Addis Ababa IGF Messages

With access comes the inherent need to be safe and secure online. From the start Internet and ICT security must be considered as an important and necessary component of digital access. Without it there is less to no protection against abuse and harm.

With access comes the inherent need to be safe and secure online. From the start Internet and ICT security must be considered as an important and necessary component of digital access. Without it there is less to no protection against abuse and harm.

Connecting people is appropriate since the Internet is an invaluable resource which is key to human development. In as much as we continue to connect people, we must all be reminded of good information Information Security standards for protection in our homes and offices. Without good strategies and standards for Information Security, there is bound to be delays which will affect productivity in the work we will do in our offices.

Connecting people is appropriate since the Internet is an invaluable resource which is key to human development. In as much as we continue to connect people, we must all be reminded of good information Information Security standards for protection in our homes and offices. Without good strategies and standards for Information Security, there is bound to be delays which will affect productivity in the work we will do in our offices.

Think there is a need to include hear how "Meaningful Access" needs coordination among all stakeholder groups to prevent diverse approaches and thus waste of resources. 

Think there is a need to include hear how "Meaningful Access" needs coordination among all stakeholder groups to prevent diverse approaches and thus waste of resources. 

Think there is a need to include hear how "Meaningful Access" needs coordination among all stakeholder groups to prevent diverse approaches and thus waste of resources. 

Think there is a need to include hear how "Meaningful Access" needs coordination among all stakeholder groups to prevent diverse approaches and thus waste of resources. 

The key issues that are vital to ensure the future for the GOOD Internet.

1.  1. To end internet weaponization, and use of internet for illegitimate goals by Defining a common vision for internet as a peaceful and development- oriented environment for public good not as a new battlefield and weaponized environment through signing a global declaration by all member states.
2. 2.Recognizing the Nature of Internet as civilian environment only with peaceful purposes and uses.
3. 3.Unilateral coercive measure (UCM ) in digital world that could be a great barrier toward National development goals and constitutes violation of human rights obligations.
4. 4.Trusted international framework on cross-border Data Flow while ensuring Data Sovereignty.
5. 5.Streaming the Geopolitical neutrality of the Global Internet
6. 6.Establishment of global framework, rules and norms on accountable behaviors of global digital platforms and service provider in data security, illegal content, competition law.
7. 7.Fair and transparent International framework for internet governance based on real and effective digital Multilateralism.
8. 8.Internationalization of Internet Public Core as a global public good.
9. 9.Eliminate the manifestations of digital colonialism in all layers of the digital environment
10. 10.Development of the UN convention on Cyber security

We really hope that these vital issues for future of Internet, be reflected in IGF outputs and Global Digital Compact.  

The key issues that are vital to ensure the future for the GOOD Internet.

1.  1. To end internet weaponization, and use of internet for illegitimate goals by Defining a common vision for internet as a peaceful and development- oriented environment for public good not as a new battlefield and weaponized environment through signing a global declaration by all member states.
2. 2.Recognizing the Nature of Internet as civilian environment only with peaceful purposes and uses.
3. 3.Unilateral coercive measure (UCM ) in digital world that could be a great barrier toward National development goals and constitutes violation of human rights obligations.
4. 4.Trusted international framework on cross-border Data Flow while ensuring Data Sovereignty.
5. 5.Streaming the Geopolitical neutrality of the Global Internet
6. 6.Establishment of global framework, rules and norms on accountable behaviors of global digital platforms and service provider in data security, illegal content, competition law.
7. 7.Fair and transparent International framework for internet governance based on real and effective digital Multilateralism.
8. 8.Internationalization of Internet Public Core as a global public good.
9. 9.Eliminate the manifestations of digital colonialism in all layers of the digital environment
10. 10.Development of the UN convention on Cyber security

We really hope that these vital issues for future of Internet, be reflected in IGF outputs and Global Digital Compact.  

The key issues that are vital to ensure the future for the GOOD Internet.

1. 1.To end internet weaponization, and use of internet for illegitimate goals by Defining a common vision for internet as a peaceful and development- oriented environment for public good not as a new battlefield and weaponized environment through signing a global declaration by all member states.
2. 2.Nature of Internet as civilian environment only with peaceful purposes and uses.
3. 3.Unilateral coercive measure (UCM ) in digital world that could be a great barrier toward National development goals and constitutes violation of human rights obligations.
4. 4.Trusted international framework on cross-border Data Flow while ensuring Data Sovereignty.
5. 5.Streaming the Geopolitical neutrality of the Global Internet
6. 6.Establishment of global framework, rules and norms on accountable behaviors of global digital platforms and service provider in data security, illegal content, competition law.
7. 7.Fair and transparent International framework for internet governance based on real and effective digital Multilateralism.
8. 8.Internationalization of Internet Public Core as a global public good.
9. 9.Eliminate the manifestations of digital colonialism in all layers of the digital environment
1010. Development of the UN convention on Cyber security

I really hope that these vital issues for future of Internet, be reflected in IGF outputs and Global Digital Compact.  

 “Connect all people to the Internet" could be changed to “Connect all people to the good Internet", connecting people to a bad internet, insecure and unsafe internet full of harmful content, without acounability framework for cross-border service providers, could be even against human rights. 

 “Connect all people to the Internet" could be changed to “Connect all people to the good Internet", connecting people to a bad internet, insecure and unsafe internet full of harmful content, without acounability framework for cross-border service providers, could be even against human rights. 

Nous sommes unanime sur l’utilité de l’internet pour tous les besoins humains. Connecter les non connectés à Internet est un objectif à assigner à toutes les parties prenantes de l’écosystème d’internet dans chaque pays et communauté. L’internet doit être disponible dans chaque école, chaque centre de santé, chaque lieu de travail, chaque village. Les réseaux communautaires peuvent être mis en place dans chaque village où un projet de développement se met en place. 1% de chaque projet de développement peut être affecté à l’accès à internet pour les populations bénéficiaires. Les indicateurs de l’universalité de l’internet en seront une matrice d’évaluation. Merci

Nous sommes unanime sur l’utilité de l’internet pour tous les besoins humains. Connecter les non connectés à Internet est un objectif à assigner à toutes les parties prenantes de l’écosystème d’internet dans chaque pays et communauté. L’internet doit être disponible dans chaque école, chaque centre de santé, chaque lieu de travail, chaque village. Les réseaux communautaires peuvent être mis en place dans chaque village où un projet de développement se met en place. 1% de chaque projet de développement peut être affecté à l’accès à internet pour les populations bénéficiaires. Les indicateurs de l’universalité de l’internet en seront une matrice d’évaluation. Merci

Nous sommes unanime sur l’utilité de l’internet pour tous les besoins humains. Connecter les non connectés à Internet est un objectif à assigner à toutes les parties prenantes de l’écosystème d’internet dans chaque pays et communauté. L’internet doit être disponible dans chaque école, chaque centre de santé, chaque lieu de travail, chaque village. Les réseaux communautaires peuvent être mis en place dans chaque village où un projet de développement se met en place. 1% de chaque projet de développement peut être affecté à l’accès à internet pour les populations bénéficiaires. Les indicateurs de l’universalité de l’internet en seront une matrice d’évaluation.

Nous sommes unanime sur l’utilité de l’internet pour tous les besoins humains. Connecter les non connectés à Internet est un objectif à assigner à toutes les parties prenantes de l’écosystème d’internet dans chaque pays et communauté. L’internet doit être disponible dans chaque école, chaque centre de santé, chaque lieu de travail, chaque village. Les réseaux communautaires peuvent être mis en place dans chaque village où un projet de développement se met en place. 1% de chaque projet de développement peut être affecté à l’accès à internet pour les populations bénéficiaires. 

I'm 14, and I attended several sessions at #igf22 on the Youth Track. Thank you for this opportunity to respond.

First, I saw no actual youth in the youth track like me, only older adults, mostly post university graduates, who are legally adults not youth. They are there to build their career and network, all 20+ years old, mostly 25-35 years old. That's great for them but not at all what I am seeking. 

Second, teens care immensely about the internet and yet there's no way to engage in internet governance (isn't this supposed to be bottom-up multistakeholderism?) and what is out there isn't appealing to actual (not 25+ year old) youth. Social media is used so badly in this space, I'd like to fix that too. We can meet teens in an entertaining way where they are already at, and chunk up information to create  energy around a new Teen Track at #igf23

Third, I want to create a fun, energetic and useful hybrid Teen Track at #igf23 so teens can learn and participate from wherever they are at, learning to engage respectfully and usefully, now, since we are always at the cutting edge of tech. It's our whole life, our whole world, and we don't know what we don't know. We care about what you do but you've give us no doorway to participate  We don't even know Internet Governance exists! 

I'm 14, and I attended several sessions at #igf22 on the Youth Track. Thank you for this opportunity to respond.

First, I saw no actual youth in the youth track like me, only older adults, mostly post university graduates, who are legally adults not youth. They are there to build their career and network, all 20+ years old, mostly 25-35 years old. That's great for them but not at all what I am seeking. 

Second, teens care immensely about the internet and yet there's no way to engage in internet governance (isn't this supposed to be bottom-up multistakeholderism?) and what is out there isn't appealing to actual (not 25+ year old) youth. Social media is used so badly in this space, I'd like to fix that too. We can meet teens in an entertaining way where they are already at, and chunk up information to create  energy around a new Teen Track at #igf23

Third, I want to create a fun, energetic and useful hybrid Teen Track at #igf23 so teens can learn and participate from wherever they are at, learning to engage respectfully and usefully, now, since we are always at the cutting edge of tech. It's our whole life, our whole world, and we don't know what we don't know. We care about what you do but you've give us no doorway to participate  We don't even know Internet Governance exists! 

I'm 14, and I attended several sessions at #igf22 on the Youth Track. Thank you for this opportunity to respond.

First, I saw no actual youth in the youth track like me, only older adults, mostly post university graduates, who are legally adults not youth. They are there to build their career and network, all 20+ years old, mostly 25-35 years old. That's great for them but not at all what I am seeking. 

Second, teens care immensely about the internet and yet there's no way to engage in internet governance (isn't this supposed to be bottom-up multistakeholderism?) and what is out there isn't appealing to actual (not 25+ year old) youth. Social media is used so badly in this space, I'd like to fix that too. We can meet teens in an entertaining way where they are already at, and chunk up information to create  energy around a new Teen Track at #igf23

Third, I want to create a fun, energetic and useful hybrid Teen Track at #igf23 so teens can learn and participate from wherever they are at, learning to engage respectfully and usefully, now, since we are always at the cutting edge of tech. It's our whole life, our whole world, and we don't know what we don't know. We care about what you do but you've give us no doorway to participate  We don't even know Internet Governance exists! 

I'm 14, and I attended several sessions at #igf22 on the Youth Track. Thank you for this opportunity to respond.

First, I saw no actual youth in the youth track like me, only older adults, mostly post university graduates, who are legally adults not youth. They are there to build their career and network, all 20+ years old, mostly 25-35 years old. That's great for them but not at all what I am seeking. 

Second, teens care immensely about the internet and yet there's no way to engage in internet governance (isn't this supposed to be bottom-up multistakeholderism?) and what is out there isn't appealing to actual (not 25+ year old) youth. Social media is used so badly in this space, I'd like to fix that too. We can meet teens in an entertaining way where they are already at, and chunk up information to create  energy around a new Teen Track at #igf23

Third, I want to create a fun, energetic and useful hybrid Teen Track at #igf23 so teens can learn and participate from wherever they are at, learning to engage respectfully and usefully, now, since we are always at the cutting edge of tech. It's our whole life, our whole world, and we don't know what we don't know. We care about what you do but you've give us no doorway to participate  We don't even know Internet Governance exists! 

meaningful access focuses on thresholds and not speeds.  The definition encompasses 

• Regular Internet use
•  An appropriate device, i.e., access to a smartphoneEnough data, which is translated as an unlimited broadband connection at home or a place of work or study
• A fast and reliable connection with the minimum threshold: 4G mobile connectivity

Meaningful access requires that all users, including those in rural areas have access to sufficient network transmission connectivity and speed, sufficient data utilization caps at reasonable prices, and the ability to connect as frequently as needed to incorporate advanced ICTs in their lives.

Resilient digital infrastructure

these challenges are magnified by the extent of rural and remote locations, including unconnected or poorly serviced islands and territories with difficult terrain.

For many users and communities, especially those in rural and remote areas, reliable power infrastructure is a real hinderance for building networks and maintaining service. There is more to do to close gaps in the coverage in rural and remote areas that lack adequate power by focusing on alternative options such as Solar, mini grids, off-grids, and low-power networks and solutions.

In the paragraph about the groups with less meaningful access, will be good to mention along with women to gender-diverse people because they are also actors and part of the Internet ecosystem, and we are leaving out from the conversation managing binaries' notion of gender in our statements. 

In the paragraph about the groups with less meaningful access, will be good to mention along with women to gender-diverse people because they are also actors and part of the Internet ecosystem, and we are leaving out from the conversation managing binaries' notion of gender in our statements. 

Resilience should also imply safety and security of the Internet and ICTs. A faster and more widespread deployment of security related Internet standards and ICT best practices have to become an integral part of a governments policy concerning resilience.

The document mentions the UN Charter, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), General Comment 25 to the Children’s Rights Convention.

It would be advisable to mention other important UN documents in relation to the main sections of the Addis Ababa IGF Messages (Human Rights, Internet Fragmentation, Data governance, Cybersecurity, Advanced Technologies, including AI).

The document mentions the UN Charter, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), General Comment 25 to the Children’s Rights Convention.

It would be advisable to mention other important UN documents in relation to the main sections of the Addis Ababa IGF Messages (Human Rights, Internet Fragmentation, Data governance, Cybersecurity, Advanced Technologies, including AI).

paragraph 1, page 2

«The digital divides between different countries and types of country remain powerful factors affecting national and international development, including…»

Note: «type of country» is an unclear and ambiguous wording.

Suggested edition: The digital divides between different countries remain powerful factors affecting national and international development, including…

Suggestion for message: 

Governments, and multistakeholder partners, should support the establishment and work of effective regulatory agencies and frameworks and encourage innovative approaches to connectivity including community networks, appropriate spectrum allocation and the availability of local content, including content in local languages.

Resilient digital infrastructure is crucial for digital inclusion.  Governments should protect and promote required infrastructure, including grid and off-grid power as well as communications networks.  In parts of Africa and other continents, large distances between rural communities make last-mile connectivity commercially unattractive to the private sector.  It will take time and investment to improve the capacity of infrastructure and address regional imbalances, especially in rural areas.

Governments, and multistakeholder partners, should address challenges in commercially unattractive areas constraints posed by market concentration, support the establishment and work of effective regulatory agencies and frameworks and encourage innovative approaches to connectivity including community networks, appropriate spectrum allocation and the availability of local content, including content in local languages.

Resilient digital infrastructure is crucial for digital inclusion.  Governments should protect and promote required infrastructure, including grid and off-grid power as well as communications networks.  In parts of Africa and other continents, large distances between rural communities make last-mile connectivity commercially unattractive to the private sector.  It will take time and investment to improve the capacity of infrastructure and address regional imbalances, especially in rural areas.

Governments, and multistakeholder partners, should address the challenges in commercially unattractive areas constraints posed by market concentration, support the establishment and work of effective regulatory agencies and frameworks and encourage innovative approaches to connectivity including community networks, appropriate spectrum allocation and the availability of local content, including content in local languages

In last paragraph (Regulatory Agencies) think we should stress the criticality of such Agencies to be independent from governments and operators  

I addition to describing challenges, the IGF messages should be as forward-looking and specific as possible about possible solutions to those challenges to aid further debate and promote partnership opportunities for delivering such solutions. Information was provided at IGF 2022 by the Internet Society about the potential for Low Earth Orbit Satellites (LEOS) to deliver a new form of low-cost Internet access (see www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2022/leos/  The IGF should now take this issue forward and engage more stakeholders (including governments and regulators) to discuss and assess the pros and cons of LEO systems to help close the digital divide.  I propose therefore that the fifth bullet in the message includes in the list of examples after "....spectrum allocation," the following text: "Internet access delivered by low earth orbit satellites".  

In addition to describing challenges, the IGF messages should be as forward-looking and specific as possible about possible solutions to those challenges to aid further debate and promote partnership opportunities for delivering such solutions. Information was provided at IGF 2022 by the Internet Society about the potential for Low Earth Orbit Satellites (LEOS) to deliver a new form of low-cost Internet access (see www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2022/leos/  The IGF should now take this issue forward and engage more stakeholders (including governments and regulators) to discuss and assess the pros and cons of LEO systems to help close the digital divide.  I propose therefore that the fifth bullet in the message includes in the list of examples after "....spectrum allocation," the following text: "Internet access delivered by low earth orbit satellites".  

In addition to describing challenges, the IGF messages should be as forward-looking and specific as possible about possible solutions to those challenges to aid further debate and promote partnership opportunities for delivering such solutions. Information was provided at IGF 2022 by the Internet Society about the potential for Low Earth Orbit Satellites (LEOS) to deliver a new form of low-cost Internet access (see www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2022/leos/ ) The IGF should now take this issue forward and engage more stakeholders (including governments and regulators) to discuss and assess the pros and cons of LEO systems to help close the digital divide.  I propose therefore that the fifth bullet in the message includes in the list of examples after "....spectrum allocation," the following text: "Internet access delivered by low earth orbit satellites".  

Resilient infrastructure and issues relating to digital inclusion are also critical for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The omission of a reference to SIDS in this paragraph is puzzling.

Resilient infrastructure and issues relating to digital inclusion are also critical for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The omission of a reference to SIDS in this paragraph is puzzling.

Resilient infrastructure and issues relating to digital inclusion are also critical for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The omission of a reference to SIDS in this paragraph is puzzling.

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are particularly impacted by the challenges presented by the digital divide. The IGF messages should make a specific reference to the over 50 SIDS, who are often left out of the converstion when discussing topics related to digital inclusion.

In the last paragraph, we should encourage digital devices & equipments developers & manufacturers to innovate more, so that these devices could meet some special groups' needs, the older people for instance. For example, most of the smart phones are not friendly to the older groups. Some innovation on the phones or apps like the "elderly mode" should be developed so that these people could really share the benefits of the Internet. We discussed this topic in our workshop: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2022-ws-393-protect-the-digi…

In the last paragraph, we should encourage digital devices & equipments developers & manufacturers to innovate more, so that these devices could meet some special groups' needs, the older people for instance. For example, most of the smart phones are not friendly to the older groups. Some innovation on the phones or apps like the "elderly mode" should be developed so that these people could really share the benefits of the Internet. We discussed this topic in our workshop: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2022-ws-393-protect-the-digi…

The gender divide is far larger for women with disabilities and we should add some text here

In particular, women and persons with disabilities tend to be significantly less likely to own phone, access the Internet and on-line services, and integrate ICT functions in their daily lives. People with disabilities also generally face significant barriers to ICT access and use. Certain other marginalized groups, such as the elderly, and those who don’t speak or read common languages, may also be largely left out of the digital world.

In all, this section will be good to mention along with women to gender-diverse people because they are also actors and part of the Internet ecosystem, and we are leaving out from the conversation managing binaries' notion of gender in our statements.

It is important to close the gap between the needs of the cybersecurity industry and the skills of tertiary education graduates and the gaps with society as a whole in order for the world to become safer online in general. Solutions to close this gap need to be discussed as soon as possible. In Addis Ababa a report was presented showing potential ways forward. (See: https://is3coalition.org/docs-category/research-reports/)

Add "and use" after "Online gender-based violence is an important factor driving and reinforcing gender inequality in Internet access". Add "and redress" after "Women should be supported by guidance to resist".

Add "and use" after "Online gender-based violence is an important factor driving and reinforcing gender inequality in Internet access". Add "and redress" after "Women should be supported by guidance to resist".

Add "and use" after "Online gender-based violence is an important factor driving and reinforcing gender inequality in Internet access". Add "and redress" after "Women should be supported by guidance to resist".

Add "and use" after "Online gender-based violence is an important factor driving and reinforcing gender inequality in Internet access". Add "and redress" after "Women should be supported by guidance to resist".

Add "and use" after "Online gender-based violence is an important factor driving and reinforcing gender inequality in Internet access". Add "and redress" after "Women should be supported by guidance to resist".

Add "and use" after "Online gender-based violence is an important factor driving and reinforcing gender inequality in Internet access". Add "and redress" after "Women should be supported by guidance to resist".

Add "and use" after "Online gender-based violence is an important factor driving and reinforcing gender inequality in Internet access". Add "and redress" after "Women should be supported by guidance to resist".

Suggested edition: 

Resources, community guidelines, content moderation and reporting on platforms should be made available in local languages and be based on domestic laws and regulations.

paragraph 1, page 3

«…One way of achieving this is by embedding human and digital rights in Internet governance structures and in the design of digital technologies».

Note 1: a failure of logic; it is human rights that should define the instruments

Suggested edition: Internet governance structures and the design of digital technologies should take human rights into account.

Note 2: «digital rights» - it would be useful to give an explanation of the term, it is about human rights in the digital environment

paragraph 4, page 4

«…These could complement and build on existing mechanisms, including both those concerned with digital development and rights and those in other spheres such as climate change».

Note 1: It should be understood whether it makes sense to include in the Addis Ababa IGF Messages issues related to climate change (need to determine a balanced scope of the messages)

Note 2: In this paragraph, it would be advisable to add the following text: "All monitoring mechanisms should be agreed upon and approved by all participants in the process".

One way of achieving the embedding of human rights principles in the design of digitsl technologies is to ensure that there is more involvement of civil society experts in the development and promotion of technical standards for devices, applications sand network services. This can be achieved through their greater participation in the work of the standards developing organisations (SDOs) such as the IETF. I believe this point was made during discussions at IGF 2022 and I propose therefore that the IGF messages could make this point as a concrete solution to be further discussed by IGF community, with the addition of this text at the end of the first bullet:  "Consideration should be given to ensuring the standards developing organisations invite wider participation of civil society experts in online human rights." 

Transparency, accountability and due diligence regarding human rights are the responsibilities of both governments and technology companies.

I suggest to add civil society and academia, as all four stakeholdergruoups have to contribute to transparency, accountability and due diligence.

Adding the word standards based.  It is the standards that allow persons with disabilities to interact and read what is on the web. 

The maintenance of a global, open, interoperable, and standard's based Internet is a core value of the IGF

Adding the word standards based.  It is the standards that allow persons with disabilities to interact and read what is on the web. 

The maintenance of a global, open, interoperable, and standard's based Internet is a core value of the IGF

There are many views around fragmentation, but I never heard anyone seriously suggesting that the maintenance of a global Internet implies that "the entirety of the Internet's content is open and accessible". Even in many of the most democratic countries, those at the top of any human rights ranking, there is content that is considered illegal and that is required by law to be removed or made inaccessible, ranging from unlicensed copyrighted material to CSAM, from terrorist propaganda to harassment and stalking against ethnic minorities, LGBT+ people and women. I would suggest to rephrase the above words as "restrictions on posting and accessing content are motivated and subject to the rule of law", or, even better, that the entire reference to content is removed and that the focus remains on global uniqueness at the transport and protocol level.

In a similar vein, stating that all public policy that "limits uses of the Internet" is of concern is also untenable. The Internet is a communication tool and, as in any other human activity, there are many uses that are and should be illegal - you can't use the Internet to steal money or to defamate people or, well, for pretty much any illegal activity. I would just strike those words from the last sentence, as it works equally well without them.

In my opinion it is important to define clearly what is meant here by internet fragmentation. There are clear differences between potential forms of fragmentation. E.g.:

1. When countries or organisations adopt different internet standards making it impossible to interconnect;

2. When a country or region shuts itself off of the internet, the internet as such is not fragmented, but made inaccessible, making it impossible to reach content elsewhere and in reverse there.

These are two different discussions and should be addressed in a better defined manner in the text.

Establishment of a fair and transparent International framework for internet governance  based on real and effective digital Multilateralism and principles of IL is a key factor to avoiding internet fragmentation.

The maintenance of a global, open and interoperable, fair, safe, secure, peaseful, ethical, healthy and lawful Internet is a core value of the IGF.  

Suggested edition: 

"This implies that the Internet’s legal, useful and reliable content is open and accessible"

The discussions at IGF 2023 were important (and perhaps this needs to be drawn out more) in that was seen that Internet Fragmentation has to take account of "user" experience (for which purpose for content or services not being available is less important). 

The opening comments re  "the entirety of the Internet's content is open..." perhaps is too strident as does not take account of the requirement in many jurisdictions to have illegal content removed.    

paragraph 2, page 5

«The issues raised in discussions of Internet fragmentation are multi-layered, and different stakeholders give a variety of meanings and interpretations to the term»…

Note: It is advisable to provide a reference to UN documents that define or clarify the understanding of the term «Internet fragmentation».

Paragraph 2 - I believe it would be useful to make direct reference here (and/or include a link) to the draft framework published by the IGF Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation, which provided an outline of three 'types' of Internet Fragmentation on the basis of intersessional IGF work. The draft framework was welcomed across a variety of IGF2022 sessions as a useful tool in finding common ground and communicating about the various challenges posed by fragmentation as well as various understandings and priorities of stakeholders.  https://www.intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/256/23770 

On the third bullet point: references to net neutrality, and their extension to interoperability and device neutrality, are quite good. However, there is one element that is still missing - neutrality of the platforms. Exactly like ISPs should not discriminate traffic (net neutrality), also operating systems, browsers, app stores, search engines and other similar "core platform services" should not reduce the openness of the Internet and the fair opportunities for all Internet users to exchange, offer and access content and services. This is actually the subject of the EU's Digital Markets Act and of other innovative regulation around the planet. So, I would add this to the final sentence of this point, rephrasing it as follows: "It is also necessary to promote and preserve infrastructural and data interoperability, the neutrality of the dominant Internet platform services, and device neutrality."

On the sixth and final bullet point: the point is commendable but somewhat misses the key issue, which is the fact that technical standardisation bodies tend to make policy decisions in isolation. It is pointless to stress the importance of multistakeholderism and concerted approaches and then not put them in practice here as well. I would add a clear statement at the end of this point: "Technical decisions that bear policy implications should be discussed by standardisation bodies through the direct involvement of all affected stakeholders."

There's a need for more interaction in general. Interest from policymakers in standard bodies should be a normal situation. Also the recognition of the outcomes of standards bodies by policymakers and decision takers in industry is to be considered here. This would speed up the deployment of standards and best practices considerably, leading to a more secure and safer internet and ICT environment.

paragraph 3, page 6

«Internet openness is instrumental in fostering the enjoyment of Internet users' human rights, promoting competition and equality of opportunity, and safeguarding the generative peer-to-peer nature of the Internet. Debates about net neutrality and non-discriminatory traffic management are only part of broader discussions in this context. Net neutrality is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee Internet openness. It is also necessary to promote and preserve infrastructural and data interoperability, and device neutrality».

Note: It is advisable to provide reference to UN documents that define or clarify the understanding of the terms «Internet openness», «net neutrality» and «device neutrality».

paragraph 5, page 6

«The pursuit of some forms of digital sovereignty can increase the risk of fragmentation at the technical level of the Internet».

Note: The understanding of term «digital sovereignty» can be interpreted too broadly in different countries and by different stakeholders. Combining this term with different understandings of «Internet fragmentation» (see section «Understanding the issues», paragraph 2) makes this sentence unclear. It is suggested that this sentence be deleted from the text.

Global Digital Compact should serve as a document with clear goals that are aimed at preventing Internet fragmentation. Such is the case especially in regard to the private sector, which is playing an increasingly active role in digital governance and therefore requires an international regulatory framework. Global Digital Compact should provide consensus regarding basic principles of a united unfragmented Internet.

(Derived from the WS #335 FR: Fragmented Reality. New Horizons of Digital Distrust)

The IGF's Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation (PNIF) is rightly mentioned in the second bullet as an exemplar of multistakeholder engagement on the risks of Internet  fragmentation. These risks and the various definitions of fragmentation are discussed in several international fora. The PNIF has the potential as one of the UN IGF's policy-focussed instruments with open stakeholder participation to be a channel for converging these duplicative international discussions into a single multistakeholder channel for submitting inputs into the UN Secretary-General's proposed Global Digital Compact.  I suggest therefore that the IGF 2022 message regarding the PNIF should be stronger, as follows: "The work of the IGF's Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation will take forward this very important issue in a constructive and inclusive manner that will potentially serve as a channel for the global IGF stakeholder community to submit inputs into the process of the Global Digital Compact relating to this issue."

When it comes to avoid fragmentation, effective multistakeholder governance mechanisms are essential. That applies in particular in geopolitical critical situations as we face it currently with the war of Russia against Ukraine. When it comes to an open, secure and secure internet, global rules and standards are essential. Because those who exploit the possibilities of modern technology in a negative way, i.e. cyber criminals, are well organized and work together. This must be countered with cooperation.

According to UNCTAD, 71% of the world's countries have privacy legislation, so in most cases there will be regulation. Indeed there is a lack of consistency, though many countries have adopted the European opt-in model as a baseline. The problem most frequently is not the lack of regulation, but the lack of enforcement - especially, the impossibility to force foreign Internet service and platform providers to abide by national legislation, or even to know what they actually do with data. So, I would rewrite the second sentence of the central paragraph as follows: "As a transnational, commercial asset, data flows operate in an environment in which there is little consistency between national legal regimes and in which individual users have few opportunities to have their privacy rights enforced."

The concern that people are primarily data subjects, rather than beneficiaries, is spread everywhere, not just in developing countries. Basically, everyone except the owners of the technological powerhouses feels like that. So, please remove "in developing countries" from the second bullet point - you could replace it with "Internet users" in general.

Add extra bullet point on data security and resilience:

• Data security and data protection are key enablers for a sustainable digital future and development: Data governance has often been associated with the benefits of digitalisation. Achieving sustainable development through the effective use of date is indissociable from the security and protection of data and its underpinning infrastructures. Only in doing so can governments and stakeholders achieve resiliency and sustainability of digital development. 

Add extra bullet point on data security and resilience:

• Data security and data protection are key enablers for a sustainable digital future and development: Data governance has often been associated with the benefits of digitalisation. Achieving sustainable development through the effective use of date is indissociable from the security and protection of data and its underpinning infrastructures. Only in doing so can governments and stakeholders achieve resiliency and sustainability of digital development. 

This set of points seems to miss the main issue, which is the way in which a very small number of big tech companies gather data from the entire planet, often without real guarantees or awareness by the user. It's nice to see words around data exchanges and flows, but the top problem is data collection! And it's not just about economy. Many people just do not want their information and activity to be monitored and fed into big platforms and data analysis, no matter if they get a share of the "digital economy" and "returns of innovation". Data justice is mostly about this! So there should be an additional point such as: "People should have the right to choose whether they want to share their information or not, including information deriving from what they do over the Internet. The access and usage of the Internet and of its content should not depend upon the user accepting to be tracked and to become part of the generation of economic value for Internet companies."

I do not disagree with the call for coherence, but coherence cannot come at the expense of privacy protection. I am worried that, in the name of coherence, countries with strong privacy protection may be pressured to allow implicit data flows towards countries with weak or no privacy protection, without any guarantees; this would be unacceptable. You should add a sentence to that effect, for example at the end of the first bullet point: "Coherence should not be achieved at the expense of privacy rights, and citizens should be able to prevent the export of their data into jurisdictions which do not provide adequate guarantees."

If data is such an important asset for companies and organisations these days, why is it that data appears to be so badly protected by same organisations? Improvement comes with the realisation of the importance of data as an asset and the recognition of the responsibility coming with gathering (personal) data. Regulation has to reflect this realisation and put the responsibility of guarding data with the top management of organisations. This also has to include the deployment of security standards and best practices enhancing the security and safety of data.

Data is becoming more and more important for digital economy and technology innovation. At present, we need to reach a balance between data protection and data utilization. With more and more laws on data and privacy protection, people's legistive interests are getting better protection. We also need to develop rules beyond data protection so that the value of data could be released, of course the precondition is the safety of data and privacy is guaranteed.

According to UNCTAD's statistics, there are over 100 countries who have already passed data protection or privacy laws. We need to promote an international understanding or consensus on the basic rules or principles on data governance, so that the current sitution would not aggravate the Internet fragmentation.

Again, this should not happen at the expense of privacy. You could add at the very end of the second bullet point: "and not weakening the user's privacy protection".

The key issues that are vital to ensure the future for the GOOD Internet.

1. 

2. 

3. 

4.   1.Trusted international framework on cross-border Data Flow while ensuring Data Sovereignty.

5.     2.Streaming the Geopolitical neutrality of the Global Internet

6.   3. Establishment of global framework, rules and norms on accountable behaviors of global digital platforms and service provider in data security, illegal content, competition law.

9.   4.Eliminating the manifestations of digital colonialism in all layers of the digital ecosystem.

I really hope that these vital issues for future of Internet, be reflected in IGF outputs and Global Digital Compact.  

La donnée est la richesse immatérielle qui doit profiter à tous. Un % des bénéfices des sociétés internet devrait contribuer à la mise en place des salles virtuelles dans les pays en développement. 

La donnée est la richesse immatérielle qui doit profiter à tous. Un % des bénéfices des sociétés internet devrait contribuer à la mise en place des salles virtuelles dans les pays en développement. 

I have a concern that this section does not differentiate enough between the security of Internet infrastructure and Internet content.

Infrastructure includes the Internet's "pipework" like routing infrastructure, but also the addressing system like the DNS. Infrastructure also involves encryption, security of content provision infrastructure and the resilience of both the pipework and the content delivery systems.

Internet content is as is described - with the risk of disinformation/misinformation but that is a very different animal than the Internet infrastructure itself.

The extension to "environmental safety" is a long shot, although it is valid, but more of a consequence of the Internet itself.

Thus to differentiate between the infrastructure and the content, I propose that we introduce the notion of "layers" which is what technologists have been arguing since the Internet's inception. We do not need to go deep into layers, but to mention the layered architecture of the Internet whereas the infrastructure and the content are on different layers, is important in my opinion, if only because it also defines the framework by which one might look at regulation, when we hear misinformed calls for "regulating the Internet".

Discussions at COP 27 included discussions about reducing digital emissions and generally highlighted the nexus between digitalisation, sustainable development and climate change. However, the IGF message included in the third paragraph on environmental safety seems very weak and suggests the IGF community is not constructively engaged on green digitalisation goals, challenges and opportunities in line with the COP and the 2030 Agenda. In contrast, the European regional IGF has held  substantial discussions on green digitalisation. For example, the messages from the EuroDIG meeting in Trieste in June 2022 included this message of calls for specific action:  "There needs to be a common methodology on how we account for the emissions and the environmental impact of digital technologies to be able to look at the entire lifecycle of any digital product. Furthermore, common methodologies are also necessary to measure and compare the enabling effects of digital solutions in order to describe their net-environmental benefit."   The UN IGF, supported by the network of regional and national IGFs, should be a catalyzing forum for transformative green digitalisation and sustainability that connects substantively with the challenges of climate change. 

Meaningful globalization for the benefit of all regions, states, societies and people on all continents of the world is a crucial issue. At the same time, it is an issue that has suffered the most as a result of the global tensions of 2022. New creative approaches must be found here in order to set and enforce global standards and rules - despite the differing political objectives of individual states and regions.

Do not think it is correct (or a conclusion from IGF) that "the absence of broad and binding security arrangements" is only factor in constraining cyber crime etc. 

On the fourth bullet point: it is fine to state that governments should not adopt laws (policies) that impede cybersecurity, but the same should apply to the private sector as well. In fact, law enforcement agencies often complain about the uncoordinated adoption of encryption by the private sector and the standardisation organisations, which makes it impossible for them to access relevant information during investigations. Again, this is a matter of balance and multistakeholder discussion, as other rights are also involved. So I would rewrite the bullet point as follows: "Governments, the private sector and the technical community should take care to avoid adopting laws, policies and standards that negatively affect..."

It recommended to add regulators specifically, as they can be fully independent from government institutions.

It recommended to add regulators specifically, as they can be fully independent from government institutions.

What is overlooked here are the security solutions internet and ict standardisations bodies have produced over the past two decades. If these solutions had been widely adopted by costumers and manufacturers, the Internet and ICTs would have been significantly more secure and safer in 2023. Cooperation should include discussing the deployment of security related internet standards and ICT best practices, e.g. by way of procurement by governments and large organisations. If they set the standards for security, they will become available for all costumers and users.

"Our understanding of safety and security should be broadened to include persistent challenge of online misinformation and disinformation.  In recent years, these have been factors in aggravating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as posing significant risks to electoral processes around the world.  This has emphasised the need for accountability and clear criteria for misleading content. 

The concept of ‘safety’ may be further widened to include environmental safety, considering efforts to ‘green’ the Internet and reduce carbon emissions associated with digital consumption."

Broadened from what? It would be good to state what the existing understanding of safety is - e.g. is this personal safety and freedom from online harassment, discrimination, violence, abuse, exploitation? 

The key issues that are vital to ensure the future for the GOOD Internet.

1.     1.To end internet weaponization, and use of internet for illegitimate goals by Defining a common vision for internet as a peaceful and development- oriented environment for public good not as a new battlefield and weaponized environment through signing a global declaration by all member states.

2.    2.Nature of Internet as civilian environment only with peaceful purposes and uses.

3.    3.Unilateral coercive measure (UCM ) in digital world that could be a great barrier toward National development goals and constitutes violation of human rights obligations.

4.    4.Trusted international framework on cross-border Data Flow while ensuring Data Sovereignty.

5.     5.Streaming the Geopolitical neutrality of the Global Internet

6.    6.Establishment of global framework, rules and norms on accountable behaviors of global digital platforms and service provider in data security, illegal content, competition law.

7.   7.Fair and transparent International framework for internet governance based on real and effective digital Multilateralism.

8.   8.Internationalization of Internet Public Core as a global public good.

9.   9.Eliminate the manifestations of digital colonialism in all layers of the digital environment

1010.Development of the UN convention on Cyber security

I really hope that these vital issues for future of Internet, be reflected in IGF outputs and Global Digital Compact.  

I suggest to add businesses and academia, as all four stakeholdergroups have to work together and have a joint responsibility.

The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (IS3C) is in the process of gathering, analysing and reporting on the current best practices where the deployment of internet standards and ICT best practices is concerned. The challenge is to move from the theory of discussing cyber security to the practice of deploying cyber security. In 2023 IS3C will present on and develop parts of these capacity building programmes: i.e., IoT security by design; tertiary cyber security education; data governance and security and; ICT procurement. These topics will be expanded from 2024 onwards.

Avoiding fragmentation is the main challenge in that regard. The year 2022, however, has overhauled the existing fragmentation: it does still exist, but only among the emerging alliances of the like-minded, covering not only governments but also non-state actors. The war in Ukraine has further deepened polarization between different groups of states and communities. The biggest challenge stems from the IT security community (which traditionally sticks together and is supposed to act as “neutral firefighters” in cyberspace) splitting into separate closed groups as well. For example, the global Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) suspended all member organizations originating from Russia or Belarus, thereby undermining the fundamental principle of trust in cybersecurity. Such a decision also prevents further threat information exchange between those in charge of responding to cyberincidents. Perhaps naturally, this has triggered talk among those left out regarding launching their own alternative communities. This is counterproductive in terms of global cooperation to combat cybercrime and strengthen security and resilience.

Again, on encryption: this is a complex issue and the fourth bullet point oversimplifies the discussion that we had in places like EuroDIG. I would add a balancing sentence at the end of the point, e.g. "but its negative effects on law enforcement and on the end-users' ability to control which content is accessible from their household need to be addressed".

1. It is necessary to remove the reference to the “disputed” UN  General Comment 25 to the Children’s Rights Convention in paragraph 3 

“Educational curricula should include digital literacy skills that help children to be safe online. Initiatives should involve parents, teachers and legal guardians. Lawmakers and digital platforms should take responsibility to ensure children’s safety within a framework of children’s rights online such as that in General Comment 25 to the Children’s Rights Convention.” 

Note: It is advisable to remove the reference to General Comment 25 as it is a highly disputable document that tends to diminish parental control over online information that a child could get on the Internet. Besides, the named document reflects inputs from quite a limited number of Member States and other stakeholders.

Suggested edition: “Educational curricula should include digital literacy skills that help children to be safe online. Initiatives should involve parents, teachers and legal guardians. Lawmakers and digital platforms should take responsibility to ensure children’s safety online”

Global agreement on AI norms cannot be achieved in one straightforward process. In this paragraph, despite being agreeing with the general message, using the term Global South shows an inequality condition between two parts of the world in a way to diminish what they can bring to the conversation about the topic, so my proposal is the term Majority World that was proposed in the early nineties, Bangladeshi photographer Shahidul Alam as a way to represent what has formerly been known as the “Third World.” The term highlights the fact that these countries are indeed the majority of humankind and in equal conditions to produce knowledge as the Global North or develop countries 

Suggested edition: 

1. The assumption that technology necessarily enhances equality is flawed.  Those who design machine learning technologies and the data used to train AI applications are often unrepresentative of their societies.  Technologies can amplify inequalities and cause harm to any user.  

Note: 

Remove the following text:”...gender and sexual minorities, people with disabilities, and people from marginalised communities” since it limits the range of users that could be harmed.

Governments need to explore legal and technical boundaries of advanced technologies such as metaverse to identify extent of user safety and general implications of cybersecurity in relation to the advanced technologies. Moreover the discussion on the matter of advanced technologies, in particular, concerning the metaverse should become one of the thematic lines of the Global Digital Compact.

(Derived from the WS#364 Misty Metaverse: Blurring Letter of the Law)

paragraph 3, page 14

«Stakeholders from technical and non-technical communities need to exchange expertise and work together to develop general principles that are sufficiently flexible for application in diverse contexts and which foster trust in AI systems».

Suggested edition: Stakeholders from the technical and non-technical communities should share experiences and work together to develop principles, guidelines and diverse standards that are sufficiently flexible for application in diverse contexts and which foster trust in AI systems.

paragraph 1

Suggested edition: Regulatory frameworks should include principles to urge social media and other platforms to fulfill due diligence obligations for the management of content that could damage democracy and human rights.  Frameworks should contribute to the global conversation on online content moderation to empower all users.

Note: 

 Platforms shall be urged by regulatory frameworks to fulfill their obligations. Remove the following text since it limits the range of users that should be empowered: “...including the most vulnerable groups and users of minority languages.  Emerging technologies such as affective computing, which consider how computers may recognise, interpret and simulate human emotions, require substantive ethical assessment”. 

The key issues that are vital to ensure the future for the GOOD Internet.

1.     1.To end internet weaponization, and use of internet for illegitimate goals by Defining a common vision for internet as a peaceful and development- oriented environment for public good not as a new battlefield and weaponized environment through signing a global declaration by all member states.

2.    2.Nature of Internet as civilian environment only with peaceful purposes and uses.

3.    3.Unilateral coercive measure (UCM ) in digital world that could be a great barrier toward National development goals and constitutes violation of human rights obligations.

4.    4.Trusted international framework on cross-border Data Flow while ensuring Data Sovereignty.

5.     5.Streaming the Geopolitical neutrality of the Global Internet

6.    6.Establishment of global framework, rules and norms on accountable behaviors of global digital platforms and service provider in data security, illegal content, competition law.

7.   7.Fair and transparent International framework for internet governance based on real and effective digital Multilateralism.

8.   8.Internationalization of Internet Public Core as a global public good.

9.   9.Eliminate the manifestations of digital colonialism in all layers of the digital environment

1010.Development of the UN convention on Cyber security

I really hope that these vital issues for future of Internet, be reflected in IGF outputs and Global Digital Compact.  

The key issues that are vital to ensure the future for the GOOD Internet.

1.     1.To end internet weaponization, and use of internet for illegitimate goals by Defining a common vision for internet as a peaceful and development- oriented environment for public good not as a new battlefield and weaponized environment through signing a global declaration by all member states.

2.    2.Nature of Internet as civilian environment only with peaceful purposes and uses.

3.    3.Unilateral coercive measure (UCM ) in digital world that could be a great barrier toward National development goals and constitutes violation of human rights obligations.

4.    4.Trusted international framework on cross-border Data Flow while ensuring Data Sovereignty.

5.     5.Streaming the Geopolitical neutrality of the Global Internet

6.    6.Establishment of global framework, rules and norms on accountable behaviors of global digital platforms and service provider in data security, illegal content, competition law.

7.   7.Fair and transparent International framework for internet governance based on real and effective digital Multilateralism.

8.   8.Internationalization of Internet Public Core as a global public good.

9.   9.Eliminate the manifestations of digital colonialism in all layers of the digital environment

1010.Development of the UN convention on Cyber security

I really hope that these vital issues for future of Internet, be reflected in IGF outputs and Global Digital Compact.  

The problem for individuals is not just how to enforce their human rights, but also how to enforce their economic rights. For example, artists see their works downloaded from the Internet and fed into AI algorithms by tech companies that then sell the ability to create artworks similar to theirs, thanks to what the algorithm learned from them; yet there is no compensation and often not even the practical possibility to refuse conceding their works for this usage. Intellectual and artistic production, both for work and for hobby, is a fundamental part of a person's free expression and self-fulfillment right. There could be an additional bullet point such as: "Authors of intellectual products such as writings, drawings and software code should have a clear and enforceable right to withdraw their work from usage as learning data for artificial intelligence algorithms, or to request compensation for such usage."

paragraph 3, page 15

«Technical standards cover a wide range of digital technologies and related infrastructures, services, protocols, applications, and devices that may have powerful impacts on human rights. Yet the technical standard-setting processes within standards development organisations do not take human rights concerns fully into consideration. These processes are often opaque, complex, and resource- heavy for civil society and other stakeholders to access and follow systematically. This should be addressed».

Suggested edition: Include the following sentence at the beginning of this paragraph: "Technical standards have a positive role and contribute to progress".

The IGF has had many BPFs, a few policy networks and two dozen DCs. Why is this not mentioned in a general way in the messages and more specifically referred to in the case a message is an outcome or source of a specific message? Some obviously are (or should be).

When any tangible outcome, produced by any of these intersessional activities, is reflected (on) in the messages, they could, in my opinion should, be mentioned here as a source.

Why? In that case the specific message is a multistakeholder outcome, agreed upon by those participating in their respective processes and at the IGF in Addis Ababa.

If they are not mentioned here as the source of a message, how can they ever grow in importance, e.g. as a policy incubator, be respected and recognised for their work or taken seriously at the level they deserve? My advise is to add the intersessional activity as a source there where appropriate. It will add to the standing of the IGF in general as well.

Suggest to exchange "content moderation" in the second point (the same tech that can promote can infringe human rights) with "content governance" is it should also entail practices and policies on content curation, and some understand moderation as narrow term mainly referring to removing content.

Taking into account in particular the report of the Dynamic Coalitions Main Session at IGF 2022, I recommend an additional IGF Message relating to commitments to support the UN process of the Global Digital Compact :

"The IGF's stakeholder community expressed support for the UN Secretary-General's proposal for a Global Digital Compact (GDC) of high level principles and actions which will be a key outcome of the Summit of the Future in 2024. IGF dynamic coalitions which are already addressing specific challenges and opportunities that are relevant to the thematic areas proposed for the GDC in the "Our Common Agenda" report, have expressed their intention to contribute to the UN's preparatory and implementation phases of the GDC process."