Report from IGF
- How are the NETMundial results discussed at IGF
- Network neutrality
- IANA transition
- Increased focus on human rights and personal data protection issues
- Renewed mandate for the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)
- MAG will focus on how the results from IGF, NETMundial and ITU-PP can contribute to the preparations for the 2015 IGF
- Extension of IGF and WISIS-10 review is under discussion in UN in New York in connection with resolution on ICT for development and the preparation for WISIS+10 Review High Level Conference in December 2015
- New headquarters
- Budget and strategy for 2016-2019
- Revision of constitution and convention - in particular the work on a stable constitution
- Public access to ITU-documents
- Reforming the work on the Radio regulations board RRB
- IMAC (Independent Management Advisory Committee)
- Global flight tracking
The proposal was that ITU should have a leading role in the development of Internet standards and make sure that all new user equipment are IPv6 compatible. There was also a proposal to conduct studies to establish ITU as a RIR ad that ITU should develop deadlines and principles to ease the transition to IPv6. In the end the resolution was changed so it was clear that developing countries still needs assistance to complete the transition to IPv6, and that ITU shall acknowledge the work already done. Member states are encouraged to increase focus on IPv6
Who should control the Internet? - IANA Stewardship transition
- stability of the IANA naming functions
- part of the bigger picture of ICANN accountability
- broad representation for the Internet community (within ICANN)
- CWG has 19 members, but 119 participants following the work
- Clear mandate, tight deadlines, final proposal by January 31st 2015
- Accountability is key focus
- the Multistakeholder model is built on trust - fragile mechanism.
- IANA customers are satisfied with todays services from IANA - no significant changes in the daily operations are needed
- Keeping current terms and conditions for the ccTLDs
- Lightweight structure has been a goal, using existing functions from
- Important to keep and strengthen separation between policy development and the pure technical operations of the IANA function
- Importan to keep a mechanism for sanctions if ICANN/IANA does not deliver the services according to policies
- Customer Standing Committee (CSC) consisting of direct customer of the IANA function including ccTLD and gTLD registries. Monitor the IANA service delivery.
- Multistakeholder Review Team (MRT) - representation from the Multistakeholder community. Overall evaluation of the ICANN/IANA. May initiate termination or changes to the contract.
- Contract Co - be the contracting party.
- Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) - all ICANN/IANA desicions regarding the root-zone or the Whois database can be appealed to an independent dispute-resolution mechanism outside ICANN for binding decisions.
- RIR communities are the ultimate stewards of number policy and registration.
- A working model already in place
- Bottom-up, open and inclusive
- No new structures; build on existing structures and relationships
- Operational and policy relationships already clearly defined
- Minimal operational change
- ICANN has provided excellent service as IANA operator
Internet Governance as foreign policy
- Cyberpolicy and Internet governance should not be decided by United Nations
- International law also applies to the cyber-space
- There is currently no need for separate conventions for cyber-space