Following our recent online discussions on Internet governance issues in Kenya, the Kenya IGF and East African IGF; you may wish to follow the discussion currently ongoing at the global IGF 2008 in Hyderabad India at http://www.intgovforum.org. Below are highlights from workshops I attended on Day 1 December 3rd): *0930-1100 hrs Workshop 43: Legal aspects of governance critical internet Policy issues of public relevance* *1st presentation* The issues on that have legal implications include: • internet security intellectual property rights, infringement, privacy and protection mechanisms • IP domain name protection, conflicts arising out of data and content ownership privacy therefore increasing role of P2P in growth of internet 2 • Consumer status and rights in relation to e-commerce cross border and domestic online trade • Telecom issue viz backbone deployment and interconnection costs • Freedom of expression – the extent of censorship and control on online content There is need for capacity building to create meaningful participation of individual and SMEs as well as increasing connectivity through building IXPs and local content development The question was raised as to whether there a need of alternative institutional mechanism. The salient features of the MOU between ICANN and the department of commerce (DoC) include: - The affirmation of the role of private sector leadership - The role of DoC in ensuring transparency and accountability and effective GAC participation - Ensure accountability and publish by-laws and strategic and operational plans - Agreement can be terminated in 120 days The MOU has been criticized because of the following reasons: - US governmental control on root server administration - Inconsistent with WSIS principle where no single government should have a pre-eminent role - Domain name allocation policies need better development - IPv4 address allocation have been imbalanced need to ensure IPv6 address allocation does not suffer the same effects -This assertion was however refuted as IP addresses allocation based on need. The need for prudent management and keeping barriers low for the transition to IPv6 was emphasised. To overcome this WGIG proposed 4 models: - Global policy council - Intenational internet council with leading government role to fulfil the ICANN/IANA functions - GAC to be strengthened with enhanced coordination function - Replace US govt role by general internet council or with world ICANN (in lieu of GAC) The common features of these models were the overwhelming government lead and the presupposition of the possibility of international treaties. During the discussion the viability of these models was questioned given that speed is of essence in the management of internet resources. It normally takes a long time to negotiate international agreements; including treaties instead a set of principles should be endorsed. The speaker recommended on the management of critical internet infrastructure should take into consideration the following • Treatment of technical resources of the internet and global economic, social and legal aspects arising out the internet should be at par • The development and implementation of polices and standards and solutions to various internet issues should be done in a coordinated manner for example telecommunication standard development is done in a hierarchical and predictable way. • New structure would be a supreme authority over internet In conclusion the speaker asked: Does the internet as we know it need to be altered radically? Should the status quo be maintained? Should a Red Cross model of recognition by international community states be given to an international entity like ITU, INTELSAT. However fundamental change is not necessary as failure has not been identified. *My comment*: this presentation was descriptive and despite the fact that an alternative model was proposed the principles, mechanisms that would need to be put in place in order to make it work were not discussed *2nd presentation* The next speaker spoke about the ccTLDs in latin Amercia which are broadly organised into two main groups: non-governmental and governmental organisations. A contribution from the floor however clarified that the Brazilian ccTLD is a multi-stakeholder – coordinated by government – but on a day by day basis operates as a non-governmental organisation. The Indian ccTLD is managed by government and private sector – sovereign interest taken care of through government representation. The rules and regulations under which the institutions that manage the ccTLDs are managed determinate legal framework under which they operate. Consequently ccTLDs are regulated under national law while ICANN regulates gTLDs – The possibility of self regulation is based on the assumption that private sector would act in the public interest. In the discussions some felt that there was need for increased attention of government in the management of ccTLDs – as it was critical infrastructure while on the other hand other felt that there was the risk of excessive regulation with increased involvement of government. *1130 -1200 hrs Workshop 36: Strategies to prevent and fight child pornography in developing countries* Child pornography in Brazil has grown out of the popularity of social networking. However the main challenge has been issues related to jurisdiction as content is resident in ISP based in the USA and trans-national ISPs like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google which have branches in strategic markets and have tailored the services for these markets in terms of language and content. Brazil was therefore unable to deal with serious offences related to content – specifically child pornography - committed by Brazilians using Brazilian IP addresses. The government has been able to sign an agreement with Google to fight child pornography on Google's orkut social network. The following are consideration taken in drawing up the agreement 1. Which criteria should be used to define the ability of a particular country to legislate over and sanction conducts committed on the internet? - Where the data is located? - International law principles (territoriality or nationality) shall be used to define the sovereignty of a state regarding – cyber space – which is a network of networks - Define some reasonable standard – for example managed by Brazilians and is local content and local language - Access points in Brazil, harmful conduct felt in the country – taken obligation under international law to take offence – country of origin approach would force thousands of users to unfamiliar rules and travel – offence under human rights therefore apply local legislation 2. It is legitimate to enforce the conduct of local office –as it impracticable to send legal request to the US. New tools have been implement that have reduced number of images uploaded and increase in number of reported cases- subject to investigation. It was inspiring to listen to parliamentarian talk about the need to have legislators engaged in the process as they ultimately pass the laws. I appreciated the fact that in there is great cooperation between the parliament, government, police, civil society and private sector. The main challenges are: • Lack of awareness and participation by parliamentarians who are critical in the formulation of legislation • how to obligate ISPs to provide information without infringing on freedom of expression and privacy, • what criteria should be used to deal with these offences • the creation of awareness of ISPs in developing countries of the need for judicial cooperation as well as social initiatives to deal with cyber crime. • Insufficient infrastructure to deal with this issue – law enforcement does not have the human resources and technology • Material produced to fight child pornography are not evaluated – they should be inline with the demand *My comment*: I would have like to know if initiatives have reduced offences, what is the success rate registered in prosecution, ability of the law enforcement and judicial system to deal with offences. There was no mention of where initiatives had been launched to fight child pornography on the financial front. *1530-1700 Workshop 45: Opening to diversity and competition of the DNS system* There were 3 presentations in this session: - *1st presentation* - alternate DNS system used in library systems - *2nd presentation* - implementation of security in the Handle system - *3rd presentation –* discussed the Net4D Net4D- provides the technical solution to the political concern on the control of root servers. Net4D networks enable the following: • Empower the second generation of the web: the semantic web. • Multi-stakeholder governance of DNS • Net4D classes should be open and interoperable DNS 1.0 – was a monopoly of ICANN web 1.0 html with USA parentage and English only while DNS 2.0 is open allowing for competition including inter alia: • Net4D semantic web • Open coherent approach to linguistic diversity • Allow technological innovation with value added services Concern was however raised on the: • Investment/implementation cost required to implementation of different DNS systems depending on the BIND implemented and root servers enabled • relinquishing of the political control of root servers • Value to end users • Awareness and understanding of the issues by different stakeholders necessary – delivered in a way that they can understand *My comment*: the session was technical – I hope the techies on the mailing list can help us understand the governance issues associated with the introduction of DNS competition and the impact on developing countries :)! Kind regards mwende