IGF 2015 UpdateIzumi Okutani

Japan Netowork Information Center (JPNIC)

IGF2015 MAG member

Contents

• Background: IGF

• Position of IGF and its environment

• Update for IGF 2015

• How people are participating

• What is relevant to our community

• Different ways to be engaged

• Tips in engagement

• References: including Friends of the IGF

• Message

What is Internet Governance Forum

• Started from 2006 based on WSIS Tunis agenda• http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

• UN organized global annual conference• In 2014, 2,405 onsite participants, 1163 remote participants

• Dialogue based, open, bottom up, multilstakeholder• Civil Society,Government, Intergovernmental Organizations,Private

Sector,Technical Community

RIRs and its communities are usually considered as this group

IGF in Internet Governance Environment

• IGF is intended to be in line with how the Internet works • open, bottom-up, transparent, and collaborative

• shared global ownership: different stakeholders taking their part of the role

• Some say IGF is a "talk shop" doesn't solve real issues

• It may not be perfect but currently the only event which is:• open to all stakeholders, global, cover internet governance issues

comprehensively, organized on regular basis, and not lead by a particular country

Key event for IGF in 2015: Renewal of IGF mandate@UNGA• It is not guaranteed IGF continues

• UN makes the decision, currently agreed to organize until 2015

• Decision about IGF mandate renewal will take place in UNGA, Dec 2015

• If no IGF, where to discuss internet governance issues comprehensively at global scale on regular basis? • Those who support open, inclusive, bottom up Internet have tendencies to

support IGF’s continuity

Initiatives for IGF 2015

• More clear outputs

• Outreach

• Intersessional work

IGF 2015 preparation status

• Theme and sub-themes are fixed• Workshop proposal based on theme

• Gives you a rough arena of the focus for 2015

• Workshop call open now

• Intersessional work: open to anyone to participate• Best Practices Forum

• Policy messages

• Dynamic coalitions

Main theme and sub-themes

• Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development• Cybersecurity and Trust;

• Internet Economy;

• Inclusiveness and Diversity;

• Openness;

• Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation;

• Internet and Human Rights;

• Critical Internet Resources;

• Emerging Issues

Relevant to our community

• Topics from the past best practices forum- Spam, CIRTS, local contents

• Past workshops• WS112: Implications of post-Snowden Internet localization proposals•

• Even for topics which seems irrelevant to technical communities, they can be interrelated- Human rights --> freedom on expression --> contents filtering -->Packet filtering/DNS filtering

- National security --> How much information network operators toshare with law enforcement agencies, extent of contents filtering

WS112: Implications of post-Snowden Internet localization proposals• Following the 2013-2014 disclosures of large-scale pervasive surveillance of Internet traffic,

various proposals to "localize" Internet users' data and change the path that Internet traffic would take have started to emerge.• mandatory storage of citizens' data within country• mandatory location of servers within country (e.g. Google, Facebook)• launching state-run services (e.g. email services)• restricted transborder Internet traffic routes• investment in alternate backbone infrastructure (e.g. submarine cables, IXPs), etc.

• Localization of data and traffic routing strategies can be powerful tools for improving Internet experience for end-users. On the other hand, done uniquely in response to external factors (e.g. foreign surveillance), less optimal choices may be made in reactive moves.• How can we judge between Internet-useful versus Internet-harmful localisation and traffic routing

approaches? • What are the promises of data localization from the personal, community and business perspectives? …etc

• Speakers: from Akamai, Ericson, Mozilla joined

Details: http://igf2014.sched.org/event/df8e8e82fbe7f80f8d8d50e316d3feea#.VPUCUvmsVuM

WS107 - Internet blocking: When well intentioned measures go too far• The economic and public policy impacts of Internet policing by third

party non-state actors are not as well studies as blocking by states.

• This workshop will explore the state of play in third party Internet blockades and boycotts by non-state actors such as Internet reputation systems, whether commercially motivated or not. • Examples of collateral damage will be drawn from the record, including the

impact of SPAMHAUS’s blockade of Sweden in early 2014. • “at what limit does a blockade or boycott do more harm than good to the

organizer’s own values, due to foreseeable collateral damage, lack of care, or lack of investigatory resources?”

• Spears: DNS security expert, JPCERT, etc.Details:http://igf2014.sched.org/event/5cbef31da32694aeb298d17037843632#.VPUEVPmsVuM

Participation from Asia Pacific/Technical Community in IGF 2014

Onsite Participation by Region Onsite Participation by Stakeholder Group

Africa 190 Civil Society 779

Asia Pacific 405 Government 571

Eastern EuropeHost Country

134745

Intergovernmental Organizations

96

Latin America and the Caribbean

150 Private Sector 581

Western Europe and Others

781 Technical CommunityMedia

267111

ICANN, RIRs, IETF, experts on security area, IXPs,access line providers, contents providers

Different ways of getting engaged

• Submit WS proposals

• Participate in Intersessional WorkThis year covers Spam, CIRTS, IXPs, IPv6, as relevant to technicalcommunities

• Participate in sessions physically/remotely

• Contribute through indirect involvement • Work on issues which has been highlighted as an area to work as technical

community• Compile information and share technical knowledge with others, especially

for capacity building• E.g. http://www.ixptoolkit.org/

Tips in getting engaged

• WS proposals: Criteria for workshops are different from how things works in the APNIC community• E.g., needs regional and gender balance on speakers• Make sure to take a look at the criteria and guidelines before submission• General 10 tips are being prepared: can share once fixed

• Intersessional Work: Language and mentalities are different from operators in compiling documents• Recommend to collaborate with someone familiar in the policy arena• Contact for advice/queries: Myself as a MAG member from the region or any other

MAG members, IGF secretariat

•

Examples of indirect contribution

• The IETF has been working on strenghthening the protocols againspervassive surveillance

• There are great efforts by technical community on what's called "capacity building" through technical trainings, workshops, help building infrastructure such as IXPs, IPv6 deployment.

• This is not fully shared and known - some work can be done on our side to share more widely.

How do we engage from the APNIC region?

• There are discussions on the internet governance which has somerelevance to the APNIC community; There are different ways of getting engaged

• Start from paying a little more attention

• Even if you don't immediately get motivated to submit WS proposals,start from following areas of discussions which may have relevance.

• You can also contribute through compiling information of best practices, things you already do

If you’d like to find out more

• Key updates on the IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

• Friends of the IGF: http://friendsoftheigf.org/• Videos, browse sessions through topics

• All MAG discussions are public• http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout

MAG meetings - virtual and physicalTranscripts, minutes are publishedMAG ML archives available