Russian parliament submission to NET mundial


Honorable Colleagues! I propose to bring the following topics to the agenda of the NET mundial in São Paulo: 1. Coordinated strategies for effective Internet governance 2. Protection of users rights 3. The evolution of the Internet ecosystem 4. Critical Internet resources governance. IANA: Quest for the Rest 5. Clarifying the role and authority of governments 6. Ethical Issues in the Informational Environment


Honorable Colleagues!


I propose to bring the following topics to the agenda of the NET mundial in São Paulo:


1. Coordinated strategies for effective Internet governance


Internet has penetrated into all spheres of human life, and it became oneof the most important means to ensure human rights and democracy. However it carries equally important threats. The incident with Snowden has demonstrated a complete lack of security and control. The necessity to protect the rights of the citizens causes the actions of the states to establish legal framework for relations arising while using the Internet. But the attempts to create legislation in this sphere are not systematic, that can lead to negative consequences, taking into account the cross-border nature of the Internet. The task of creating legislation in this sphere must be systematic and must be achieved by concerted actions of all the states to develop a unified international legally binding legislation.  


2. Protection of users rights


Today the world faced with widespread violation of human rights on the web. These violations are global, worldwide and appear as from the individual states and also from major transnational companies, criminal groups and individuals. This situation tends to undermine confidence on the Internet by users and threatens with fragmentation of the Network. For many governments inability to protect the rights of their citizens may become a pretext for creating protective barriers. There are many such examples already. International community must find ways to deal with violations of the rights of users, before such a practice has not become commonplace, in order to preserve the integrity, freedom and openness of the Internet. The States, together with other stakeholders, should find the frameworks of the protection of the rights of users and ensure the protection of these rights in those areas in which the States have the exclusive authority and responsibility.


3. The evolution of the Internet ecosystem


The future of Internet is foggy. Traditionally, we see the Internet in its static, current state. But the Internet ecosystem is constantly developing. New technologies, new challenges, new stakeholders appear. The influence of some stakeholders reduces and the influence of others increases.


There is no single global approach to determination of the policy and direction of development in this area. It is necessary to define a unified conceptual apparatus for all objects and processes of the Internet, and the very definition of Internet governance. Applying the multistakeholder approach, it is necessary to determine the degree of responsibility of each of the sides of interaction. Currently this is not done.


It leads to the fact that there are different groups that claim to have a right to decide what will be the future of the Internet. However, decision-making in this area requires a broader discussion and consensus than some meetings behind the closed doors. IGF is perfectly suited for this, exactly IGF, but not the elite groups that are able to determine the vector of development of Internet governance.


At a forum in Istanbul it is essential to discuss – how we see the evolution of "Internet" ecosystem governance, what principles will be used for this, to listen to the opinions of stakeholders and, perhaps, apply on this occasion. 


4. Critical Internet resources governance. IANA: Quest for the Rest


To date, the World Wide Web has proven its stability. The critical infrastructure, in particular, the system DNS, is stable. However, in future individual outdated control system elements pose a threat to the sustainable development of the Internet. For example, the control of one government for the root zone governance system that performs IANA. It worries the international community. In the future, the alternative scenario of the DNS implementation is possible. In addition, the lack of transparency undermines the credibility of the entire control system of the critical infrastructure of the Internet as a whole.


In general, the IANA functions quite effectively. That’s why it is proposed to include to the agenda of the Internet Governance Forum the issue of necessity to review the contract and the relevant IANA procedures for its implementation.


The next step in this direction should be discussion of the creation of a working group that will develop proposals for the formation of an international body for oversight and audit IANA. 


Such a body should have appropriate technical competencies and enjoy the wider international community confidence. Its activities should be based on the agreement providing the mechanism of accountability, and be entirely focused on protecting the public interest.


5. Clarifying the role and authority of governments


Internet is transboundary. But national states have fixed and clearly defined boundaries within which they spread their laws and economic rules. They can not avoid affecting the legal entities using the Internet. Each country solves problems of security, intellectual property, and distribution of domains. Internet is used and for political purposes differently. These issues can be determined on the international level through conventions and treaties, but more often it does not. This process should be activated. Therefore it is necessary to define what should be regulated at the international level, and to what extent the Internet can be controlled independently. 


6. Ethical Issues in the Informational Environment


Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the principle of freedom of speech is a fundamental basis of the Internet functioning.  It is a global information environment that provides free cross-border flow and exchange of information. However, such conceptual documents as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe states that realization of these freedoms in a democratic society imposes duties and responsibilities established by law.


Finding a balance between the informational human rights and the principle of their restrictions for protection of these rights and the rights of third parties is a challenge for all stakeholders involved in Internet governance.


The right to freedom of information exchange in the network must be protected from excessive restrictions and controls. Including against unauthorized surveillance. It places special responsibility on the state as the guarantor of the rights of both the national and international level.


Therefore, at the present stage of development of the Internet, global Internet communities need to revert to the ethical principles in the field of information and mechanisms for their implementation . The platform for dialogue on the issue could be the Internet Governance Forum.  In addition, the Forum should explore the possibility of analyzing and making appropriate recommendations by forces created in 2012 by the Working Group on the Principles of the Internet (Working Group on Internet Principles)



  • logo cgi
  • logo 1net