Internet public policies; 3) call for the ITU to be to coordinator of international Internet public policy.

3. The post-2015 development agenda

Resolutions 70, 110, 139, 140 and 172

Modifications to Resolutions 70 (IAP/34R1-A1/8, AFCP/69A1/7, ARB/79A2/4, EUR/80AI/21), 139 (IAP/34R1-A1/38, AFCP/69AI/8, ARB/79A3/3), 140 (IAP/34R1-A1/27, ACP/67A2/5, RCC/73AI/19, ARB/79A2/7, EUR/80AI/10) and 172 (ARB/79A3/4, RCC/73A1/18)

Background

The UN and its Member States are currently negotiating a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in September 2015. The SDGs are overarching, cross-sectoral commitments that will have a considerable impact on how governments and their development partners set priorities and allocate resources for the next 15 years.

However, the current draft SDGs text released by the UN Secretary-General’s Open Working Group in July 2014¹ does not include sufficiently strong commitments to advance information and communication technologies as a key means to achieve sustainable and inclusive development.

As the agency within the UN system with greatest mandate and expertise to address the digital divide, the ITU must use its voice and work with other UN agencies, such as UNESCO to ensure the WSIS Principles are strongly reflected in the SDGs.

Recommendations

The ITU along with other relevant agencies such as UNESCO and stakeholders around the globe should work in a multistakeholder manner, consistent with the WSIS+10 review Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform, in implementing the WSIS High Level Event outcomes. The ITU should work towards ensuring that the modalities for the WSIS+10 review in 2015 are similarly open, transparent and inclusive.

In addition, we would like to propose that the conference adopt a new resolution related to the Sustainable Development Goals, as below:

Recognising that universal access to ICT infrastructure and services, and the ability to use such services freely in pursuit of fundamental human rights, are preconditions for social and economic development,

Affirming the WSIS vision of an inclusive information society, “where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,”² and Resolution 139 on bridging the digital divide and building an inclusive information society;

Recognising that the internet, in particular, has become indispensable to enable people to obtain information and knowledge, to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and opinion, to participate fully in decisions affecting them, and to secure their rights to education, health, and livelihood,

Recalling Resolution 135 on the ITU’s role in the development of information and communication technologies, in providing technical assistance and advice to developing countries, and in implementing relevant national, regional and interregional projects; resolution 137 on next-generation network deployment in developing countries; resolution 143 on developing countries and economies in transition and all the work of ITU – D, and resolution 70 on closing the gender gap in ICTs;

The member states of the ITU therefore express strong support for ambitious and measurable commitments in the Sustainable Development Goals to build an inclusive information society, including measurable targets to:

• attain universally affordable access to broadband internet by 2020, as a target under the current proposed Sustainable Development Goal 9 (infrastructure);

• ensure all people enjoy freedom of expression, opinion, association, and access to independent media and information both offline and online, and guarantee the public’s right to information and access to government data, as targets under the current proposed Sustainable Development Goal 16 (peaceful and inclusive societies and effective and accountable institutions);

• remove all barriers preventing women and girls from using ICTs to promote their own empowerment, rights and dignity, including through measures to expand digital skills among women and girls and to stop online gender violence, as a target under the current proposed Sustainable Development Goal 5 (gender equality).

4. Capacity Building

Resolutions 47, 123, and Dubai Action Plan

Modifications to Resolution 123 (ACP 67A1/10, IAP 34R1/A1/14, RCC 73/A1/15)

Background

The capacity building work of the ITU-D, as established by the WTDC-14, and housed under Objective 4, is focused on building human and institutional capacity, providing data and statistics, promoting digital inclusion and providing assistance to countries in special need. The addition of any work to the ITU-D or ITU-T would require the approval of Member States. The African position asks for an expansion of that role and provision of policy assistance.

Recommendations

We support the current work of the ITU-D and the enhancement of provision of capacity building to developing countries. However, taking into consideration the financial crisis ITU faces, we recommend that the ITU-D, ITU-T and ITU-R coordinate their actions with the standard developing organizations that are also addressing the same issues, in order to create greater impact.

5. Cyber-security

Resolutions 130, 174, 179, 181 Modifications to Resolutions 130 (USA/27R1-A3/4, CUB/70/2, RCC/73A1/16, B/75/4, ARB/79A2/13, EUR/80A1/14, INS/82/2), 174 (CUB/70/3, B/75/6, ARB/79A4/4), 179 (IAP/34R1-A1/3, RCC/73A1/26, ARB/79A3/6, EUR/80A1/11)

Background

While we recognize the growth of hostile cyber operations by state and non-state actors, as well as the rise of global cybercrime and the serious nature of the related debate, we feel that it is premature to instruct the ITU to begin discussions on developing a global cyber-security treaty, given the lack of consensus on key issues, including what constitutes the use of force in cyberspace and how to govern activity which falls short of that threshold. It is equally critical to ensure that future discussions of cyber-security and its overlaps with Internet governance are (i) grounded in human rights principles, and (ii) take place in forums that allow for sufficient multistakeholder participation.

Any discussion of cyber-security should be grounded in human rights principles

As the Report of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security in June 2013 stressed, “State efforts to address the security of ICTs must go hand-in-hand with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments.”³

Concerns about cyber-security and cybercrime should not be used as a means to advance proposals that could stifle free expression, legitimize excessive monitoring and surveillance, or justify filtering content. While there is a legitimate need for action to address security issues, particularly when they involve transnational cybercrime or countries that do not have the capacity to address these threats on their own, any proposals in this regard should be measured and mindful of how they can be interpreted or abused.

Cyber-security should be discussed in forums that allow multistakeholder participation

Civil society organizations, the business community, and members of academia play a critical role in resolving many of the core technical and societal challenges of Internet governance and cyber-security, yet civil society participation in the development of cybersecurity strategies and international confidence-building measurement processes has been minimal. Some important breakthroughs toward multistakeholder involvement have been made in the past year, including formal acknowledgement of the roles of civil society and the private sector in the June UN GGE Report. It is important that future discussions of cybersecurity take place in forums that include all stakeholders.

The ITU should avoid creating initiatives that duplicate or cut across the work of other bodies that have mandates and expertise on cyber-security issues. For example:

• The UN General Assembly’s First Committee has focused on the political dimension of cyber-security for over a decade, and several years ago the Security Council set up a working group on how terrorists use the Internet in order to allow the UN to study and address these challenges.
• The UN Office on Drugs and Crime is the recognized leading agency in the UN system for matters pertaining to crime and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the ITU to collaborate globally to provide technical and legal assistance to Member States combating cybercrime threats.⁴
• Additionally, there are successful non-governmental initiatives that have, for example, successfully helped reduce the amount of spam, as well as regional and multilateral cybercrime agreements such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime which can provide a basis to address other transnational issues.

Consistent with its expertise, the ITU should continue focusing its efforts – specifically the work of the ITU-D – on strengthening the technical and legal capacity of member states, providing resources, and supporting the efforts of other agencies.

Recommendations

Resolution 130: “Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies”

Strengthening capacity and working with other bodies and agencies within the United Nations (and taking into account the specific mandates and expertise of those agencies) are appropriate roles for the ITU, although the expertise and experience of non-UN actors and mechanisms that already exist in this space should be taken into account so as not to duplicate efforts.

We do, however, have serious reservations about any proposals to add language to Resolution 130 that may be vague or undefined, especially if they reference facilitating “evidence collection” or “tracing criminals” using ICTs which could facilitate monitoring and surveillance.

Resolution 174: “ITU’s role with regard to international public policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of information and communication technologies”

It is not necessary to expand this resolution to include references to initiating discussions on a global charter or treaty on ICT security. As outlined above, it is premature to begin such discussions until there is greater consensus on the need for such a treaty and on the core concepts it should address.

6. International Connection and Net Neutrality

Resolution 101

Modifications to Resolution 101 (ARG/B/PRG/76/1, ARB/79A3/1, EUR/80AI/1)

Background

Resolution 101 highlights important roles for the ITU such as promoting global connectivity, network interoperability and working with other organizations such as those in the Internet technical community.

We share the concerns expressed by many Member States about infrastructure investment and buildout around the world — particularly in developing countries. The high cost of international connectivity is being dealt with through a range of measures, including competition, enabling environments and investment, increased traffic demand and reduced costs, Internet Exchange Points and local and regional traffic exchange, increased access to undersea cables, work in ITU SG 3, and work in ITU-D to incentivize Internet investment in previously underserved and unserved parts of the world.

Evolution of interconnection for IP traffic and IP enabled services remains an unsettled issue with no broadly accepted set of standards to govern international settlement. Currently, individual countries have the authority to regulate IP interconnection rates as needed, and this remains the optimal approach in such a dynamic and evolving market.

Recommendations

While further studies of peering and interconnection are welcome, we warn that attempts to regulate interconnection at global level are unlikely to solve the problem of infrastructure gaps, and could have a negative impact on users in developing countries, while also increasing cost, limiting online innovation and undermining network neutrality. Each country should retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition.

7. Spectrum

Related documents and modifications: ACP/67A1/18, AFCP/69A1/8

Background

License-exempt spectrum

License-exempt spectrum provides an enormous opportunity for growth in global connectivity and technological development and innovation. Combined with dynamic spectrum access, which is now already an everyday practice, license-exempt spectrum use can enable ubiquitous internet connectivity through Wi-Fi in the workplace, homes and schools.

License exemptions also help to close the digital divide by reducing the costs of deploying last-mile wireless networks, making wireless broadband access more efficient and more affordable for people around the world. Finally, license-exempt spectrum is critical to the Internet of Things, in fields such as smart grid communications, inventory management systems, mobile payments, and health monitoring.

Dynamic spectrum access

As the use of the 2.4 GHZ Wi-Fi band, and a wide variety of research and test pilots have shown, dynamic frequency access allows for what the internet is best at: innovation and connectivity. More personal data traffic to smartphones is transported over Wi-Fi than over any other data connection.

ITU-R and ITU-D are doing relevant research into best practices for dynamic spectrum access and white space applications. To give space to upcoming technologies and innovation, to facilitate improved access to the internet and to ensure compatibility and interoperability, global coordination is needed to standardize and implement dynamic spectrum access on more frequencies.

Therefore, we would like to propose a higher priority for the development and implementation of global standards for dynamic spectrum access, which should be a central outcome of the World Radio Conference in 2015.

Recommendations

The Plenipotentiary should assign a high priority to the development and implementation of license exempt global standards for dynamic spectrum access, which should be a central outcome of the World Radio Conference in 2015;

Thus, specifically we suggest the rephrasing of ACP/67A1/18 as follows:

“Invites Requests the next World Radiocommunication Conference to consider the necessity to study the requirement to allocate spectrum for IoT, as appropriate prioritize the development of global standards in dynamic spectrum use, including standards that will allow unused frequencies to be given over for unlicensed shared access.”

Proposed language for resolution 135, modifications offered by AFCP, AFCP/69A1/8: “Recognizing the importance of wireless broadband connection and dynamic spectrum management for last-mile connectivity, networks and innovations.”

8. Counterfeit Devices

Proposal IAP/34R1-A1/35

Background

Proposal IAP/34R1-A1/35 opens the door to prevent counterfeit devices from accessing telecommunications networks. Mobile phones have become critical to people’s livelihoods, safety, health and education, as well as their civil and political liberties. Denial of service would be an extremely disproportionate response to the relatively minor network irregularities that may be caused by counterfeit devices. Furthermore, it will mostly affect the poorest people, since counterfeit devices are attractive for this group because of their competitive pricing. Free expression standards should not be compromised in the fight against “counterfeit” mobile phones.

There are better ways to combat counterfeit devices, such as import and export controls and increased awareness and cooperation among operators, manufacturers and consumers’ associations. Such remedies should be further discussed and explored, as indicated in Resolution 177 (Guadalajara, 2010) and Resolution 79 (WTDC Dubai 2014), but they should always be in line with Resolution 37 (Hyderabad 2010) and 64 (Guadalajara 2010) which clearly stipulate the importance of users’ rights, bridging the digital divide and connectivity.

Recommendation

Include new language under section “Recognizing”: “the importance of non-discriminatory access to users, and the bridging of the digital divide, which means that existing groups of users should not be disconnected from the network.”

1. The current proposed goals can be found at http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html.

2. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

3. See http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/98&referer=/english/&Lang=E paragraph 21 and also see UNGA res 68/243 PP11 “Noting the importance of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the use of information and communications technologies”.

4. See http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Pages/UNODC.aspx”

October 8, 2014

TO: Secretary General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Dr. Hamadoun Touré
CC: Deputy Secretary-General of the ITU, Mr Houlin Zhao

Dear Secretary-General Touré,

We write to you as a group of civil society organisations who are keen to engage with the important work of the ITU and its upcoming Plenipotentiary Conference.

At various ITU meetings in the recent past, positive steps have been taken to facilitate and encourage the engagement of stakeholders in the work of the ITU and to increase transparency of the organization and its processes. Efforts were made at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), the World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF) and the WSIS+10 Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP), all of which helped to further increase recognition within the ITU of the importance of opening up its processes more generally.

These moves towards greater openness and inclusivity were also lauded in your speech at the WSIS+10 High Level Event in June 2014: “As the ITU Secretary-General, I’m nonetheless very proud that these two documents have been developed by a bottom up and all inclusive approach, exercising true multistakeholderism with the highest level of openness.”

The undersigned organizations have been encouraged by this evolution and believe that it is now time – at the ITU Plenipotentiary in Busan and as the ITU nears its 150th birthday – for the organization to do more to demonstrate its commitment to openness and to welcome greater and more diverse participation in its processes from across all stakeholder groups.

We understand that the ITU will be webcasting some of the proceedings of the Plenipotentiary including Plenary Sessions, Plenary Working Group, Committee 5 and Committee 6.  We welcome these commitments and encourage the ITU to webcast all Committee proceedings.

In addition, we encourage the ITU to:

• Open the Plenipotentiary Plenary and Committee Sessions to on-site observers, regardless of their participation status. This would provide an opportunity for public interest groups and other interested organizations to participate at the Plenipotentiary without the constraints imposed by participation through national delegations.
• Organize regular briefings for civil society at the Conference. We understand that the ITU is already considering holding briefings with civil society representatives, and welcome this. We encourage the ITU to facilitate such briefings and to use them as an opportunity to share information on the progress of the discussions and negotiations, as well as to solicit civil society feedback on the proceedings.
• Create an online public contribution platform (as there was at the WCIT) and register such contributions as official Information Documents. Delegations and participants should be encouraged to take such contributions into account during their deliberations.
• Highlight the benefits of openness and transparency in an effort to formalize greater public access to ITU processes and documentation.

We believe that wider participation and greater openness are critical to enable all stakeholders to deepen their understanding of the ITU’s mandate and role and constructively engage with the important work the ITU does. We urge the ITU to seize the opportunity presented by the Plenipotentiary to take the next steps towards true inclusion and collaboration. We also urge the ITU to continue and strengthen its involvement in global and regional multi-stakeholder forums such as IGFs.

We remain available and committed to collaboration with the ITU Secretary General, the ITU Secretariat, and all other relevant individuals and bodies within the ITU to work towards a more inclusive, transparent and accountable ITU.

We, the undersigned below reaffirm that human rights and sustainable development are underlying concerns  for all Internet governance processes and mechanisms. At this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish in particular to:

1. Call for the establishment of the IGF as a multistakeholder forum within the framework of the United Nations with an open-ended mandate, that should be reformed and strengthened.
2. Call for more thorough and timely review of the IGF post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to look at  potential changes that could lead to its further strengthening.
3. Support the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet, known as the NETMundial, and its recommendations for the IGF.
4. Commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap set in its outcome document by, for example, focusing on net neutrality, and ask the MAG, UNDESA and Brazil – the host of the 2015 IGF – to build on this roadmap, and to build upon the regional and national IGFs as core opportunities that feed into this process.
5. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to ensure that stakeholders’ interests and views are heard and taken into account, by way of a more structured consultation process and allowing civil society to appoint its own representatives and speakers.
6. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in relation to Internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore we welcome the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to human rights.

[emailpetition id=”25″] [signaturelist id=”25″]

Text proposed for addition to the draft Conference Outcome Declaration of the 65th Annual UN DPI/NGO Conference on 27-29 August 2014, under the heading “Role of Information and Communication Technologies and Broadband in Development”:

ICTs and the Internet have facilitated profound benefits in economic and social development, and can continue to do so. The reviews in 2015 of both the MDGs and the World Summit for the Information Society (“WSIS”) create a unique opportunity to further mainstream ICTs in the delivery on the MDGs/SDGs in the next decade.

In order for all to benefit from ICTs, they must have affordable access to them and free public access must be available through libraries or community information centres.  Ensuring that the digital divide is addressed is a challenge that requires the active engagement of all stakeholders. That is why democratic multi-stakeholder decision-making that ensures the meaningful, accountable, and equitable participation of all stakeholders is critical to meeting the goals of WSIS and leveraging technology to deliver on the broader sustainable development agenda.

A healthy ICT ecosystem must be grounded in justice and human dignity, including the full recognition of human rights and their application equally online and offline as recognised, inter alia, in General Comment 34 to the ICCPR and Human Rights Council Resolutions A/HRC/20/8 and A/HRC/26/L.24, and UN General Assembly Resolutions 68/167, 68/198 and 68/243.

[emailpetition id=”24″] [signaturelist id=”24″]

As we reflect upon last week’s NETmundial multistakeholder meeting, it is clear that for all its faults, the meeting in Sao Paulo was a turning point for Internet governance and human rights in the digital environment.

For the first time in such a meeting, all the stakeholders were not only “at the table” but, to some extent, drivers of the agenda, drafting, and outcomes.The process itself was open to the Internet, whether it was for scathing criticism or simply curious engagement via video streaming.

Last week’s NETmundial global gathering on Internet governance also marked a historical moment when the host country, Brazil, clearly aligned itself not just rhetorically, but politically with those pushing for an open, neutral and free Internet. The signing of the landmark Marco Civil bill at the opening session, after years of mobilization and multistakeholder engagement, should serve as an example for civil society and inspiration for governments around the world.

We can create laws that enshrine freedom of expression, privacy, due process and net neutrality, but it takes time, patience, and willingness to engage just as long as those who oppose those rights are willing to engage.

The NETmundial outcome document makes progress in a number of areas that have not been the subject of multistakeholder consensus previously. These areas include the recognition of the Internet as a common resource that needs to be managed in the public interest, and that the development of international public policy principles for the Internet should be conducted on a democratic and multistakeholder processes. In an important step beyond the Tunis Agenda, the NETmundial text also recognises that the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in this process should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.

In a welcome trend started by the the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, we consider the outcome document a clear pivot in the politics of digital networks. Privacy and mass surveillance are on the first page, and human rights ideals permeate the document. Development sits at its core, and public interest is mentioned as a core lens for the document’s readers.

The final document produced by NETmundial falls short on a number of important policy issues. For example, sections regarding protection of freedom of expression include weak language on protecting intermediaries from liability, harmful to online freedom of expression.

In addition, the passage affirming that access to information as a human right should be “consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law” is problematic because it suggests subordination of the public’s right to access to knowledge to domestic laws.

The construction of effective policy to react to massive and rapid technological changes will always be slower than the criticism of ineffective policy reacting to those changes. It is far more difficult to come together to create than to come together to critique.

We might not succeed in all issues nor will we win immediately. To be truly multistakeholder is to not just admit, but to welcome and integrate those whose opinions differ from your own, and to give other stakeholders time to understand and evolve their perspectives.

It is not surprising that the first outcome is incomplete and not totally satisfied. This should not be an indication that the process is broken, but instead an indication that the process has only just begun. We must and we will continue to press for more, and we do understand that our battle is one measured in decades, not weekends.

The Tallin Agenda for Freedom Online, published some days after those same governments were in Brazil, consolidates a series of principles that civil society had proposed as guides to the debates of NETmundial, specifically in the action points 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. We hope these principles will reverberate in every international forum regarding internet governance in the future, setting a global standard to build on.

If we as members of civil society do not have a long-term commitment to the policy creation process, and to mechanisms that ensure it is open, clear, transparent and inclusive, it is clear that policies will not prioritize human rights, open societies, anonymity, and fundamental freedoms. Thus, we will prepare ourselves to continue to engage for years to come in order to create the change we wish to see in law for the public interest.

Finally, NETmundial used technology in a way that helped ensure great collaboration among all stakeholders including remote participants. We encourage other multistakeholder fora and discussions to learn from and improve on those solutions developed at NETmundial since we believe they are good start for achieving better converged multistakeholderism. Nevertheless, while the technology worked well at NETmundial, we believe that the process that produced the final document could have been more consultative. In the future, a second public comment of the outcome document should be considered so that the final outcome document reflects the consensus of the wider community as much as possible.

As frustrating as it may have been, NETmundial was what constructive progress looks like. We salute the Brazilian government for organizing it, and the hundreds of stakeholders who participated. Now let’s get back to work.

We would like to thank the Brazilian government for organizing the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance.

We, as a diverse group of civil society organizations from around the world, appreciate having been part of the process.

However we are disappointed because that outcome document fails to adequately reflect a number of our key concerns.

The lack of acknowledgement of net neutrality at NETmundial is deeply disappointing.

Mass surveillance has not been sufficiently denounced as being inconsistent with human rights and the principle of proportionality.

And although the addition of language on Internet intermediary liability is welcomed, the failure of the draft text to ensure due process safeguards could undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.

We feel that this document has not sufficiently moved us beyond the status quo in terms of the protection of fundamental rights, and the balancing of power and influence of different stakeholder groups.

Grand Hyatt Hotel
Sao Paulo
Brazil.
April 23, 2014.

Address by Nnenna Nwakanma. Africa Regional Coordinator
The World Wide Web Foundation
Representing Civil Society, Worldwide. [@nnenna]

Your Excellencies
Colleagues, present and remote
Ladies and gentlemen

Bon dia!!

My name is Nnenna. I come from the Internet. I also come from diverse civil society teams and networks. My first is the team at the World Wide Web Foundation. At the Web Foundation, we are engaged in the Alliance for Affordable Internet, in the Web We Want Campaign, in the Web Index and in Open Government data. I work to establish the open Web as a global public good and a basic right, ensuring that everyone can access and use it freely. That is what I do for a living.

I also belong to the Best Bits Civil Society platform, the Internet Governance Caucus for 12 years and the Africa Internet Governance Forum. For me, Netmundial, in convening us to take a critical look at the principles and the roadmap for the future of Internet Governance, avails us with an opportunity to bring key issues to fore.

The first is Access.
As much as two-thirds of the world’s population is not connected to the Internet. The penetration rates in less developed countries average around 31%. In the African continent, this figure drops to 16%. In the world’s 49 least developed countries, over 90% of people are not online. We have one billion people living with disability. 80% live in developing countries. Each one deserves access: to information, to libraries, to knowledge, to affordable Internet.

The second is Social and economic justice.
The Internet is fast becoming the dominant means for wealth creation. The “Right to Development” needs to include social justice. It is not enough to do a superficial “capacity building” for a few persons. We are looking at a mechanism that allows for the highest number of persons to be included, the largest number of voices to be heard, the widest extent of talents to access innovation, and the deepest creativity of the human minds to flourish. For these, we need to start considering the Internet as public commons.

The third is freedom and human rights.
I invite you to listen to someone for whom I have great respect. She was speaking at the United Nations General Assembly, in New York, on the 24th of September 2013

Do you want to hear it?

” I cannot but defend, in an uncompromising fashion, the right to privacy of individuals . In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy.”

And that, was Dilma Rousseff.

Excellencies, Ladies, and gentlemen, in charting a way forward for Internet Governance we must lend serious consideration to at least 3 issues:

The first is participation: We kicked off with a basic understanding that all stakeholders have a place, a role, a contribution. As we move further along, the multistakeholder  approach is becoming muddled and is losing its meaning. It is time was came back to the drawing board. If we need to revisit the notion, or upgrade it, please let us do it.

We need to engage all stakeholders at the global, regional and national levels.
We need to establish respect and value for stakeholder contributions.
We need to enable meaningful participation from developing countries and under-represented groups.

The second is resources.

How do we ensure that resources are mobilized and maintained for a viable Internet Governance mechanism? The question is not just at the global level, but also at regional and national levels. Whose resources are we going to commit? My leaning is that the Internet should be able to provide resources for its own governance. Maybe, part of the domain name fees could be reinvested here.

The third is change.
NetMundial is offering us a chance at change. Let us seize it:
From one stakeholder hijacking the process – to an open and inclusive process
From top officials issuing orders – to a collaboration
From summary reports – to transparency
From power – to accountability
From monologues – to dialogues and debates
Change the rhetoric of cyberwar – to the notion of Internet for peace
Change from cyber threats – to digital solidarity
And these, I believe, will guide us in the IANA transition.

Ladies and gentleman, If there is one message I must leave with you today, it is the message of TRUST. We are in Brazil because we have a level of trust in the person of President Dilma Rousseff. We trust the Netmundial process. We trust the multistakeholder approach of Brazil in its IGF. We have followed the drive for Marco Civil and we congratulate the wholee of the people of Brazil.

The trust we have in Brazil is needed at all levels for the future of the Internet. This trust is being destroyed by the collection, processing and interception of our communications. Surveillance undermines  Internet security and trust in all personal, business and diplomatic communications. That is why we say: “No to surveillance”.

The Web we can trust, that is the Web We Want.
The Web that contributes to global peace, that is the web we want
The web that remains open and inclusive, that is the web we want
The Internet of opportunities, of social justice, of development and of respect to privacy and human rights, that is why I am here.

Ladies and gentlemen,
NetMundial is the World Cup of Internet Governance.

We need a robust stadium – we need infrastructure
We need everyone to enjoy the game – we need participation
Fans should not be discriminated against: we need net neutrality
Everyone should be free to support any team. I support Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. I also support Brazil when they are not playing against Africa.
Fans will wear their costumes – let us respect diversity
We need to know the rules and play by them: That is transparency

So it is not just about power and control for governments.
Not just service and interest for the industry
Not just names and numbers for the academia and technical community
Not just “for” or “against” for us in the civil society.

We need humility. Our humility to listen to diverse voices is essential for an authentic dialogue. Let us talk to each other and not at each other. Sometimes as stakeholders, we may be so drowned with our own voices that we miss what others have to say.

Ladies and gentlemen, just before I sit down, tomorrow is the
Girls in ICT Day.
Let me say this: Girls, it is up to us to seize the Internet and rock the world. Let us get women online, let US get US online!

And a special tribute to the girls in my Web Foundation team,
Alexandra Groome
Renata Avila
Sonia Jorge
Anne Jellema

And the girls across the world who work on Internet Governance issues:
Deborah Brown in the US
Marianne Franklin in Europe
Anja Kovacs in India
Valeria Betancourt in Latin America
Anriette Esterhuysen in Africa
Joy Liddicot in New Zealand
Salanieta, far away in the Islands of Fiji

And our wonderful girls in Brazil:
Joana Varon
Carolina Rossini

But no, it is not a women-only zone. There are men who put in energy, who spend hours of work, nergy resources.. who risk their lives, for us to have a strong, free, open and robust Internet.

To you, to all those who work… to people like Edward. Edward Snowden, thank you.