Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Internet for the Common Good – A Community Informatics Declaration

Published on: Jan 24 2014 by Michael Gurstein

From the Community Informatics Research Network…

Effective use of the Internet will benefit everyone. Currently the benefits of the Internet are distributed unequally: some people gain power, wealth and influence from using the Internet while others struggle for basic access. In our vision, people in their communities and everywhere – including the poor and marginalized in developing and developed countries, women and youth, indigenous peoples, older persons, those with disabilities — will use the Internet to develop and exercise their civic intelligence and work together to address collective challenges.

More than a technology or a marketplace, the Internet is a social environment, a community space for people to interact with the expectation that principles of equity, fairness and justice will prevail. Internet governance must ensure that this online social space functions effectively for the well-being of all.

A community informatics approach to Internet governance supports equal distribution of Internet benefits and addresses longstanding social, economic, cultural and political injustices in this environment. Questions of social justice and equity through the Internet are central to how the Internet and society will evolve. People in different communities must be empowered to develop and adapt the Internet infrastructure to reflect their core values and ways of knowing.

We support development of an Internet in which communities are the “first mile” and not the “last mile.” We believe the primary purpose of the Internet is not to mine data and make knowledge a commodity for purchase and sale but rather to advance community goals equally and fairly within these distributed infrastructures.

We aspire to an Internet effectively owned and controlled by the communities that use it and to Internet ownership that evolves through communities federated regionally, nationally and globally. The Internet’s role as a community asset, a public good and a local community utility is more important than its role as a site for profit-making or as a global artifact. The access layer and the higher layers of applications and content should be community owned and controlled in a way that supports a rich ecology of commercial enterprises subject to and serving community and public interests.

As citizens and community members in an Internet-enabled world we have a collective interest in how the Internet is governed. Our collective interests need to be expressed and affirmed in all fora discussing the future of the Internet. As a collective, and as members of civil society, we have developed a declaration for Internet governance based on principles of community informatics. We appreciate your interest and welcome your support.

A just and equitable Internet provides:

1. Fair and equitable means to access and use the Internet: affordable by all and designed and deployed so that all may realize the benefits of effective use. The poor and marginalized, women, youth, indigenous peoples, older persons, those with disabilities, Internet users and non-users alike; no one, from any community globally, should be without Internet access.2. Equitable access within communities to the benefits of the Internet, including information, opportunities to communicate, increased effectiveness of communications and information management, and opportunities to participate in system development and content creation. Everyone, within all communities, should have the right, the means and the opportunity to use the Internet to share the full intellectual heritage of humankind without undue cost or hindrance.

3. Respect for privacy — people must be able to conveniently use the Internet in a way that is credibly protected against large-scale surveillance or interference by government authorities or corporate interests.

4. Infrastructure that ensures the maximum level of personal security and reliability.

5. Opportunities for all within all communities to build, manage, and own Internet infrastructure as and when it is needed.

6. Internet governance by democratic principles and processes — including privileging input from communities affected by decisions and ensuring inclusion of the widest possible perspectives supporting the development of our digital environments.

7. A peer-to-peer architecture with equal power and privilege for each node or end point and complete neutrality of the architecture and medium for all users and all applications.

8. Recognition that the local is a fundamental building block of all information and communications and the “global” is a “federation of locals.”

9. Equal opportunity for all to connect and communicate in a language and culture of their choice.

10. Recognition and equal privileging of many types of knowledge and ways of knowing, building from the capacities of each individual, community and knowledge society.

11. The means for information freely provided on and through the Internet to be freely available for the use and benefit of all.

12. Support for collaboration, engagement, education, solidarity, and problem-solving as the stepping stones to civic intelligence and the capacity of communities, civil society, and all people to equitably and effectively engage in informed self-governance.

If you agree, please sign the declaration and tweet your support using the #InternetCommons hashtag.
hashtag #InternetCommons

Posted by: Michael Gurstein on January 24, 2014
Tags: Community Informatics, Internet Access, Internet Commons, Internet Governance, Michael Gurstein
Category: Featured, Thought Leadership

YouTube localised version not in sight till 2015

January 26, 2014

USMAN CHEEMA

ISLAMABAD - Despite all the efforts of the government, a localized version of YouTube may not be in sight till 2015 because the prevention of electronic crimes bill would become applicable in June 2014 and only after that the website would consider launching a localised version if it finds it feasible in terms of business.
YouTube is banned in Pakistan for a long time due to the blasphemous content uploaded by an American filmmaker which the site had refused to remove saying it was against its policy.
The government and its departments earlier tried to block the sacrilegious content, but not the site. However when they could not block the blasphemous content they ultimately blocked the site to avoid riots in the country.
The government has tried to reopen the website since, but has not been able to do so. The government asked the website to remove the content as it wanted to reopen the site, but it refused and instead asked the government to do legislation that could secure the site against any controversial material uploaded by anybody.
The representatives of the site told the government if they decide to launch a localised version in Pakistan, in that case they would be bound to remove any blasphemous material from it on the request of the government of Pakistan, but that would be removed only from the localised version and not from the main site.
After several months of working the government prepared the draft bill called “prevention of electronic crimes bill” and then held a meeting with the Google and YouTube to convince them for a localised version for Pakistan.
In that meeting the site did not commit to launch a localised version, and said it would prepare the feasibility that whether or not the site could launch a localised version in Pakistan.
It may be mentioned here that the electronic crimes bill does not just aim to facilitate YouTube, but otherwise as well was a requirement to take action against cyber crimes. The bill as per State Minister Anushey Rehman would be applicable in June this year.
Sources said until and unless the bill was applicable, no site was going to launch its localised version in the country. “Even if the bill is enacted in June and the site decides to launch a localised version that is not going to happen before early 2015.
Sources further said as far as it was about opening of YouTube or launching a localised version of the site, it was just a political matter; otherwise each Pakistani had access to YouTube at present through certain software that could unblock the content blocked by the government.

Source: http://www.nation.com.pk/national/26-Jan-2014/youtube-localised-version-not-in-sight-till-2015

How should the internet develop after Snowden? New commission aims to find out

by David Meyer

JAN. 22, 2014 - 7:12 AM PST

SUMMARY:

The independent, international commission has been set up by two thinktanks, as a way of figuring out how the internet should be run in future.

An independent “Global Commission on Internet Governance” was launched at Davos on Wednesday, promising an in-depth two-year study of how the internet should be run. This will take into account the tensions between freedom, security and governance — as in, who should run key functions of the internet — and the shadow of Edward Snowden will no doubt loom large over proceedings.

The commission is chaired by former Swedish prime minister and current foreign minister Carl Bildt, and the other 24 members range from those who will probably support online surveillance (former U.S. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and former GCHQ director David Omand) to those who will most likely take the opposing view (European parliamentarian Marietje Schaake and web scientist Wendy Hall).

“Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments,” said Patricia Lewis, one of the commission members and a research director at Chatham House, the London thinktank that has launched the project alongside the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), which is based in Waterloo, Ontario.

“The internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” Lewis added.

According to the launch statement, the commission will act as a public consultation platform and work with various civil society, private sector and academic groups. Its four “key themes” include enhancing governance legitimacy, stimulating innovation, ensuring human rights online, and avoiding systemic risks.

What difference will it make? Hard to tell – two years is a long time, and plenty of people are itching to reform internet governance as soon as possible. They won’t achieve their goal that quickly, but plans may already be quite advanced in 2016.

There’s a big conference on the subject coming up in Brazil in April, which has been convened by the Brazilian government as a direct response to the Snowden revelations. ICANN, the U.S.-based body that runs the domain name system, is also in the process of planting roots in other locations around the world.

It will be particularly interesting to see how much the outcomes of the new commission and these other forums take into account the views of participants from the developing world. That’s where the internet’s future growth lies, after all.

Source: http://gigaom.com/2014/01/22/how-should-the-internet-develop-after-snowden-new-commission-aims-to-find-out/

'Localised YouTube' still distant dream for Pakistan users ANI | Islamabad January 27, 2014

The promise of providing Pakistani users with a localized version of video site YouTube is reportedly unlikely to be delivered till 2015, as a result of slow implementation of the'prevention of electronic crimes bill'.

YouTube has long been banned in the Pakistani territory owing to the blasphemous content uploaded by an American filmmaker, which the site had refused to remove as it was against its policy.

However, Pakistan government and the site had together charted out a way out by introducing what could be called as a 'localised' version of the site.

Since the 'prevention of electronic crimes bill' that formed the bases of the negotiations between the government and Google-owned YouTube for the localized site, would become applicable in June 2014, YouTube can't launch the site prior to that, The Nation reports.

According to the report, the prevention of electronic crimes bill does not just aim to facilitate YouTube, but otherwise as well was a requirement to take action against cyber crimes.

Sources said that until and unless the bill was applicable, no site was going to launch its localised version in the country and even if the bill is enacted in June and the site decides to launch a localised version, that is not going to happen before early 2015.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/localised-youtube-still-distant-dream-for-pakistan-users-114012700378_1.html

Sunday, January 26, 2014

New think tank tackles Internet governance

GOVERNMENTS

Loek Essers@loekessers

Jan 22, 2014 9:05 AM
print

An international think tank launched at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday with the goal of influencing the future governance of the Internet.

The newly founded Global Commission on Internet Governance has signed up a roster of worthies, headed by chairman Carl Bildt, Sweden’s current foreign minister and past prime minister.

The commission plans a two-year process culminating in “a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance.” It said on its website that it will “create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet.”

The commission pointed to two current threats to the Internet: efforts by authoritarian states to exert more control over the Internet, and the loss of trust engendered by widespread surveillance that was recently disclosed.

It plans to address issues like online rights, including establishing the principle of technological neutrality for human rights, privacy, cybercrime and free expression. It will also provide advice on how best to avoid risks, including establishing norms regarding state conduct, cybercrime cooperation, and proliferation and disarmament issues, they added.

The commission plans to influence the debate on Internet governance mainly through politics and lobbying efforts.

However, while the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ranks near the top of the organizations that the new commission must effectively lobby, its public relations representative in London was unaware of the new effort.

ICANN meanwhile has set up its own initiative to tackle concerns about the Internet’s future. In November, it established a panel that will address concerns about Internet governance. People in government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations will be part of the group, ICANN said.

Despite a push from some countries for a more government-centric model, ICANN believes that an Internet governance model that includes businesses and civil-society groups in the decision-making process remains the best approach. ICANN is scheduled to discuss this so-called multistakeholder model in further detail during an Internet governance conference in Brazil in April.

The Global Commission on Internet Governance is an initiative of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, a think tank on international governance based in Waterloo, Canada and the Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London.

Work of the commission will formally begin at the conclusion of ICANN’s high-level panel on Internet cooperation in May 2014. Planning and research however are well underway, they said.

The Snowden effect

Internet governance

NEWS that Microsoft will allow foreign customers to have their personal data stored on servers outside America raised more than a few eyebrows at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. “People should have the ability to know whether their data are being subjected to the laws and access of governments in some other country and should have the ability to make an informed choice of where their data resides,” the Financial Timesquoted Brad Smith, the firm's general counsel.

Internet experts at the WEF saw this as another sign that the big consequence of Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks will be that countries and companies will erect borders of sorts in cyberspace. But they also questioned whether Microsoft can make such a promise. “If the NSA wants to get its hands on something, it will succeed—if only because other intelligence agencies gladly do the job,” said one who prefers not to be named.

But it is a legal issue that may keep Microsoft from being able to offer such a service. Experts at rival firms argue that it doesn’t matter where the data are kept: as an American company Microsoft will—if asked by American authorities—have to hand over information on their servers regardless of its location. “If you have a US server in another country it is still subject to FISA,” said Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chairman, referring to America’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In order to get around that, he added, one would have to transfer the servers to another company.

Still, most experts in Davos expect the internet, after the NSA leaks, to become more balkanised—and its governance to change, giving governments more control. “This will come, the question is how far it will go,” says Alex “Sandy” Pentland of MIT’s Media Lab, who was in Davos to present his new book “Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread”. A conference in April will give an idea of how high the virtual borders will become: that is when the ICANN, the organisation that oversees the internet’s address system, will hold talks in São Paulo to discuss the network’s future governance.

Internet Governance 2020 - Geopolitics and the Future of the Internet

Source: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2014/220576.htm

Remarks

Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

Washington, DC

January 23, 2014

Thank you very much. I appreciate the invitation to help frame and initiate the discussion that the experts on the panel will conduct. It is an impressive panel with folks that have lived through the more than decade long debate over Internet governance, what it means, and where it is headed. I am familiar with their work and it helps inform my own.
Let me start at the end and work my way backwards. Last week, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and I visited Mexico to conduct a series of meetings on bilateral and multilateral technology and telecommunications issues. In the process we took the opportunity to visit with a group of young entrepreneurs who were using technology and the global Internet as a platform for developing new businesses using the assistance and guidance provided to them at Telefonica’s tech accelerator, an organization called WAYRA.
As government officials, we were the only people in the room wearing suits and we raised the average age somewhat, but we were thrilled to see what was happening and what these young Mexican entrepreneurs were doing. They were working on innovative ways to link parents with teachers, retailers with customers and doctors with patients. The ideas were innovative, the energy was high, and the enthusiasm boundless.
As public servants, those of us in this Administration work with our friends and colleagues at home and abroad to create a legal and regulatory framework domestically and internationally that enables the kind of optimism and pursuit of happiness that we saw at Wayra in Mexico.
Underlying the capacity of those young people to innovate and reach the world without having to jump through regulatory hoops or ask anyone for permission are two concepts U.S. policymakers and others seek to preserve – an open Internet, governed by a broad range of decision makers, including industry, government and civil society and free-market competition in telecommunications networks.
The subject of this panel is (1) how to understand and help evolve the framework of Internet governance to increase the inclusion of those who feel that they are left out and (2) how to defend the concepts of diffuse, multistakeholder governance from challenges to its legitimacy and from efforts to change the way the Internet operates in a manner that would make it harder for those young people in Mexico -- and others in the world like them – to succeed.
In the President’s speech from Friday on the Administration’s review of U.S. signals intelligence practices, he made clear our commitment to respecting the privacy of all people, regardless of nationality. The reforms the President announced demonstrate how public debate occurs in democratic societies and how we defend security and privacy, while limiting our intelligence collection to specific purposes. As the President said, U.S. collection is for a defined list of purposes – the United States is not indiscriminately reviewing the emails or phone calls of ordinary folks. The fact that we are taking steps to reform certain intelligence programs demonstrates the respect that we have for the rights of individuals, regardless of nationality. I believe that the President has made a compelling case to the world.
Some foreign observers have chosen to conflate the issue of intelligence gathering with U.S. positions on Internet governance, posing new challenges that could disrupt the current multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance. In fact, these issues are not the same. Nevertheless, given this conflation, the Administration reaffirms our commitment to the open Internet and the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance. We will redouble our efforts to strengthen and make more inclusive its policy-making, standards setting, and governance organizations.
We are aware that some people in the world are unhappy with the status quo of Internet governance, but we believe that any change should come in the form of more, not less, decentralized and inclusive participation of people, institutions, firms, experts, private citizens, and governments in multistakeholder institutions.
Last fall, the leaders of the Internet institutions that are so vital to the reliable operations of the Internet issued what is now known in our community as the Montevideo Statement. The statement, noteworthy for the unanimity expressed by the technical community and useful for engaging an important conversation, addressed four issues. First, the group expressed concern that recent surveillances allegations had undermined user trust. Second, they expressed a desire for a community effort to evolve multistakeholder cooperation to better address Internet governance challenges. Third, they called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and the IANA functions, a set of activities related to management of the Domain Name System (DNS). Finally, they stressed the need for transition from IPv4 to IPv6. Helpfully, and importantly, the Montevideo Statement launched this conversation from the heart of the multistakeholder system rather than an intergovernmental body. We appreciate the thoughtful leadership of the technical community and we hope their efforts will spur further consideration of how we can continue to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive while maintaining the stability of the open and innovative Internet.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is one venue that is fully open and, therefore, particularly well suited to address these issues in the most global and inclusive fashion. When the next IGF convenes this September in Istanbul, we expect the Internet community will further this conversation.
More immediately, Estonian President Ilves is chairing a High Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms that will produce a draft roadmap for a way forward on these issues in a matter of months. This panel includes a number of luminaries from government, business, and civil society; we are hopeful it can constructively contribute to this year’s conversation that is unfolding in multiple venues and we believe that any gathering on the subject should strongly consider the group’s views in its dialogue.
One such gathering will occur this April, when the Brazilians, in coordination and consultation with the Internet community worldwide will host the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance.” Along with many of you, we are following the developments of this meeting and we’ve been in touch with the Brazilian government as we consider the best potential role for the U.S. government. We are pleased to see announcements from the organizers that a multistakeholder structure will plan and execute the meeting. And from what we can tell, the Brazilian government and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee appear to be reaching out to a wide range of stakeholders to shape the meeting. These are good signs.
While there’s still much to know about how this meeting will unfold and what it’s lasting impacts might be, I believe that the meeting holds promise in advancing the global community’s understanding of Internet governance if: (1) the agenda is developed in a truly multistakeholder fashion; (2) participation at the meeting is broad and inclusive; and (3) any follow on activity is guided by, and ultimately supportive of, the multistakeholder system rather than an intergovernmental mechanism of centrally imposed regulation or mandates.
Beyond the conference in Sao Paolo and many other intervening discussions, this fall, ITU member states will gather in Busan, Korea for the quadrennial ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. During this conference, the members will elect new leadership and establish the work of the ITU for the next four years. It’s a very important conference in many respects, including in areas of great interest to the United States such as global spectrum management and the ways in which the world can leverage communications services to promote economic and social development.
Beyond the Plenipotentiary Conference affirming the vital role for the ITU in the world’s telecommunications ecosystem, we would also like to seek a greater role for the ITU in helping developing nations address broadband deployment. We expect, however, that there will be a number of proposals at the conference on more controversial topics, such as Internet governance and cybersecurity, and we further expect that some of these proposals will be at odds with the multistakeholder principles shared by so many in the Internet community, both in the United States and abroad.
Ultimately, we think it’s better for the ITU and to focus on what needs to be accomplished to increase affordable access to communications networks and encourage the further deployment of those networks. That is an honorable, manageable, and tangible task. Any attempt to use the ITU to revive proposals to resolve questions of Internet governance that are better dealt with in multistakeholder settings raises the possibility of divisive outcomes. It is our sincere hope that will not happen.
We will oppose proposals that threaten the current Internet governance model by limiting the input of non-governmental stakeholders or substituting the existing system with one that only governments control. We will also not support new, centrally imposed regulations, and we will work with countries that share our views to push back respectfully on any such initiative.
We would greatly prefer a conference where the ITU works within its mandate to promote the benefits of telecommunication for member states and their citizens, especially those from the developing world. Therefore, we intend to develop a number of proactive initiatives that shape the debate that will help build a constructive agenda for the ITU. The ITU can help nations put policies and programs in place to support the buildout of broadband networks. It can advise and consult with nations on proper procedures to respond to natural disasters that destroy communications infrastructure. And it can guide and help nations as they move through their analog to digital transitions and reorganize their spectrum management to provide for participation in the world’s mobile communications revolution.
And there are multiple other initiatives that we are eager to work with other nations and the ITU to ensure that the Union continues to thrive and contribute to the prosperity and wellbeing of its member states and their citizens.
I believe that the direction our President has given us, and that Secretary Kerry is executing, promote respectful engagement combined with a vigorous defense of our national interest and values. We intend to work in that spirit on this issue going forward.
I believe that this year presents a perfect opportunity for all of us to work together and tell the story of the Internet’s incredible, multistakeholder success, and to ultimately preserve and strengthen an open and innovative Internet as it continues to evolve to include all of the world’s people and communities.