Who governs the Internet in SEE?
What is Internet governance? How does it work? Why is it relevant for (the development of) the South Eastern European (SEE) region?
SEE, IG-Ecosystem, multistakeholderism, SDG, regional approach, SEEingForward
The introductory session at SEEDIG 2016 will be built around three main questions: What is Internet governance (IG)? How does it work? Why is it relevant for (the development of) the South Eastern European (SEE) region? In trying to answer these questions, the session will be divided into three inter-related parts:
a. Introduction – explaining Internet governance in simple terms: What is it? How and why did the term appeared? What issues does the concept of ‘Internet governance’ encompass and tackle? Reference will be made to key processes and documents such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the Tunis Agenda, etc.
b. Internet governance in practice – how and where does the multistakeholder model work? The multistakeholder model of Internet governance explained: What does it mean? Who are the stakeholders? Where does it work (processes and organisations)? Emphasis will be put on current examples of Internet governance issues that are/can be effectively and efficiently tackled in a multistakeholder framework (net neutrality, privacy and data protection, IANA stewardship transition, etc.)
c. Internet governance in SEE – (how) does IG contribute to the overall development of the region? On a theoretical level: a discussion on the correlation between Internet governance and the Sustainable Development Goals (with a reference to the WSIS+10 Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2015). On a practical level: emphasis on identifying concrete examples of Internet governance issues that are relevant for the development of the region (local content, infrastructure, Internationalised Domain Names, etc.), and discussion on why and how these are/can be addressed in a multistakeholder framework. Examples of multistakeholder Internet governance mechanisms in place or under development in the region (ccTLD registries, national IGFs, other IG initiatives) will be presented and analysed.
The session is intended to have a very strong capacity building focus. To achieve this aim, it will combine the panel-type format with the round table one: key participants will contribute to introducing the topics and setting the scene, and the moderator will ensure that the session is highly interactive and room participants contribute significantly to the discussions.
- Andrea Beccalli, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
- Chris Buckridge, RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC)
- Frédéric Donck, European Regional Bureau, Internet Society (ISOC)
- Markus Kummer, Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA)
Moderator: Sorina Teleanu, DiploFoundation, Romania
Remote moderator: Ani Dallakyan, Internet Society Armenia
Rapporteur: Ana Kakalashvili, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Germany/Georgia
- Internet governance (IG) is evolving with time. This evolution of IG makes the main actors be more open and inclusive.
- IG is mostly and mainly about dialogue and collaboration between different actors. And ‘consensus’ is the key word in IG.
- There is no single main actor in IG: governments are important, but so are users, the technical community, and the private sector. Civil society is bringing up a lot of important topics, but the governance of the Internet is further implemented together with other stakeholders.
- Multistakeholderism is not a single model, but a set of (good) practices and behaviours that helps to improve the governance process and make more voices being heard. Participating on equal footing and inclusiveness are key words for multistakeholder Internet governance mechanisms.
- Representativeness of stakeholder groups and ‘legitimacy’ are a matter of continuous discussion in IG. But, as long as the governance process is open and inclusive, we can call it multistakeholder.
- (Better) global IG discussions should be shaped in a bottom-up way: from national level to (sub-)regional, and all the way to the global level.
3. Understanding the WSIS+10 Review Process (ISOC Paper)
5. Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community
7. The Internet and Sustainable Development (ISOC policy study)
11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, (50) – See full list of proposals
- Ana Kakalashvili, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Germany/Georgia (focal point)
- Hovhannes Aghajanyan, ISOC Armenia
- Cornelia Ciumac, Moldova
- Veronica Cretu, Open Government Institute, Moldova
- Frédéric Donck, European Regional Bureau, Internet Society, Belgium
- Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe
- Aleksandar Icokaev, Popovski Law Office, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
- Fotjon Kosta, Ministry of Energy and Industry, Albania
- Oksana Prykhodko, European Media Platform, Ukraine
- Contact point from SEEDIG’s executive committee: Sorina Teleanu