(Archive) Outcomes Document – Pre-Meeting Draft

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 00. Introduction

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 7 Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) serves as a platform for discussion, exchange and collaboration at a regional level, and also where possible to aggregate national Internet Governance Forum (IGF) discussions, ultimately advance the Internet governance development in the Asia Pacific region.

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development” is the main theme of the sixth APrIGF held in Macao. With 29 sessions spanning 9 sub-themes [NUMBERS TO BE FINALIZED AFTER CONFIRMATION] in Cybersecurity and Trust; Internet Economy; Enhancing multistakeholder cooperation; Internet and Human Rights; Inclusiveness and Diversity; Critical Internet Resources; Openness; Emerging Issues; and the IANA Transition, there was robust discussion and comprehensive engagement of participants coming from 20+ [NUMBER TO BE FINALIZED] countries and territories in the Asia Pacific region and beyond.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 3 The observations and recommendations set forth in this document represent the collaborative efforts of the bottom-up multistakeholder community process intended to serve as the Asia Pacific regional contributions towards the international Internet Governance discourse, including the IGF, as well as towards local and national Internet governance deliberations in the Asia Pacific region.

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 1 1. Priorities for the Asia Pacific Region

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 The majority of the next billion people coming online will be from the Asia Pacific region, and critical priorities need to be addressed from local to national to region-wide levels. Given the wide spectrum of social, economic, political and geographic diversity in the region, comparative analysis of cross-regional trends will allow the development of policy framework building on the momentum and knowledge of previous work.

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 1 Among the discussions held at the APrIGF Macao 2015, the participants have identified the following priority issues for the Asia Pacific region:

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 15
[PLACEHOLDER FOR DISCUSSION] Bridging the Digital Divide – combined efforts from both the public and private section is needed to create sustainable initiatives to solve issues of accessibility and digital literacy for the underserved.
[PLACEHOLDER FOR DISCUSSION] Universal Acceptance – the diverse linguistic spectrum of this region underlines the necessity for faster realization of universal acceptance of Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) and Email Address Internationalization (EAI) so people can connect using their own language.
[PLACEHOLDER FOR DISCUSSION]

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 4 3. Recommendations

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 1 APrIGF Macao 2015 encourages the global community to consider and incorporate the following recommendations:

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 3
[PLACEHOLDER FOR DISCUSSION] Internet Governance from the Asia Pacific perspective – the diverse views from the Asia Pacific region should be taken not as discord but as a reflection of the different challenges and dynamics of the multistakeholder model employed under different conditions. More importantly, the global Internet Governance consensus development processes should better take into account such disparate conditions in considering due weights for voices from the Asia Pacific region, rebalanced against more advanced participation from other regions.
[PLACEHOLDER FOR DISCUSSION] Cybersecurity, human rights and development – the Asia Pacific participants recognize the importance of enhancing cybersecurity and human rights in the advancement of development; especially the different balance required at different stages of development.
[PLACEHOLDER FOR DISCUSSION]

Page 4

Comments

Comments are closed

1 Comment on the whole Page

Paul Wilson July 1, 2015 at 9:51 am

This is my comment on the whole page. Just for demo purposes.

0 Comments on paragraph 1

7 Comments on paragraph 2

Wanawit Ahkuputra July 1, 2015 at 12:45 pm

Reference to : IGF 2014 Chair’s Summary :Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance• 2-5 September 2014, Istanbul, Turkey •

Section 1.1 page 7

“A revitalisation of the format and content of the Chair’s Summary to suggest intersessional work modalities for the IGF and to make the IGF outcomes and outputs more portable and visible, so that they can be taken forward, as appropriate and on voluntary basis, by relevant Internet governance bodies, institutions and organisations.”

That might be also give the idea of the spirit of why APrIGF would like to have the outcome document. But in IGF they call Chair’s Summary.
1. Arthit July 1, 2015 at 3:03 pm
  
  “Chair’s Summary” is interesting, as it clearly signify where’s the Summary comes from.
  
  My suggestion is that, APrIGF could adopted a different or a same name, no need to be exactly the same as the global IGF, as long as it clearly signify where’s the document comes from.
  
  Whether this document will be a Summary, a Recommendation, a Statement, etc. is left to be discussed — some people already did this at http://comment.rigf.asia/table-of-contents/aprigf-asia-2015/aprigf-macao-2015-outcomes-document/#psR
2. Bianca July 3, 2015 at 5:23 am
  
  agree with tying in with Global IGF
Izumi Aizu July 2, 2015 at 10:06 am

Using “Chair’s Summary” might be problematic – as in the process of IGF Improvement, more than Chair’s Summary, some kind of more tangible outcome document has been proposed.

Having said that, using “summary” may not a bad idea.
Jac sm Kee July 7, 2015 at 10:43 am

Ya, maybe “Synthesis or Summary” document is a nice idea
nica July 8, 2015 at 12:18 am

Key issues in the Asia Pacific Region
1. nica July 8, 2015 at 12:24 am
  
  this is my comment to para 5. not sure why this appeared here.

1 Comment on paragraph 3

Samuel Akinsola July 1, 2015 at 5:36 pm

This is a stage we can appreciate and manage the internet and its resources for a better use.

There are alot of diversities with the internet but all works for our advantage if we know just how and when to use it.

We cannot forget the stone age, centuries ago where thinking level was just sifficient for that era and in this age we need something very admirable and that can make us discover the future. The internet is its name and it has its starting point.

Evolution is caused by thinking change that will effect the human race. The internet has totally brought change that has affected the way we dress, behave and think; what of the way we learn? it is drastically changing. Notwithstanding we need a way of curbing its consequencies to work for our good at all times.

The ineternet has provided a platform to commit subtle crime, more secretive more conscious, yet it has not changed our uniqueness as humanbeigns.

I really appreciate the topic for the 2015 and hope it serves even a better purpose to grass root local communities around the continent and the world to be a tool that gives sound information and not to create a decadence in moral statndard.

3 Comments on paragraph 4

Izumi Aizu July 1, 2015 at 10:16 am

How about using “summarize” instead of “represent” in the first sentence? Just to avoid possible misunderstanding.
Wanawit Ahkuputra July 1, 2015 at 12:21 pm

+1 @IZUMI
Arthit July 1, 2015 at 3:17 pm

+1 @Izumi

1 Comment on paragraph 5

nica July 8, 2015 at 12:20 am

Key issues in the AP region

0 Comments on paragraph 6

1 Comment on paragraph 7

Arthit July 1, 2015 at 3:20 pm

These priority issues are sorted by? .. Alphabetical order?

15 Comments on paragraph 8

Arthit July 1, 2015 at 9:56 am

For easier discussion, this part should be better break up into one paragraph per one discussion topic.
Jonathan Brewer July 1, 2015 at 10:08 am

The basic method of Internet connectivity is now Wi-Fi.

Some Asia-Pacific countries prohibit private companies from operating Wi-Fi hotspots, restricting this activity to incumbent telecommunications operators.

Bridging the Digital Divide depends on free and open access for all people and companies to the radio spectrum that Wi-Fi relies on.
1. Arthit July 1, 2015 at 3:07 pm
  
  Some countries allow wifi hotspots without licenses, although their cybercrime law put (criminal) liabilities to intermediaries like wifi — so less people eager to share their wifi. Community wifi also got affected, as the operator of the network will face legal risks.
  
  Example: Article 15 of Thailand’s 2007 Computer-related Crime Act.
NetMission on YIGF July 1, 2015 at 10:13 am

Redefined Youth Participation – Refine and rediscover a new model to youth participation beyond current practices for better integration rIGF and related youth IGF. Models like small-scale group discussion are effective in closing the gap between youth delegates and rIGF delegates. At the same time, it is important to recognize the language barriers and to encourage the production of related conference material in local languages (if possible).
1. Arthit July 1, 2015 at 3:12 pm
  
  Support more integration of regional Youth IGF and regional IGF. — The arrangement of timetable should allow Youth participants to join any session as they wish. May be by have a separated, preparatory process, of Youth IGF one day before IGF.
  Encourage workshop proposal to include youth as a panelist. Although, during the workshop process, youth should be treat as equal to other participants — there will be no special treatment.
  Find ways to support national Youth IGF to happen.
  1. Bianca @ NetMission, MAG member July 6, 2015 at 6:36 pm
    
    If go one step further, can also incorporate encouragement of youth to participate in panels to add extra points to the workshop. This mechanism would encourage workshop organisers to add a youth perspective to their workshop.
    
    Agree on that they should be treated equally as other participants during the conference
2. Bianca @ NetMission, MAG member July 3, 2015 at 5:27 am
  
  More importantly, the idea is to integrate the YIGF participants as much as possible to the main session. They might not be able to participate confidently in the APrIGF, but they would bring their observations back to their small-scale group discussion. It plants a seed and a path for gradual progress.
Arthit July 1, 2015 at 10:17 am

3. Preventing Data-based Discrimination — more and more data, including personal data and public data, are collected and available for processing, this can leads to better services, new products, improved efficiency in different kinds of operations, which all could lead to better life of people in the society. At the same time, this could lead to discrimination to a person or a community based on collected data or analysed output. We should ensure that this will be prevented from the design of the network.
1. Arthit Suriyawongkul July 3, 2015 at 8:41 am
  
  Or probably “Data-driven discrimination”.
Wanawit Ahkuputra July 1, 2015 at 12:02 pm

2. “Universal Acceptance” I do believe that the term were specific to ICANN Initiative Ramp up at ICANN 52 and under The primary drivers for Universal Acceptance stem from the 4 elements. In this APrIGF we focus on 2 elements which refer in Universal Acceptance as

“Non-Latin based TLDs: TLDs with names written in scripts other than ASCII, such as Hindi, Japanese and Greek.”

which in this placeholder we call Internationalized Domain Name (IDN)

and

“International Email: The introduction of non-ASCII names in email. While IDNs solved part of the ability to have non-ASCII names for servers, it doesn’t solve the ability to have non-ASCII names for mailboxes.”

which in this place holder we call Email Address Internationalization (EAI)

I fully understand that the term specify in the place holder item 2. is more generic term and better term that what use in the Universal Acceptance Initiative Background section.

If the term EAI is came from IETF and IDN is the ICANN term but not refer in the background of Universal Acceptant. We should make it clear that which should be the based of our definition

I support the term already use in this document is more generic and understandable.
Don July 3, 2015 at 3:22 am

With respect to Universal Acceptance…

The Internet DNS has already provided support for IDNs and they have been in production since 2009. What needs to happen now, both in respect to IDNs and all new TLDs, is that the developers of computer programmes and systems need to catch up so that they take advantage of these new facilities.

Readers, including businesses, governments and civil society participants, should make sure that their own systems are UA Ready – that is that they can accept, validate, store, process and display all domain names equally. This is an issue not just at the top level, but at second and subsequent levels as well.

They should also encourage their suppliers and the providers of services they use to become UA Ready.

[NB: This editing application is an example of one that does NOT accept IDN e-mail addresses]
Sivasubramanian M July 6, 2015 at 6:13 pm

Internet Governance participants could consider Core Internet values as a set of values that the Internet ought not to slip away from. The architectural values – Internet as dumb technology, end to end architecture, inter-operability and openness – values arising out of the Internet’s design by the intent of the early inventors and the natural evolution of the Internet beyond their intent- could be deemed as unalterable core values. The underlying technical values result in larger sociological benefits. For instance the technical value of interoperability results in the sociological benefit of a Global Network of networks. The architectural values of openness and interoperability make the Internet as a Network of networks that require little architectural changes when a new network joins the Internet, or even when there are unforeseen technological developments such as Mobile Networks or unforeseen trends such as IPv6 or the proliferation of the Internet of Things. There are threats to the border-less Internet arising out of geographical borders raised by Governments as well as artificial borders raised by walled gardens and zero rating services. The IGF in its discussion on the horizontal theme of “Policy Options for connecting the next billion” could debate and emphasize that the stakeholders around the world formulate Internet Policy without hurting the core Internet Values.
Bianca @ NetMission, MAG member July 6, 2015 at 6:40 pm

Also wanted to establish a sustainable initiative and common ground to exchange and to come up with consensus, for example the establishment of an Asia Pacific regional research network focused on child online safety.
tan tarn how July 7, 2015 at 10:29 am

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-SG
ZH-CN
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

I suggest that under priorities we add this:

A Civilised, Safe And Healthy Internet: That access is accompanied by awareness, education and actions by all parties from governments to service providers, content providers, NGOs and individual users, including parents, to develop and maintain an internet that is civilised, safe and healthy, in particular engendering the development of such an Internet by media literacy from an early age.
tan tarn how July 7, 2015 at 10:30 am

Sorry, my comment earlier was wonky.

I suggest that under priorities we add this:

A Civilised, Safe And Healthy Internet: That access is accompanied by awareness, education and actions by all parties from governments to service providers, content providers, NGOs and individual users, including parents, to develop and maintain an internet that is civilised, safe and healthy, in particular engendering the development of such an Internet by media literacy from an early age.

4 Comments on paragraph 9

Arthit July 1, 2015 at 9:58 am

May be not only recommendations, but documented concerns, agreements, and disagreements.
Izumi Aizu July 1, 2015 at 10:26 am

“Suggestions” instead of “Recommendations” if there is strong opposition, but otherwise, “Recommendations” is fine. This is Not a political or diplomatic document.
Wanawit Ahkuputra July 1, 2015 at 12:37 pm

Reference to : IGF 2014 Chair’s Summary :Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance• 2-5 September 2014, Istanbul, Turkey •

“Summary and way forward” and

“Ways Forward/Recommendations”

were use in the document.
Jac July 2, 2015 at 10:05 am

Best practices or ways forward

1 Comment on paragraph 10

Arthit Suriyawongkul July 3, 2015 at 8:42 am

Replacing “recommendations” with an agreed term in the Sub-heading.

3 Comments on paragraph 11

Mohit Saraswat July 3, 2015 at 3:12 am

Building Trust on the Internet ( Surveillance state in AP)- In my view, it is very important that all the stakeholder have optimum trust in the platform. To achieve the same all the stakeholders have to shoulder responsibilities.

End user are to be made aware of their privacy needs.
Content provider and Collaboration tools ( Read Twitter, Facebook) that form important part of the ecosystem have to derive and develop plans to incorporate trust; Segregating private and public space for the end user.
Government and regulator have to be made responsible for respecting and building trust.
1. Arthit Suriyawongkul July 3, 2015 at 8:44 am
  
  Can we call this “Privacy-by-design”?
Forest Atkinson July 7, 2015 at 9:52 am

Human rights are by universal. The phrasing “especially the different balance required at different stages of development” should be deleted, as it seems to suggest that the importance attached to human rights varies depending on the stage of development and it is acceptable to trade off cybersecurity against human rights.

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement	1 year	Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie is used to record the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category .
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent	1 year	Records the default button state of the corresponding category & the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Cookie	Duration	Description
_ga	2 years	The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_gat_gtag_UA_1450632_51	1 minute	Set by Google to distinguish users.
_gid	1 day	Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.

APrIGF Document Platform

Contents

Search

Special Pages

Table of Contents