EGENI-Europe-Notes-Test/Friday June 20, 2008/Internet and Europe: toward a European IGF

Those participating on in the 1st Roundtable include:

Moderator - Eric Chreiki – Innov. Europe Panelists:

• Catherine Trautmann – European Parliment
• Marcus Kummer - IGF
• Roberto Gaetano – ICANN Board
• Ayesha Hassan – ICC BASIS
• Bertrand de la Chapelle - MAE
• Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin
• Janis Karklins – GAC Chair

The session started with brief statements from each member on the panel before opening up to an overall discussion.

Eric Chreiki: Eric is interested in innovation, particularly when it comes to Europe. As the EU has emerged, the EU is moving forward together. As such Europe has sought to have influence on Internet Governance. The very first information technical market will emerge in Europe, therefore it is important to have influence in the direction of Internet Governance. Through this process it is important that people get on board with the creation of Internet Governance and have a say in how the Internet is managed and run. The major topics for now include:

• Today’s challenges.
• What technologies are coming about.
• How Europe can help move forward.

Catherine Trautmann: For the European Parliament there is definitely an economic challenge. Part of the Internet infrastructure that has an influence on many.

Through multiple partnerships we have been able to:

• Develop standards
• Work on the development, or movement of IPv4 to IPv6
• All tools and resources needed for codes and improving public service.

Public service is:

• Personal data protection sites for:
  • Children
  • Personal data
  • Data protection

By 2010 there is an initiative, known as “E2010” that education and healthcare be able to use the Internet to enhance reaching out to the public.

There also needs to be the effort to ensure that from a legislative perspective, there is coordination and consistency.

Before getting legislation passed, however, there is the need to get all stakeholders on board.

Also, the balance of influence has been shifting, as seen with the OECD, ICANN and the IGF.

Sometimes civil societies are asking governments for guidance and other times governments are looking for guidance from the civil societies.

Regional Internet groups should be an instrument of coordination to the parliament and other governmental forums. For example, ICOC ECC should be an integral partner with the government.

Marcus Kummer: Internet governance is an abstract idea with lots of coordination from multiple stakeholders, especially within developing countries.

However, we have to put the “house in order” at the national level instead of seeking guidance from the International level first.

The regional level, however, is lagging behind the national and international levels.

One thing to consider as an important development is users are now contributing content too.

What is meant by “Regional”? RIPE, is an example of a “region”, however, RIPE’s footprint is rather large as it also includes parts of central Asia and the Arabic peninsula.

Roberto Gaetano: Users can feel frustrated when the public doesn’t know who to go to and when.

The genes of the Internet is total decentralization, but centralized control would not be able to adapt quickly to the essence of the Internet.

While there is the need to decentralize regionally, there is the need, from a political perspective, to provide more of a centralized theme around certain items such as:

• Pornography and the surrounding security issues
• Access
• Managing DNS
• Managing the IP structure.

However, instead of the government, or a centralized body handling the growth, or control of the Internet, it is best served by organizations that do what they do best so as not to limit development and freedom of the Internet.

Roles and responsibilities need to be clarified.

There is not one IGF (Internet Governance Forum) that can cover everything. For example, in Europe we have a cultural identity and heritage. Within Europe we need to allow people to participate within their own language.

ICANN does not work on spam, pornography or pricing. ICANN manages the DNS, the introduction of TLDs and domain names that are ASCII or Latin character-based. ICANN will soon be managing the introduction of TLDs and domain names that are NOT ASCII or Latin character-based.

Ayesha Hassan: BASIS is a group of national committees in 130 countries.

Business is a real partner in the Internet as they are innovators and inventors. So they have a say in shaping Internet governance formation and policy as they come together with practical applications and problems.

It is at the national/regional levels where you can reach out to the political, business and other stakeholders.

Bertrand de la Chapelle:

For the first time in history Internet governance is being developed from the International perspective and then moving downward to the political and regional levels.

It is through the IGF that we are finding ways to get more involved in discussion at the lower levels.

Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin: International Rites Forum is an adventure to respond to the advances of the Internet.

New arena – Rules will tend to be established as they have in the passed. However, what about individuals and civil society’s ability to become active as well as resist what the government wants because they don’t believe in the standards established? This is difficult because, by nature, people don’t agree. We need to find a common denominator around which discussions can occur.

Multi-stakeholder involvement is not a fad, but a necessity.

WE WANT TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED!

Janis Karklins: The GAC represents the public point of view on issues on ICANN’s plate.

The At-Large committees represent civil societies and speak for the individual Internet users.

Internet Governance is a generic term. The Internet is a multi-layer system.

There is a trend, when talking about Internet Governance, that there are major public issues. But there is also a technical problem.

Tackling technical problems from a political process can be a problem.

There are a lot of meetings going on around the globe, but nothing is getting done.

What’s the point? What is being achieved? The IGF was to spark a dialogue. Not only is the IGF to spark discussion, it must also listen. But action must be done too. When you come in and sit at the table you should not come with pre-conceived notions.

Overall Discussion:

>What’s the point? We need to make this approach as participatory as possible. People must be involved, though they may not be able to afford heading to international destinations, or distances. Also, legislators represent the people.

This must not be driven, or dominated by the United States. Also, this must not be driven or dominated by industrial countries only.

At the very beginning when ICANN was established ICANN has become an international body due to tight negotiations between Europe and the US. The international community wanted to move in this direction to begin with. In the future we need to promote coordination and see the importance of including civil groups, or the general public.

Has the IGF been able to network and bring together voice? “YES!”

Governance of the Internet, but also governance of the Internet “era”. It needs to increase its activity on specific things.

>What about the business side of the issue?

>Point of a European IGF? A European level IGF is more than discussion but absolutely important for Europe to be heard. Issues important to Europe include security, privacy and data protection. Are these issues what the States want? Is it what the users want? Europe needs to be heard. In Europe we share similar values so we need to be heard!

I believe in a network of IGFs that come together with their findings to then address the European government.

What’s the point? TO TAKE PART! While different in ways, (i.e., Scandinavians are different from the Mediteranians) these groups should then be able to have the discussion to develop more of a unified European voice.

Before ICANN it was hard to find a common ground when lawyers have one view of IP (intellectual property) while users have a different view of IP. We need to have a way of thinking through problems in advance.

IGF – have the cultural identities represented around the Internet. A multi-cultural Europe needs to be represented instead of a “one size fits all”.

>Did the IGF accomplish what they set out to do? Some things were accomplished, but perhaps not to the level of energy that has been put forth.

One note that came out for clarification is “Public Service” should equate to another term, that being “Public Trust”.

The IGF is a simple model so all stake holders can participate as equals. It is not a governing body that makes, or has decision making powers. The IGF is not designed to produce results. The power is in the edges of the Internet to provide input which can in-turn provides input to the political entities.