Editor’s Note: This piece is a featured ad by Creative Five World ENTERPRISE54 – The Innovation Apartment Africa (An Initiative of Creative Five World) with added notes from the GSM Association to the Global Multistakeholder Forum; contributes the following points for consideration in the discussion in Istanbul on a framework for the evolution of the Internet
Editor’s Note: This piece is a featured ad by Creative Five World
ENTERPRISE54 – The Innovation Apartment Africa (An Initiative of Creative Five World) with added notes from the GSM Association to the Global Multistakeholder Forum; contributes the following points for consideration in the discussion in Istanbul on a framework for the evolution of the Internet governance model: Internet governance models, in their various aspects, must remain multistakeholder and inclusive of all those who wish to participate. Issues should be resolved with due process in a clear and transparent way. The role of mobile network operators must be meaningfully taken into account in any discussions affecting the infrastructure of the Internet, given the crucial role of connectivity functions in the Internet ecosystem. Legitimacy and trust in the governance model must be reinforced through an improved inclusiveness and wider geographical representation, particularly vis‐à‐vis developing country stakeholders.
An analysis of the work of existing multistakeholder mechanisms should be carried out, noting the similar activity being undertaken under the auspices of the CSTD Working
Group on enhanced co-operation (CSTD-WG on EC), with a view to streamlining processes and eliminating duplication and to determine whether there is a need to change or even create new processes or institutions. Nevertheless, the current multistakeholder fora such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the IETF and ICANN should be strengthened in order to reflect the changing nature and scope of Internet governance. This framework should be capable of addressing relevant issues for which mechanisms have not yet been identified and/or developed.
No governance body should be seen as competing with another or duplicating processes. All processes have value in contributing to the global Internet governance debate. The long-term ambition should be to implement a framework that clarifies which governance body has the authority to act on which subject matter. The framework should clarify whether and how the interrelated activities of different governance bodies should be coordinated with one another.
The IGF has played a very important role in bringing together stakeholders. Its policy outcomes should be integrated into other, existing governance mechanisms. The IGF should be better funded and its role and influence expanded. Interactions between the global IGF and the regional and national IGFs should also be strengthened.
Internet access should remain market-driven and responsive to the needs of the users of the Internet. This will continue to enable the economic growth, prosperity and well-being that we see today.
The current global nature of the Internet has brought social and economic benefit to users all around the world, and the rapid growth of the Internet has facilitated a wide variety of technological innovation in networks and infrastructure. The governance of the Internet should be underpinned by a coherent set of common principles shared by all stakeholders from different sectors in order to ensure the continuation of a global and seamless Internet that brings benefit to all.
We support a collaborative, diverse and inclusive model for Internet governance that is open, transparent and multistakeholder. Within the multistakeholder model we believe that all relevant stakeholders – including industry, governments, the technical community, civil society and academia – have an important part to play regarding the Internet’s development. We recognise that there are some Internet-related issues, such as privacy and security, where governments have an especially important role to play. In others, however, such as standards development, technical and private sector relationships are paramount.
This dynamic among stakeholders allows for a better match between governance issues and governance institutions. Any evolution of the current governance model should include the principles of flexibility and agility and they should be applied so that all relevant stakeholders are represented appropriately.
We support the ongoing internationalization of the Internet, and of Internet governance mechanisms, including ICANN and IANA. We urge all parties to continue carefully on the path towards a multistakeholder accountability framework to ensure that changes will enhance the security, stability, resilience and interoperability of the Internet. Any evolution of Internet activities, including naming and numbering, must be resilient, secure, stable and inclusive. The current system relies on these characteristics and they must be maintained and protected.
In Conclusion, the pragmatic approach of using entertainment as a tool of engagement in internet governance as recorded immense feedback mostly in Health and Agriculture; MalariaNoMore and Do More Agric Campaign Respectively.