1. What are the most important achievements arising from WSIS that should be highlighted in the Zero Draft?
We, the members of a Technical Community Coalition for Multistakeholderism (TCCM), welcome the Co-Facilitators’ commitment to engaging with all stakeholders and appreciate this opportunity to provide input. TCCM is made up of 40+ organisations from across the world that operate the Internet’s naming and numbering systems which are part of the Internet’s core technical infrastructure.
We strongly support the WSIS vision to build a people-centred, inclusive and development oriented information society, in which everyone can create, access, utilise and share information and knowledge and improve their quality of life. Achieving this vision demands that we build on a strong foundation—that foundation is the open, free, global, secure, resilient and interoperable Internet, including the effective functioning of its technical infrastructure.
We believe the Zero Draft should highlight achievements such as the significant progress that has been made in increasing Internet connectivity. ITU reports show that today approximately 68% of the world’s population can connect to the Internet, compared to 43% in 2015 and 17% in 2005. This remarkable achievement is the result of cooperation and collaboration between all stakeholders: governments, the private sector, civil society, academia and the technical community. It is an example of the success of the multistakeholder approach.
There has also been significant progress towards multilingualism on the Internet through the introduction of internationalised domain names and the ongoing work towards universal acceptance. This is an important contribution to an Internet that is truly global and a critical part of promoting linguistic diversity and preserving cultural identity.
We also draw attention to the ongoing development of the Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) intersessional work, initiatives and processes, which provide open, inclusive, multistakeholder dialogue to shape the Internet’s evolution and use, consistent with the WSIS vision.
2. What are the most important challenges to the achievement of WSIS outcomes to date and in the future that need to be addressed in the Zero Draft?
One of the main challenges to achieving WSIS outcomes is the ability of stakeholders from the Global South/Global Majority to fully be part of the work of WSIS, driving achievement of the vision and progressing the matters highlighted in the Action Lines. In their respective roles and responsibilities, every stakeholder brings something of value if they can participate fully. The Zero Draft could call on Member States and all stakeholders to:
- Conduct all WSIS activities in a truly multistakeholder, transparent and inclusive way, that is genuinely open to being shaped by the inputs from all stakeholders.
- Ensure that GDC implementation and follow up are carried out within the established WSIS framework and processes, rather than creating and duplicating forums and processes. We comment further on this below.
3. What are the most important priorities for action to achieve the WSIS vision of a ‘people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society’ in the future, taking into account emerging trends?
TCCM notes that the ongoing development of the Information Society, and achievement of the WSIS vision, are dependent on the Internet. Its nature as a network of networks that is open, free, global, secure, resilient and interoperable, makes it a fundamental resource for human development.
TCCM members recognise that the Internet and digital technologies are critical to building inclusive and resilient societies. We note the significant contribution to increasing global connectivity that has been made by governments, the private sector, civil society, academia and the technical community. However, despite the tremendous progress to date, digital inequalities still remain and there is an urgent need to address these so that all people, including those in Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, can participate in the digital economy and that its social and economic benefits are enjoyed equally.
TCCM members believe that cooperation between governments and other stakeholders remains the best way to achieve this and that multistakeholder processes will best support the WSIS vision and promote “an inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, safe and secure digital future for all.”
We therefore see a critical priority for action being the further development of the multistakeholder Internet governance system. Internet governance, as Member States agreed only last year, “must continue to be global and multistakeholder in nature, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, technical and academic communities and all other relevant stakeholders” in the work.
This model of governance is the best way to shape the Internet’s evolution and use in ways that are genuinely inclusive of the needs and concerns of communities all around the world. The directions established and decisions shaped by this model of Internet governance will be implementable, and will deliver on the WSIS vision.
Beyond this foundation, TCCM strongly endorses the priority of continuing to extend meaningful, affordable connectivity to communities all around the world, and creating opportunities for communities to create and contribute their own content and services in their own languages, so that the Internet and the services it enables can be of use to ever more people.
4. What additional themes/issues, if any, should be included in the Elements Paper?
TCCM does not propose any additional themes or issues.
5. Do you wish to comment on particular themes/issues/paragraphs in the Elements Paper?
On the Internet governance section (paras 57-64) the TCCM urges the Co-Facilitators to adopt the following suggestions:
Para 59 describing Internet governance — we appreciate the comments by the Co-Facilitators during the IGF in June that they plan to avoid re-opening or re-litigating past debates. Consistent with this objective, TCCM suggests replacing the description of Internet governance with what was agreed at WSIS+10 or more recently in the Global Digital Compact: “Internet Governance must continue to be global and multi-stakeholder in nature, with the full involvement of Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, technical and academic communities and all other relevant stakeholders.”
Para 60 on the nature of the IGF — we support language describing the IGF as a multistakeholder platform. This appropriately acknowledges the fact that the extensive work of the IGF includes the global event, the National,Regional, Sub-regional and Youth Initiatives (NRIs) and various intersessional processes (Best Practice Forums, Policy Networks, Dynamic Coalitions). The IGF really is a key process of and platform for the whole WSIS framework, rather than an issue within it. It is the primary way for communities at the grass-roots level to engage in the work of WSIS.
Para 62 on the IGF’s mandate — TCCM supports the mandate of the IGF being made permanent. This will support all stakeholders to invest in its improvement and development and to drive improved participation from stakeholders and communities currently under-represented. The Zero Draft should call on Member States and all stakeholders to provide stable and sufficient human and financial resources to the IGF, including its Secretariat, to strengthen its reach and impact and to drive improved participation. This will help ensure that the diverse voices present in the IGF system can have the most impact on realising the WSIS vision.
6. What suggestions do you have to support the development of the WSIS framework (WSIS Action Lines, IGF, WSIS Forum, UNGIS etc.)?
As the development and use of the Internet continue to advance, cooperation and coordination among diverse stakeholders become increasingly essential. The IGF is the WSIS platform that fosters open, inclusive, multistakeholder dialogue, and so its mandate should be made permanent. This remains the best way to achieve the WSIS vision and is our best hope of finding solutions to shared global challenges.
In essence, the IGF represents a unique opportunity that does not exist elsewhere for the enhanced cooperation among all stakeholders that will be necessary as we continue to build an inclusive, people-centred and development oriented information society.
We believe that strengthening the IGF, including its secretariat, will allow it to play a vital and much needed “agenda setting” role in relation to shaping all facets of Internet governance, and strengthening digital policy processes. This role draws its strength and effectiveness from the geographic reach of the IGF and its NRIs as well as the IGF’s diverse stakeholder groups to identify key issues of collective importance and frame the challenges and perspectives to identify a path forward in a consultative and multistakeholder fashion.
The IGF should evolve its working methods to strengthen its agenda-setting role within the broader WSIS system — as the most open and inclusive process in the WSIS system, with the deepest connection to grass roots perspectives through its NRIs, it is well suited to do so.
We also wish to highlight the important contribution that National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth Initiatives can make to enhancing international and regional multistakeholder cooperation and to achieving the WSIS vision. NRIs lead and facilitate open dialogue on the challenges, opportunities and cultural concerns specific to each country or region. They promote digital inclusion through open dialogue on issues such as accessibility, affordability, digital literacy and the importance of developing local content and the multilingual Internet.
NRIs also encourage the supportive policy and regulatory environment necessary for inclusive digital transformation. Cooperation and coordination, both nationally and regionally, can help promote harmonisation of digital policy. NRIs also provide an opportunity for building capacity and local expertise to empower people and communities to more confidently and effectively engage in the digital world.
We believe that the WSIS framework is the best way to implement the Global Digital Compact’s commitments, which deal with issues very similar to the WSIS Action Lines. We do not want to see new forums created for GDC implementation. It is difficult for stakeholders to follow simultaneous and duplicative processes, especially stakeholders from the Global South that have limited resources, higher travel costs and generally need to attend hybrid meetings in time zones outside of business hours.
7. Do you have any other comments?
TCCM members appreciate your open and inclusive engagement with the community at the 20th IGF in Norway in June.
We believe it would be helpful for all stakeholders for consultations to facilitate participation by governments and other stakeholders at the same time, as opposed to taking place in silos. This would be an example of enhanced cooperation in practice and would contribute to a shared understanding of diverse points of view.
To enable participation by stakeholders from all parts of the world, we request that consultations allow remote participation, and that summaries are published after each consultation in a timely manner.
Building on the indicative roadmap, we encourage you to provide a clear plan and timeline for the WSIS+20 Review consultations and negotiations as soon as possible to allow all stakeholders to plan around these important events.
We note that the technical community has relevant expertise and can be a resource for governments as they consider confidence-building measures and strengthening their national digital strategies. Many TCCM members already collaborate closely with their national governments, including through their national IGFs and other digital policy processes.
We suggest the Zero Draft should encourage governments to engage with technical stakeholders and harness their expertise in the development of national strategies. Enhancing cooperation in this way would help to ensure that new policy initiatives do not inadvertently have negative impacts on the operation and use of the Internet, and foster an Internet that is open, free, global, secure, resilient and interoperable for all.
***
The undersigned organisations associate themselves with this response to the Elements Paper:
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
Associação DNS.PT, .PT (.pt registry)
.au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA)
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd (Blacknight)
CZ.NIC, CZ Domain Registry
Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)
DENIC eG
DNS Africa Ltd
DotAsia Organisation
EuroDNS S.A
GoDaddy
IE Domain Registry CLG (.ie)
Identity Digital Inc
Internet Society NGO (ccTLD, .am and .հայ)
Internet New Zealand Incorporated (InternetNZ)
Internetstiftelsen (the Swedish Internet Foundation)
Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd. (JPRS)
Kenya Network Information Centre-KeNIC
Korea Internet and Security Agency (KISA)
Markmonitor, Inc
Network Information Center Costa Rica (NIC Costa Rica)
NIC Chile
Nominet UK
Norid AS
PNG University of Technology (.PG ccTLD)
Panama Network Information Center – (NICPA)
Public Interest Registry (PIR)
Punktum dk
Register.si, Arnes
SVNet, El Salvador ccTLD
Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland (SIDN)
TRBR Vanuatu (.vu ccTLD)
Taiwan Network Information Center (TWNIC)
Tucows
ZA Registry Consortium (ZARC)