| APrIGF 2024 Session Proposal Submission Form | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1 - Lead Organizer | |||||||||||
| Contact Person | |||||||||||
| Ms. Noelle de Guzman | |||||||||||
| Organization / Affiliation (Please state "Individual" if appropriate) * | |||||||||||
| deguzman@isoc.org | |||||||||||
| Designation | |||||||||||
| Director, Policy and External Engagement | |||||||||||
| Gender | |||||||||||
| Female | |||||||||||
| Economy of Residence | |||||||||||
| Singapore | |||||||||||
| Primary Stakeholder Group | |||||||||||
| Technical Community | |||||||||||
| List Your Organizing Partners (if any) | |||||||||||
| Liza Garcia, Executive Director, Foundation for Media Alternatives, lgarcia@fma.ph Maryam Lee, Strategic Program Manager, The IO Foundation, Maryam.Lee@TheIOFoundation.org |
|||||||||||
| Part 2 - Session Proposal | |||||||||||
| Session Title | |||||||||||
| Bottom-up Advocacy for a Resilient Internet | |||||||||||
| Session Format | |||||||||||
| Workshop (60 minutes) | |||||||||||
| Where do you plan to organize your session? | |||||||||||
| Onsite at the venue (with online moderator for questions and comments from remote participants) | |||||||||||
| Specific Issues for Discussion | |||||||||||
| Internet governance has come a long way since the second World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis almost two decades ago, when governments first brought policymaking for the Internet on the table. These days, many of the decisions that affect the Internet are being made at the local and regional levels, and a growing number threaten to unwittingly fragment the global Internet. In Asia-Pacific, these include directives to shut down parts of the Internet or popular applications (Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam), and efforts to centralise control of Internet operations and resources: from national border gateways (Cambodia, China, Nepal) that give governments power to dictate how Internet traffic should be routed; to cost-sharing rules (South Korea) that require Internet service providers to pay each other to exchange traffic. These mandates diverge sharply from the core principles of open, decentralized, bottom-up and collaborative Internet governance. Top-down, centralised points of control are both single points of failure and targets of attack, while arbitrary disruptions to access make the Internet unreliable – overall undermining its resilience. As a grassroots community of Internet champions, civil society organisations are best positioned to scrutinize local proposals that could erode the open, globally connected and secure Internet, and ensure that national and regional policies uphold the multistakeholder approach to governing this valuable public resource. Using case studies, exercises and the Internet Impact Assessment Toolkit, this workshop will orient civil society groups in Asia-Pacific on the types of policy and business decisions that could cause the Internet to fragment, and equip them with tools and skills to identify, monitor, analyse and respond to these threats. The workshop aims to outline clear and concrete actions for civil society organisations to foster Internet resilience in the region. |
|||||||||||
| Describe the Relevance of Your Session to APrIGF | |||||||||||
| A resilient Internet maintains an acceptable level of service in the face of faults and challenges. It is able to adequately support the population’s connectivity needs, anticipate future uses for connectivity, and to maintain acceptable levels of Internet service in the event of a surge in demand for Internet access, an emergency (such as a natural disaster) – or unexpected service interruptions (such as a network outage). While stakeholders including the global technical community are working hard to expand connectivity and build redundancy in the Internet’s architecture, certain policy choices could create divisions in the global Internet, isolating domestic networks and subjecting them to different rules, regulations and potentially standards. This could result in networks not being able to connect or operate together seamlessly, ultimately restricting our ability to use the Internet to communicate, transact, and access information and services. This session asserts the important role of civil society in ensuring that the policies that affect the Internet are informed by and grounded on public interest. Civil society participation has been crucial in robust and inclusive Internet governance, and in raising the voice of developing countries. This workshop aims to help address the continuing need to build Internet advocates’ capacity to substantively contribute to emerging Internet issues and take collective action to influence policy processes that could shape the Internet of the future. |
|||||||||||
| Methodology / Agenda (Please add rows by clicking "+" on the right) | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Moderators & Speakers Info (Please complete where possible) | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Please explain the rationale for choosing each of the above contributors to the session. | |||||||||||
| NOTE: The speakers and moderators listed will act as workshop facilitators who will frame the session, and assist participants in completing the exercises. Neeti Biyani co-led the Internet Society’s Fragmentation project and continues to lead the organisation’s advocacy efforts to counter Internet threats. Michaela Nakayama Shapiro coordinates and supports GPD’s advocacy and engagement in technical standards-setting forums, including the ITU, IETF and ICANN. Michaela brings significant advocacy experience on issues related to artificial intelligence and internet governance at the global level, including in United Nations forums and processes, and has published research on a human rights-based approach to the governance of new and emerging digital technologies. Jessamine Pacis is the Philippines Project Coordinator for the Countering Internet Fragmentation project led by Global Partners Digital. She has worked extensively on internet governance and digital rights advocacy, having been involved in research and advocacy work on issues such as cybercrime, cybersecurity, and privacy and surveillance in the Philippines. Jean F. Queralt is the Founder & CEO of The IO Foundation (TIOF) as well as the project coordinator for Malaysia in the Countering Internet Fragmentation project under Global Partners Digital. Jean follows this issue closely and presented on it at last year’s IGF. |
|||||||||||
| Please declare if you have any potential conflict of interest with the Program Committee 2024. | |||||||||||
| No | |||||||||||
| Are you or other session contributors planning to apply for the APrIGF Fellowship Program 2024? | |||||||||||
| Yes | |||||||||||
| Brief Summary of Your Session | |||||||||||
| The session was held with 3 onsite and 1 online facilitators. Participants were divided into 3 breakout groups (1 group for remote participants), and each group was given a case study of an emerging Internet policy issue that would benefit from civil society advocacy. They were also provided with guidance for discussion --a 1-pager with 5 topics/questions: (1) What is the impact of policy on Internet users?; (2) Who is your target audience? Who is in a position of decision-making?; (3) Who are your partners and allies? Who lends you power?; (4) How best can you advocate to impact change? Examples include governmental advocacy, media advocacy, community mobilization, etc., and (5) How would you measure success? The session began with a brief introduction of Internet Society's Fragmentation Advocacy Toolkit, and an overview of the workshop and its objectives. Groups were given 40 minutes to review the case studies and discuss, after which a volunteer from each group would summarise the discussion for the room. |
|||||||||||
| Substantive Summary of the Key Issues Raised and the Discussion | |||||||||||
| Participants coalesced on recognising policymakers as the target audience when advocating about an Internet policy issue — those from smaller jurisdictions, such as Singapore and Samoa, would opt to directly speak with their local county representatives, as these are clear points of contact for the citizenry. Some wanted to mobilise local communities to engage with parliamentarians, and if needed, persuade the relevant ministry or regulator to open the policy proposal for public consultation, if it isn’t. Approaching foreign governments, specifically those with close economic ties with the country enacting a dangerous policy, and asking them to exert pressure on the country was also raised as a potential advocacy approach. That said, participants acknowledged that moving the needle in Internet policymaking can be challenging in the region. Likewise, the type(s) of advocacy allies depended on the issue at hand. These can range from international organisations such as ISOC and ICANN, to industry groups. Some issues merited outreach to media, which was acknowledged for its ability to raise questions, spur debates and discussions, and make issues visible. Academia also has a key role to play in advocacy, specifically in conducting research and providing data and subject matter expertise on the issue. Participants underlined the need to find common interests with so-called 'advocacy opponents' who may have opposing views. As to advocacy tactics, participants highlighted angles and perspectives that would resonate well with their target audience (e.g. when speaking with policymakers, highlight the policy's potential impact on government). Awareness-building with the broader community that will be impacted by the policy is crucial, and so is empowering stakeholders to act. In identifying measures of success for advocacy work, participants aimed for harmful Internet policies not being enacted, or for elements that would be disadvantageous to the end user to be minimised. |
|||||||||||
| Conclusions and Suggestions of Way Forward | |||||||||||
| Participants were oriented to, and encouraged to use the FAST model of advocacy (Flag the issue, Analyse to identify potential impact, Strategise on and implement advocacy approach and tactics, and Together, mobilise the community to scale advocacy impact) which the Internet Society uses to respond to Internet threats. Participants found the model helpful in structuring their advocacy campaigns, specifically for pushing back against increasing measures by governments in the region to impose restrictions to what we can do and say online. | |||||||||||
| Number of Attendees (Please fill in numbers) | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Gender Balance in Moderators/Speakers (Please fill in numbers) | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| How were gender perspectives, equality, inclusion or empowerment discussed? Please provide details and context. | |||||||||||
| Most participants were from developing countries, and these perspectives were clear in the discussion -- many highlighted governance challenges that were mostly present in (relatively) young democracies, such as not having established mechanisms for public input to policy, and a nascent civil society that is still finding its voice and footing in issues of national/global interest. | |||||||||||
| Consent | |||||||||||
 I agree that my data can be submitted to forms.for.asia and processed by APrIGF organizers for the program selection of APrIGF 2024. |
|||||||||||