Open input period for the 2019 APrIGF Vladivostok Synthesis Document
Safer Internet, Cybersecurity and Regulation
The growing concerns on issues such as misinformation, fake news, hate speech and harassment, online violence and terrorism, organized cybercrimes, data breaches result in a decrease of trust as well as a wave of state regulations to mitigate the cybersecurity risks. To maintain cyber hygiene, what kind of policies and governance model shall be adopted to tackle these issues and achieve a safer Internet? What should be the key considerations for states when creating these regulations? How shall we maintain legal interoperability of laws and extraterritorial data protection on the Internet? Should the Internet be regulated by the states solely and what is the impact of these existing regulations on the Internet? How should the balance be drawn between state interference on Internet infrastructure and a free and open Internet?
On the other hand, there is a call for the co-existence of diversity for a peaceful collaboration towards a safer Internet. How can the Internet community participate more actively in the international cybersecurity discussions and encourage more co- operative measures? What shall the digital ethics be for businesses? How shall we take into account the concept of public goods and the commons vs. data ownership and privatization of knowledge? To enhance trust and security, how can we enhance the capacity building effort and how do we bridge the gap between technical and non-technical understanding of securing the Internet?
- WS10. Child-led research on promoting safer Internet from children’s perspective
- WS51. Protection of Child Online: Importance of Child Safety Complaints Tools
- WS41. Localized Internet: Two Sides of a Coin
- Merger 2: WS20. Cyber Norms in Asia-Pacific / WS46. Promoting Cyber Safety and Privacy Culture in the Pacific Region – Awareness and Learnings
- WS48. A roadmap for studying ICT laws and building a database for Asia
- WS14. Know Your Net – Working Together to Address Internet Security and Standards
- WS57. Digital Security at the Grassroots: Emerging needs and challenges
- WS12. Coping with misinformation in an era of information deluge: Who is Responsible?
Access & Universality
Internet is an important means for access to information and knowledge, connecting the unconnected to such global resource remains a fundamental and primary goal. There is evidence that digital divides within national populations are associated with factors such as geography, gender, age, ethnicity and disability. In many cases, these are consistent with structural inequalities in society as a whole, and so with differences in access to other goods and services. Beyond mere access, how do we measure the quality and ensuring it is affordable and equitable? How can we facilitate better access by encouraging more local content and linguistic diversity as well as the adoption of Universal Acceptance (UA) and Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)? Digital literacy and e-government development are also key components to empower digital citizenship and civil participation.
Universality includes striving for an Internet that are free from fragmentation. How can we uphold the universal principles? How do we ensure the Internet is integrated and interoperable with the same values? What is the role of open technology playing in achieving universality?
- Plenary: Digital Accessibility
- WS28. Honey, I shut the internet! Dealing with internet shutdowns in Asia Pacific
- Merger 1: WS34. Universal Acceptance: Opportunities and Risks for Asia-Pacific / WS13. Universality of the Domain Name System (DNS)
- WS17. The Future of Digital Identity and Human Rights
- WS35. Language Diversity in Asia-Pacific: Challenges towards Digital Dividends
- WS55. Community Networks – Connecting the Hardest Half
- WS42. Sharing IPv6 Deployment Experiences among Asia Pacific Countries
Emerging Technologies and Society
Emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), cryptocurrencies and blockchains are highly prevalent nowadays with rapid developments. How do we encourage permissionless innovation while maintaining algorithm accountability and ethics? What are the opportunities and security risks behind these technologies? How shall we govern these technologies and or not at all? How does ICT provide solutions and impact on the sustainable development goals (SDGs) such as climate change, health and well-being? How shall we embrace the digital transformations and overcome the challenges?
On a societal level, social media is affecting our identity, relationships, career, and health. What are the impact on individuals and how that affect the society as a whole? How do we mitigate these emerging issues? What are the relations between the Internet and the economy in developing countries?
- WS30. The Ethics behind Computing Machines: Raising Awareness of Digital Talents
- WS22. IoT Security – A Differentiator for Consumers
- WS9. Parallel Workshop: Build Concept on AI and Society for good Global
- WS50. Can we apply “multi-stakeholder approach” for governance of crypto assets?
Human Rights Online
Human rights shall be respected and applied universally to physical and internet space in the areas of access and development, freedom of expression, right to assembly and privacy as well as on the right to education, health, culture and to a broad range of other rights.
Issues such as online censorship, Internet shutdown, gender- based violence and inequality, privacy invasion are often observed in countries across the Asia Pacific region.
What are some best practices on these issues? Are there impacts on freedom of expression? What is the impact of GDPR to the growing data collection and analysis in digital economy and IoT businesses in the Asia Pacific region? What is the importance of encryption with regards to the rights of online users? In addition to policies and tools, how can we make people more aware of their rights and the privacy standards?
- Merger 3 Online Resistance Movements and Political Organising Against and Countering Hate Speech in Asia
Evolving Role of Internet Governance & Multi-Stakeholder Participation
The Internet community is going through a structuralization or institutionalization period of IGFs and SIGs around the world. Multiple capacity building efforts on its history and evolution are proposed to help define the role of IGF and the community in the Internet governance processes.
Throughout the last 20 years, there has been a discussion which puts governance and regulation in contrast. There is a difference between a multi-stakeholder governance model and a government-led regulatory model. Globally, there has been a contrast and discussion between the multi-stakeholder approach and the multilateral approach, and other hybrid variations. Will the Internet need to be regulated more heavily by governments? Is there a need for new regulatory processes to be able to be more inclusive to different multi-stakeholder groups and perspectives especially underrepresented communities? How can we make the multi-participation model more effective and sustainable in policy making?
- Plenary Session: Internet Governance in Asia Pacific: The State of Play and Outlook
- High-level panel on Digital Cooperation report
- WS6. Analyzing Perspectives on Youth Participation in the Multi-stakeholder Landscape: A Contextual Follow-Through Session on Motivations to Sustainability Efforts
- 10 years of Russian IGF/25 years of RUnet and lessons learned
- Closing Plenary: The Role of Asia Pacific Internet Governance and Multistakeholder Participation in the Global IGF
Digital Economy
What are the impacts of the massive growth of online platform and e-commerce to the traditional businesses especially in the Asia Pacific countries? What is the cost of digital economy and the security issues?
How shall we address the legal issues including consumer protection, intellectual property rights, data protection, and social responsibilities of Internet industry? How can we empower underserved communities and regional in this digital boom?
- WS23. Big tech everywhere: Is this the future of the Internet?
- WS37. Is e-Government an effective mechanism for developing economies
hello, I am mokabberi from Iran, advisor of cyber policy research institute.
My comments:
how can we promote inclusive norm making process reqarding these below consideration:
1. shaping Fair, democratic, global and ethical internet governance mechanism is key precondition for cyber security norm making process can overcome mistrusts.
2. we should also work on norms of responsible behavior of tech company
3. ITU can play role in cyber security standardization to secure ICTs products supply chain security
4.we should also consider smart lethal weapons and fake attributions
l thinks this process will lead to more militarization of cyberspace and cyber weapean race and establishing AIEA for cyberspace and let some country for unilateral coercive measure in cyberspace like digital countermeasure
This process like applying IHLs in digital realm and turn it into conflict zone is against the vision of peaceful and development-oriented internet for human goods
hello, I am mokabberi from Iran, advisor of cyber policy research institute.
My comments:
how can we promote inclusive norm making process reqarding these below consideration:
1. shaping Fair, democratic, global and ethical internet governance mechanism is key precondition for cyber security norm making process can overcome mistrusts.
2. we should also work on norms of responsible behavior of tech company
3. ITU can play role in cyber security standardization to secure ICTs products supply chain security
4.we should also consider smart lethal weapons and fake attributions
l thinks this process will lead to more militarization of cyberspace and cyber weapean race and establishing AIEA for cyberspace and let some country for unilateral coercive measure in cyberspace like digital countermeasure
This process like applying IHLs in digital realm and turn it into conflict zone is against the vision of peaceful and development-oriented internet for human goods
My comments:
how can we promote inclusive norm making process reqarding these below consideration:
1. shaping Fair, democratic, global and ethical internet governance mechanism is key precondition for cyber security norm making process can overcome mistrusts.
2. we should also work on norms of responsible behavior of tech company
3. ITU can play role in cyber security standardization to secure ICTs products supply chain security
4.we should also consider smart lethal weapons and fake attributions
l thinks this process will lead to more militarization of cyberspace and cyber weapean race and establishing AIEA for cyberspace and let some country for unilateral coercive measure in cyberspace like digital countermeasure
This process like applying IHLs in digital realm and turn it into conflict zone is against the vision of peaceful and development-oriented internet for human goods
My comments:
how can we promote inclusive norm making process reqarding these below consideration:
1. shaping Fair, democratic, global and ethical internet governance mechanism is key precondition for cyber security norm making process can overcome mistrusts.
2. we should also work on norms of responsible behavior of tech company
3. ITU can play role in cyber security standardization to secure ICTs products supply chain security
4.we should also consider smart lethal weapons and fake attributions
l thinks this process will lead to more militarization of cyberspace and cyber weapean race and establishing AIEA for cyberspace and let some country for unilateral coercive measure in cyberspace like digital countermeasure
This process like applying IHLs in digital realm and turn it into conflict zone is against the vision of peaceful and development-oriented internet for human goods
One suggestion:
A percent of (for example about 5 percent) of taxes of global tech companies and digital platforms that payed to governments can allocated for IGF budget for the implementation of IGF strategic plan and research and development Fund in the field of internet governance in national and international level . By this initiative funding problems of NRIS will be solved.
“Currencies” being set up by Technology corporations is a concern. Eg it is starting of with Faceboook
using of AIs regulating Digital Economies
Does Blockchain collect too much personal information?
hello, from mokabberi from iran.
my comments
we have seen some organized disinformation and fake news in social media with geopolitical purpose ,for example we clearly see that some networks of fake accounts and bots are producing fake news against shia muslims in the name of sounni muslims and at the same time, they are spreading disinformation and hate speech against sunni muslims in the name of shia muslims. We all know who benefits from conflict between muslims and Who benefits from conflict between russia and europe.
what should be done with this organized disinfo at global level that want to make hostilities among nations and religious groups in the world to gain iligimate economical and political interest?
Regulation? Digital ethics? Awareness and digital litracy?
Declaration by stakeholders?
Human Rights online should just not limit what we can do in the internet, but it should not be ignored as well. I think the Human Rights online should be its own thing, it should be redefined, privacy offline is not necessarily what is online, free speech offline is not necessarily what it should be online. There is a difference and as such defined differently. It is an interesting topic, it should be highlighted but its definition should be clarified. Human Rights was not defined in a day. The existing one may not at all apply online.
Emerging technologies were amongst the hot topics and interestingly we discussed them from the ethics perspective too. One of the key terms that came along was a “rights based Internet” to help reinforce the open and accessible invariants of the Internet. But with ethics the challenge is where does it come in? At the programmer level, or early education? As ethics is a morality, it is also the major onus of all humans themselves in their own capacities. A good practice may be to focus on developing inter disciplinary curricula and ICT education to sound the unethical challenges that may spring from emerging tech.
Rising awareness among developing countries nation’s most important then introducing policy framework. In many cases have seen for example in Bangladesh they didn’t know using social media they’re doing crime. Policy and regulations will be much more effective only when everyone have good understanding of right or wrong on the internet.
With the trend of Digital ecosystem facilities us doing e-commerce, online shopping,mobile money transfer…etc. on the other hand consumers are not have adequate knowledge of rights, there’s products received found not satisfy quality thts has been assured by the e-commerce platform and most of the case they didn’t mentioned penalty or they have tendency to overlook it as result consumers are loosing better service.
Though have rising digital economy through digital services or platform but have huge lack of digital governance for which end user can be beneficial for the developing countries.
From our end in the Pacific, yes totally agreed in raising awareness so that everyone using internet will understand the threats, challenges and business opportunities that comes with the internet and at the same time aware of some proper and respectful way of using the internet platform within their respective roles.
As for me being both involved in the Government and community so its best to use both connection to make the multitakesholder approach at national level a success. Can put together Government resources and community participation to build guidelines for a safer internet for everyone in the community.
Regulation: Russia and Iran’s internet isolation is of serious issue since it will also affect IXPs and impose their authorities on the routing pf global internet traffic in and out of their respective borders.
Apart from including the youth, I think it is also important for us to include the elderly in the discussion. With the advancement and spread of smart gadgets, more and more middle-aged people and elderly are now using these smartphones for online activities and to connect with their family and friends. However, for quite a number of them are not as alert as young people, who are digital natives, when it comes to issues like cybersecurity and privacy protection. Some of them have only little understandings on these dangers, which means that they are probably more prone to cyber crimes, privacy breach and so on. It is essential to include them in the discussion of internet governance so that we can understand better about their difficulties and better address them.
Agree on this point. Not only the youth, but the elderly are also important to have good knowledge and awareness about cybersecurity, cyberbullying, fake news, hate speeches, etc. and all the things that can be dangerous via the internet.
For instance, a gullible person may be both a youth or middle-aged and even an elderly who is used to believe the occurrences on the internet and spread the news about it which can harm someone direct or indirect way by emotionally, financially, socially, and reputationally.
Therefore, the elderly should be added too in the discussion of Internet Governance so they become familiar with both the advantages and disadvantages of the internet and how to protect themselves. And we are able to realize their perceptive of using the internet and lessons learned in order to have the idea how we should better promote the awareness of Internet Governance for all age level.
Before adding the new stakeholder in the discussion of Internet governance, we should consider its uniqueness and the urgency to include them. Different subthemes under the Internet governance may show the different level of uniqueness and urgency to include them in the discussion. For example, in the access and universality session, the urgency to include the different social status people may outweigh the urgency to include the elderly. As the technology is evolving, there should also be consecutive research focusing on which potential stakeholders are lagging behind. In different issues, there would be different stakeholders we need to focus on more. How to build up a more flexible multistakeholder participation and give the most needed but ignored stakeholders the priority to participate is our next thing.
[ Internet Governance & Multi-Stakeholder Participation ]
No one denies the importance to make the voice of underrepresented communities be heard at APrIGF or any other IGFs. But at the end of the day, it will discussions that “could” be heard by the decision making bodies but there might not be any follow up.
What would be a good approach is to develop the connection between APrIGF Community (like MSG, or other subject matter experts to join ITU Government delegates for consultancy during the development of ITU resolutions.
I agree
The advance of technology has undoubtedly brings convenience and benefits to society. However, according to PwC’s Global State of Information Security Survey dated 2015, the cybercrime market worth $114 billion, which is bigger than the cocaine market ($85 billion, quote from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2011). Therefore, I believe it is necessary to evaluate the Cyber Maturity Framework of organizations which provide new technologies prior launching /on a regular basis. The Cyber Maturity Framework consists of four capability areas: Respond, Identify, Detect and Protect).
Respond:
Assesses the organisation’s ability to respond and recover from external and internal attacks against its systems and data.
Identify:
Assesses the organisation’s ability to understanding the threats and appropriately manage the associated security risk to systems, assets, data and capabilities.
Detect :
Assesses the organisation’s ability to detect external and internal attacks of varying sophistication against its systems and data.
Protect:
Assesses the organisations ability to implement security controls to reduce the risk of threats being realised (e.g. loss of data or system outage).
With Facebook, users can opt to close their account and choose to permanently have their data deleted but what about Facebook’s facial recognition AI, will it “unlearn” to recognise faces of deleted users even though this may not be evident to other users.
Users who are not part of or members of organisations need to be encouraged and included in the Multi-stakeholder participation, (since they make up the largest number), through fellowships and similarly for youths. Regional SIGs should cater for non IG professionals and youths. Fellowships should also be encouraged for senior citizens.
Dear one and all
This is kanumuri s Raju from India. In order to make internet safe , make every internet user rights needs in place we must act on these
1) educate all internet users how to use it , safe gaurdimg their privacy face cyber attacks as most of them are uneducated.
2 ) no junk data in internet web sites
,3) eastablish skill centers .
4)! No fake news based on
False inputs.
) Act on people missing .
6} collobiration open partner ships
7)saving eco system / electronics recycling
8) make governece important
9) qos important. Localization imp.
I was hoping if all countries that are now registered under the Global Internet Governance Forum can formalized a convention to safe guard the internet use. I know there is a Budapest convention for cyber crime by the Council of Europe (185). It now serves as the binding International instrument to fight against cyber crime.
It provides guidelines for any country developing comprehensive national legislation against Cybercrime and as a framework for international cooperation between State Parties to this treaty.
In saying this, we now have Non-European countries like USA, Japan and Australia as well as our neighbors Tonga who have signed and ratified the convention. I believe its a good platform for better collaboration and investigation if the perpetrator resides within these Countries or Regions.
Growing misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and harassment is definitely a growing issue. However, there can be no binary solution to this issue.
Fake news has always been there in our society, the only concern is with the use of technology the reach and impact has dramatically increased.
Apart from regulations, or companies introducing measures within their products or services to reduce such incidents, capacity building and educating the community on digital etiquette is important. The civil society can play a critical role in this. Also, there is a need for more academic research on these issues – including what motivates some communities to react or spread/ share news while not others, etc.
It is an issue of the whole community and can only be addressed when the whole multistakeholder community works on it together. Blocking, shutting or restricting the internet will not help.
Having said that various initiatives are being taken by online companies in tackling these issues. While few have helped, there is more that needs to be done.
Agree on this point. Not only the youth, but the elderly are also important to have good knowledge and awareness about cybersecurity, cyberbullying, fake news, hate speeches, etc. and all the things that can be dangerous via the internet.
For instance, a gullible person may be both a youth or middle-aged and even an elderly who is used to believe the occurrences on the internet and spread the news about it which can harm someone direct or indirect way by emotionally, financially, socially, and reputationally.
Therefore, the elderly should be added too in the discussion of Internet Governance so they become familiar with both the advantages and disadvantages of the internet and how to protect themselves. And we are able to realize their perceptive of using the internet and lessons learned in order to have the idea how we should better promote the awareness of Internet Governance for all age level.