Sunday, January 26, 2014

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.

Netizen Report: Winter Olympics Bring Chilling Effects to the RuNet

Netizen Report: Winter Olympics Bring Chilling Effects to the RuNet

Hae-in Lim, Sonia Roubini, Alex Laverty, Richard Teverson,Mohamed ElGohary, Ellery Roberts Biddle, and Sarah Myerscontributed to this report.
Global Voices Advocacy's Netizen Report offers an international snapshot of challenges, victories, and emerging trends in Internet rights around the world. This week's report begins in the United States, where rights advocates are responding to President Barack Obama’s highly anticipated speech on surveillance reforms, delivered last Friday. Obama pledged to dismantle the system of collecting phone call metadata “as it currently exists.” Other changes will include the addition of a public advocate in the FISA court who will be responsible for approving surveillance requests; the adoption of stricter standards for accessing metadata; and raising the threshold for authorizations for spying on foreign leaders. Despite the reforms, Obama’s speech came under criticism for not going far enough. Reactions from rights advocates in the United States and around the globe were mostly critical.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Image released to public domain.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Image released to public domain.
PEN International’s Deji Olukotun noted the historical irony in Obama’s treatment of state surveillance, an issue that plagued civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. “[It] makes little sense for the President to open the door on the deeply-flawed surveillance program that plagued King while making cosmetic reforms to his own far-flung surveillance program.”
Global privacy leaders largely reiterated the need to take further steps to protect privacy rights. Government officials in the EU, U.K., and Germany had mixed reviews, while Brazilian leaders, who have been highly critical of the NSA program, refused to comment publicly.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation put together a scorecard rating the reform plan 3.5 out of a possible 12.
Free Expression: Winter Olympics bring chilling effects to the RuNet
New legislation in Russia allows security authorities to block websites and social networks that host calls for “participation in mass public events.” The policy goes into effect in Russia on February 1, just ahead of the Winter Olympics in Sochi. Other laws still under consideration would introduce new data collection requirements for websites and restrict online money transfers for NGOs.
Ukraine’s Parliament passed a law that openly restricts free speech, peaceful protest and free communications in the country.
Thuggery: “Watchdog” journalists threatened over leaked draft constitution
Zambian police are threatening to prosecute the operators of independent news site the Zambian Watchdog after the embattled site published a new draft constitution that lawmakers wrote but failed to release to the public. This is one in a series of attempts to shut downthe Zambian Watchdog.
Surveillance: Sanctions on Sudan limit online security
A new report from Tech President describes how broad US sanctionsagainst Sudan are preventing netizens from downloading a range of online tools, including secure messaging software.
Privacy: Canada spanks Google
Canadian authorities found that Google illegally violated a user’s privacy rights—and its own privacy policy—when it used medical information from his search history to target ads. A yearlong investigation by Canada's federal privacy watchdog found Google responsible, with consequences that could be “industry-wide,” according to Interim Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier.
Industry: China expands its reach in Africa
The Kenyan government will award national digital television distribution rights to Chinese company PANG, a decision that has caused alarm among local TV stations and activists who fear the change could lead to censorship. The government’s Digital Transition Committee says that PANG is required to be a “neutral signal carrier.”
Internet Governance: Hello, Brazil
Since the Brazilian government announced plans to hold a global Internet governance event in Sao Paulo, Brazil this April, governance experts and advocates have been buzzing with anticipation and developing plans of action for the event. Now known as the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance,” Brazil’s state-convened Internet steering committee reports that the meeting will “focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.” Perhaps anticipating what will likely be a hotly contested debate, the change sets out more modest objectives for the meeting, which previously sought to “pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework.”
A US federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission cannot impose Internet neutrality rules that were developed and adopted in 2010. In brief, the rules seek to prevent Internet service providers from prioritizing certain kinds of Internet traffic over others by requiring that all online information be treated equally.
The European Union is similarly preparing to take up net neutrality, via the legislative route. In response, a group of European civil rights groups have launched a new campaign, SaveTheInternet.eu, to amend or block the regulation.
Cool Things
Syria Untold, a Web platform that aims to highlight creative and journalistic projects coming out of Syria’s nonviolent uprising, is now offering a newsletter. Sign up here.
Blackphone claims to be the first smartphone able to make and receive secure calls, facilitate secure video chats, and exchange and store files and SMS messages privately. Silent Circle and Geeksphone will debut the device at the Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona in February.
Publications and Studies

Global group to look at ways to preserve internet freedom

Waterloo, Ont., think-tank asks for 'rules of the road' for internet

CBC News Posted: Jan 22, 2014 4:06 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 23, 2014 12:26 PM ET
Fen Osler Hampson of the Centre for International Governance said there is a danger of government wanting to control the architecture of the internet.
Fen Osler Hampson of the Centre for International Governance said there is a danger of government wanting to control the architecture of the internet. (CBC)
A Canadian think-tank has pulled together a global group of 25 experts, including academics and politicians, to find ways to preserve internet freedom at a time when privacy and security issues are causing public concern.
The Waterloo, Ont.-based Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) helped organize a commission undertaking a two-year study aimed at finding "a strategic vision for the future of internet governance."
'The real risk – it’s certainly a risk after Snowden....is that we’ll see a balkanization of the internet as governments try to erect walls to control the flow of information'- Fen Osler Hampson, CIGI
The commission was launched in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum and follows in the aftermath of the Edward Snowden espionage revelations as well as security breaches in the corporate world.
Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt will head the group, which also will draw on the expertise of Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs.
"The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” Bildt said in a statement Wednesday.
“And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies," he said.
While countries such as China seek to control the internet by working hand-in-hand with ISP services, court decisions, regulatory regimes and government laws governing content can also hamper internet freedom.
Canada's CIGI worked with Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs to create the group.
Fen Osler Hampson, director of CIGI's global security program, says there is increasing risk that countries will try to control the architecture of the internet as they seek to enhance security.

Worry about government meddling

“One of the reasons it works so well is that it’s largely managed through private corporations. Up until now there hasn’t been a large amount of government interference but the real risk – it’s certainly a risk after Snowden....is that we’ll see a balkanization of the internet as governments try to erect walls to control the flow of information,” he said in an interview with CBC’s The Lang & O’Leary Exchange.
Hampson says he worries about barriers that could slow down innovation and the development of knowledge.
The big challenge is that there is little thought about cooperation in regulatory standards across international borders, he said, but a decision by a judge in the U.S. can have a wide-ranging impact.
A recent U.S. decision striking down net neutrality is one example, as it could leave smaller carriers at the mercy of big ones, such as Verizon.
“One of the things that we’re trying to do in what is clearly a very ambitious two-year study is to identify some clear rules of the road that will ensure security, privacy, freedom of access,” Hampson said.

Corrections

  • The Waterloo, Ont.-based Centre for International Governance Innovation helped spearhead the study of ways to preserve internet freedom. An earlier version of this story contained incorrect information.
    Jan 23, 2014 12:22 PM ET

Islamic TLDs and the Challenge of Good Governance

Stéphane Van GelderAs governments ask themselves whether they should not be the only ones in charge, and everyone else is more determined than ever to stay involved, Internet governance is now a front-page topic.
But away from the theoretical debates about which model is best, one real-life situation may end up looking strangely like a vindication of the multi-stakeholder model by governmental organisations.
The situation in question is that of Islam and Halal. Two applications that look like they are caught in a kind of new gTLD program groundhog day.
Applied for by Turkish company Asian Green IT System (AGIT), both TLDs have passed ICANN's Initial Evaluation and should be in the contract-signing phase by now. At 564, Islam's priority draw number is actually quite low (Halal's draw number is much at 1695). So in theory, Islam could have been one of the earlier new gTLD launchers.
Instead, every possible spanner has been thrown in the Islam and Halal works by what appears to be a minority group of countries led by the United Arab Emirates. In a December CircleID article, former ICANN Board member Katim Touray gave a detailed account of the numerous attempts to get the two applications thrown out.
In short, every possible avenue the new gTLD program offered, from the standard objection process to the Independent Objector, GAC Early Warnings and GAC Advice, was tried. To no avail. The objections were overturned and the GAC did not issue formal advice against Islam and Halal.
Odd resolution
So now the two TLD's detractors have brought out the big guns. In the ICANN universe, if you want anything done, you get a major international organisation to write formal letters to the GAC and the Board. Self-described as "the second largest inter-governmental organisation after the United Nations” and as the "collective voice of the Muslim world”, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) certainly fits the bill.
Late last year, the OIC started writing to the Board and the GAC urging both to put a stop to the Islam and Halal new gTLD rollout. Then, just before the end-of-year Buenos Aires ICANN meeting, the OIC joined the GAC as an observer. Finally, at the organisation's 40th session of the Council of Foreign Ministers held in Conakry, Republic of Guinea, from December 9 to 11 2013, a resolution was adopted requesting its General Secretariat to "communicate with the concerned party ICANN in order to file an official objection to the use of gTLDS .Islam and .Halal” and also urging "OIC Member States members to ICANN to support United Arab Emirates' position and the measures it took to block the sale of the two domains 'Islam' and 'halal' or any other domains which concern the entire Islamic Ummah.”
To proponents of the multi-stakeholder way of doing things, the OIC resolution might feel odd. Asking for an official objection to be filed even though the new gTLD program's objection process closed a whole 9 months before on March 13, 2013 shows either strong misunderstanding of rules that were arrived at by community bottom-up consensus, or blatant disregard for them. But those used to the multilateral model, considering a governmental position to be above anything decided by anyone else might not feel so unusual.
Misunderstandings
Still, giving OIC the benefit of the doubt, it does seem as though the resolution stems from a limited grasp of all the issues involved. A concept paper drafted in preparation for the Conakry meeting shows that if the OIC was based on a model where all stakeholders had a voice, it might have avoided what at first glance looks like a hasty decision.
The paper was provided to OIC member states as background information to help them determine their position on the anti Islam and Halal resolution. It shows that out of the 57 OIC member states, only UAE, the Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Qatar appear to have strong feelings against the two TLDs. 3 out of 57 is hardly a majority. It's not even a strong minority. Yet in the Conakry resolution process, this minority view apparently went unchallenged.
Although the paper goes into quite extensive detail on the reasons given by UAE, Qatar and Jordan for opposing the TLDs, it is surprisingly light on information about the applications themselves.
OIC members therefore had to determine their positions based on one, very limited side to the story. The paper is very vague on who applied and what's in the actual applications. The paper just tells OIC member states that "certain private companies have registered two Islamic domains (Halal and Islam), which has attracted broad rejection and objection from certain OIC Member States at the level of ICANN.”
So on a resolution that probably seemed minor on what was otherwise a very full agenda, it's not surprising that Ministers and their teams did not question the picture being painted for them.
That not one, but several, companies were after Islam and Halal. And that these TLDs were not in the process of being applied for, but had already been registered. No mention of AGIT, a company from a Muslim country, as the sole applicant for both TLDs. An applicant working to the same proposed model of a "multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms designed to allow a wide variety of significant Muslim community stakeholders to take part in determining how these TLDs should be administered,” as AGIT MD Mehdi Abbasnia wrote in a December 30, 2013 letter to ICANN Board Chair Steve Crocker.
Good governance
Islam and Halal are understandably extremely important to the Muslim community. And equally understandably, parts of that community feel threatened by the possibility that new namespaces might open up. But isn't the best way to dispel myths and avoid scaremongering based on incomplete information to give everyone that's involved a chance to give their side of the story?
The irony of the Islam and Halal problem is that although born of the multilateral world where only governments have a say, it is governmental organisations who have pushed it over to the multistakeholder model to solve. "The ball is now in the ICANN Board's court,” Abbasnia argued in his December 30 letter. "If it bows to the OIC's pressure and blocks our TLD applications, not only will Muslims the world over be prevented from claiming their very own space on the Internet, but I believe it will also be dealing a blow to the new gTLD program's credibility, and to the credibility of ICANN as a multi-stakeholder governance organization.”
Maybe the way Islam and Halal end up being handled will show that having an environment where all voices can be heard is the best way to ensure that the truth does not get obscured by partial information and vested interests. Surely that's what anyone would call good governance.
Source: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140120_islamic_tlds_and_the_challenge_of_good_governance/