Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Sat Mar 24 13:56:31 UTC 2018



Good afternoon. This is a note of our CCWG IG Session on Monday in Geneva; kindly moderated by Marilyn Cade. 


Will circulate wider report of WSIS Forum in due course.  









This was a very constructive and informative session on the first day of the WSIS Forum.  It explored a number of pertinent issues and where, for many of the organisations present, multistakeholder approaches had made a significant contribution to their initiatives and successes. In contrast was noted that while there were effective multilateral solutions, in cyberspace there had been problems.  The WSIS Forum approach to inclusiveness was recognised as was the IGF (and NRIs) and the ICANN IANA Transition.  Was thought that Cybersecurity was possible most significant Internet issue on which progress (and solutions) were required.  




The link to programme on WSIS Forum site is at https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2018/Pages/Agenda/Session/196#intro


1. Introductions 


Marilyn Cade mentioned that this was a Session of the CCWG IG of ICANN. She asked those participants present to introduce themselves; they did as follows: 



Matthew Shears (ICANN Board)

Torbjorn Fredrikssion (UNCTAD)

Hu Xianhong  (UNESCO)

Anja Gengo  (IGF Secretariat)

Preetam Maloor  (ITU) 

Tatiana Tropina (Remote) 


Marilyn noted that Joanna Kulesza (University of Lodz) was travelling but had contributed a set of slides which would be read.  



2. Contributions


Matthew Shears (ICANN Board) 


He noted that ICANN is unique in having Multistakeholder processes from start to finish of policy making and implementation; so quite different from other processes that are only partially multistakeholder, for example just consultations; ICANN also has “all” involved on policy processes all along; with a unique focus on transparency and accountability. 


Noted the IANA Transition linked accountability measures.  ICANN was a very open environment. The Transition was a good example of stakeholders coming together with a common purpose; was quite unique. 


He referenced that there were uncertain policies at global level; problem of dispersion, Internet so prevalent that policy environments mushroom; we are though seeing consolidation around cybersecuirty and positively we are seeing open and inclusive processes nationally, conversely globally we see multilateral processes failing (such as UN GGE on Cybersecuirty). 


Marilyn Cade 


Noted the parable of the Elephant and the blind men to emphasise the diversity of approaches there are; no single approach being the answer. 


Torbjorn Fredrikssion 


In answer to question from Marilyn (concerning their work with stakeholders) he noted his work covered e-commerce and the digital economy. Noted the complexity of the work, noted silos that exist at national levels and work UNCTAD does to break them down.  We leverage our commitment through the E Commerce Week which last year attracted 1000 participants from all stakeholder groups; so this really helps a constructive dialogue.


UNCTAD, he noted, have also set up a group of E Commerce Experts to help us with our work.  He noted the need for trade policy experts to see how Internet works; it is very critical that all concerned are brought together; this was clear at WTO Ministerial and at 2018 IGF. 


On E Trade for All (in response to another question from Marilyn) he noted how it addressed how to make capacity making more effective; with so many different players; so UNCTAD tries to make all this work more relevant. Was launched 2 years ago with now has 28 international organisations involved; it offers an on-line platform to deal with capacity building; this including details on who offers what in terms of e-commerce (from ITU, through World Bank to UNESCO).  Also on this platform, he noted, there are business experts. 


Preetam Maloor (ITU) 


Preetam went over some background of ITU noting there are now more than 700 sector members and many other opportunities for stakeholders to be involved (such as here in WSIS); with CS members such as DIPLO.  From 2011 we have also included academic members (who pay very low contributions).  


Many other opportunities to be involved; including Telecom World and ITU WTPF. Some CWG are open to all stakeholders; such as Child on-line Protection. 


Finally, Preetam noted how WSIS Forum is developed in a bottom-up process with all stakeholders and also mentioned the Open Consultations based on the CWG Internet Policy session. 


Joanna Kulesza (not present).    


Marilyn noted the presentation from Joanna.  She went through Slides emphasising: 

How historically issues like “piracy” have been approached by both States and private actors (such as security guards and mercenaries…..);
How a US Bill could allow those hacked to hack-back legally; reported in media this week
She noted the many different frameworks for public policies; with ideas of enforceable and non-enforceable norms; with examples such as law of sea and (on other scale) NETMundial; 
Debate needed on shared principles whether taken forward by States or other actors; 
Her Recommendations included having a universal standard of protection; with perhaps a single agency with responsibility for cybersecuirty; with need for transposition of international norms being taken up by all countries through either multistakeholder or multilateral models.  

Tatiana Tropina


In answer to question re “Cybersecuirty and Multistakeholder approaches”; she thought the model ICANN uses can potentially be used for cyber-security, especially for technical aspects of cyber security, but not so much for treaty based norms; which many are working on; such work does not always fit in an ICANN model; here more relevant are initiatives such as that of the Microsoft Cyber Security proposal; so different and complex field; with some hostility on governments taking forward issues in their own right.  


On Cybersecuirty we will need mix, for some issues closed doors will be needed.   But the main discussion could be in a multi-stakeholder forum.  We do need more norms (a point advocated by Joanna).  Was not convinced that UN either had answer.


Marilyn noted the slowness of Treaties and wondered whether this would be a useful way forward?


Tatiana did not think soft law worked in this area; needed sanctions that could only come through a Treaty. 


Hu Xianhong (UNESCO)


Was very happy to be part of this session, though we work in a specialized area concerning science, education and culture; we were embracing the Multistakeholder approach before it became fashionable to do so.  We have holistic approaches to Internet governance; looking at ROAM; we think MS approaches essential to preserve openness and protect human rights; as well as empowering people.  In 2015 are 195 countries adopted the MS approach through our “Connecting the Dots Conference”.  Noted work on Internet Identifiers that UNESCO had launched and were consulting on; consultation going well.  One area to work is whether there could be global norms/ laws to ensure that MS processes had to be adopted nationally.  


Anja Gengo (IGF Secretariat) 


In response to a question to Marilyn about what NRIs were all about; Anja gave an overview of IGF and regional and national approaches (NRIs).  Thought IGF had a bit of mystery; especially when comes down to decision making.  This though misses point as it is the dialogue that generally matters to most.  There are also BPF that discussed as such issues ranging from IOT, through human rights to cybersecuirty.


She noted that the IGF has adapted; thus, last year we saw new issues such as IOT, AI and Blockchain coming forward.  We have also see further sophistication in discussions with issues actually being taken back to different global fora and to governments. 



In discussion 

Marilyn noted there are differences in the way the organisations approach cybersecuirty.  There is uniqueness here given complexity of agenda. She asked whether there was fatigue setting in; was there exhaustion? 
Matthew said we have evolved from WSIS (2005); we had to move on; as policy challenges come in new spaces; so we will have mix of enforceable and un-enforceable policy spaces; we have (at ICANN) to prioritize; no one can be everywhere; 
Torbjorn said there was no single solution; real issues for developing countries faced with such complexity; and often have little experiences of dealing with stakeholders; noted new multilateral proposed rule-making on e-commerce; bit of a developed / non-developed divide is apparent; 
Preetam agreed there was an issue of fatigue, there have been cycles; with years like 2014/5 really hectic and now a lull.  But stakeholders will engage if issues affect them; like SDGs and connecting people; still significant problems to overcome; 
Xianhong – thought that issues had to be pertinent to people; noted our success on looking at multistakeholder processes; re publication (supported by ISOC/ICANN); 
Tatiana thought that on cybersecuirty there was indeed fatigue; there has been so much mushrooming of activities; some of variable quality and relevance; some just talk-shops and some closed and failing; often the issue for stakeholders is “who is in charge”; are there real leaders? Public will look to governments unless there are real concrete initiatives;
Anja was more optimistic noting the doubling of NRIs in last 3 years; so at local level there is no fatigue; 



3.  Discussion with audience 


Russia said we cannot stop Internet as border; we need global rules; so look to ITU (no fatigue there);  has been working for 100 years on radio, communications; we had over 3000 stakeholders at last WRC meeting; so why can’t ITU do this on Internet; we have to solve cybersecuirty at global level; ITU has experience here; also multistakeholder approaches are often dominated by developing countries; 


UN SG Office – noted SG was looking at way to engage; but there was frustration in NY at plethora of approaches; too much confusion; near impasse; 


Botswana – can MS approaches really help in cyberspace? 


Namibia – who should govern Internet at national level and who should own domain name of country?  I later discussed issues with ccTLDs with Namibia



In response (at close)  


Matthew – no single person / body should govern Internet - it is a collective responsibility 


Tatiana – we have to be more honest as to what is and what is not a multistakeholder process. For meaning full participation on governance of cyberspace we need right venue.  S




4.  Conclusions 



Nigel Hickson simply noted role of CCWG IG at ICANN and invited new particpants. 


Anja noted IGF Open Consultation Session at WSIS Forum the following day, open to all.  




GE; 23/3 





























-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20180324/0bc43ea9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4587 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20180324/0bc43ea9/smime-0002.p7s>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20180324/0bc43ea9/ATT00001-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4587 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20180324/0bc43ea9/smime-0003.p7s>

More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list