On May 15, 2013, a workshop entitled “Ethics in the Information Society” took place as part of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) Forum, hosted by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The workshop was organized by Globethics.net, a “worldwide ethics network with the aim to ensure that people in all regions of the world are empowered to reflect and act on ethical issues”. Globethics.net has produced a discussion paper, entitled: “Ethics in the Information Society: the Nine ‘P’s”, which was also meant to be the focus of the workshop’s discussions.

WTPF Day Three opened with Working Group 3 and discussion of the proposed new Opinion drafted by Brazil on "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance".   This new Opinion was redrafted from the Brazilian contribution and suggestions they received during discussion on Day Two.  The Opinion deals with the role ITU could play in strengthening the capacity of countries to deal with Internet related issues within the mandate of ITU.

WTPF Day Two started with  Working Group 2 discussion on the two draft IP Addressing Opinions (Opinion 3 on "Supporting capacity building for the deployment of IPv6" and Opinion 4 on "In support of IPv6 Adoption and Transition from IPv4"). Contributions proposing modifications to the Opinions were presented and discussed. One item that was debated was the proposal to add an additional instructs section to Opinion 3 to include the Secretary General's responsibility to ensure transition and adoption of IPv6 address.  After discussion, it was determined that the responsibility should be directed to the ITU's Development Sector and this would be noted in the meeting report.

The WTPF is well underway.  On Day One, Tuesday, 14 May, the majority of the day was spent hearing opening statements from stakeholders. It was encouraging to hear many governments stress the importance of the multi-stakeholder model. Discussions on this topic are sure to pre-occupy stakeholders throughout this meeting.  Internet Society’s CEO, Lynn St. Amour, was one of the many stakeholders that provided opening statements.  She stressed that  "those who favor the existing model of multi-stakeholder development should redouble their efforts to understand the underlying concerns of governments.

By Joyce Dogniez and Sally Shipman Wentworth

As more of the world’s seven billion people move online, it is critical that the policies that govern the Internet in different countries encourage openness. One of the best ways forward is to listen to many different voices when it comes to forming policy.

Internet Society Chapters are some of these voices in their home countries.

This blog post is written through a very subjective lens and makes no claim to historical accuracy – it is based on my personal memory and a quick scan of my personal archives. Any comments, corrections and pointers to other sources are therefore more than welcome.

The ITU Strategic Dialogue session was held on 13 May at the CICG in Geneva. The focus of the pre WTPF event was to discuss broadband development and deployment through two panel discussions.  The two panels were moderated by Raffaele Barberio, Director, Key4Biz. 

The first panel was on “Building our Broadband”, which examined the role of broadband as critical infrastructure and a platform for progress and multistakeholder engagement, including content development and infrastructure deployment.  However opinion appears to be divided as to whether broadband Internet service represents a basic need, fundamental right or a utility. 

Classically, the encryption of data solves two simple problems:

1. how to store data securely when it's at rest,
2. how to communicate it securely when it's in motion.

On the face of it, that makes encryption look like an ideal tool for freedom of the press: it can render a journalist's stored data meaningless to unwanted readers, and protect transmitted data against interception.

The European Commission and Parliament are currently in the process of reviewing and amending drafts of a new Data Protection Regulation. This note suggests three compelling reasons why the Regulation should be kept strong, and some specific areas in which amendments are ill advised and should be rejected.