Ten more years for the United NationsInternet Governance Forum (IGF): At a high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly (GA) on December 16, 2015, the GA adopted an outcome document on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society.
In a specific decision articulated in the document, the GA extended the IGF mandate until 2025. The General Assembly also specified that during this period, the IGF should continue to show progress on working modalities and continue to encourage relevant stakeholders in developing countries to participate in internet governance discussions at the UN level.
UN General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft presided over the meeting, which was attended by high-level representatives from all member and observer states, and…
//In this interview, Celia Lerman, professor and researcher of Intellectual Property at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella law school, discusses her path to internet governance work and her recent publication on internet policy in Latin America. Lerman reflects on the crucial role of multistakeholderism in the movement for open democracy and the broader issues facing the implementation of a successful model of internet governance. Click here to read the full publication.
How did you first become interested in internet governance and multistakeholderism?
I became interested in internet governance early in my career when I was working as an intellectual property lawyer in Buenos Aires, working with international domain name disputes. The procedures for solving these disputes caught my attention: it seemed so strange to me that the domain name disputes I was working on had to be submitted to a panel based in Geneva and hold the procedure in English, even when both parties were based in Latin America and spoke Spanish as a first language. That sparked my interest in exploring better rules and solutions for Latin American internet users relating to their rights on the Internet.
Soon after I started working in academia in 2011, I participated in my first ICANN meeting as a fellow in Dakar, Senegal, and in the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest organized by American University. Both meetings were incredible windows to internet governance and policy discussions for me.
Click here to read more.
//Erik Nisbet, Associate Professor at The Ohio State University, examines key points of CGCS’s Internet Policy Observatory funded research into citizen attitudes towards internet freedom in Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan, and discusses the implications of public opinion patterns surrounding internet censorship.
//Tatevik Sargsyan, a doctoral candidate at the School of Communication at American University, explores the economic and trade implications of data localization on governments and citizens. In lieu of the recent ‘Safe Harbor’ agreement, Sargsyan considers localization within the contexts of human rights and commercial exchange.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision to invalidate the Safe Harbor agreement on October 6, 2015, and the subsequent legal uncertainty surrounding data transfer between the United States and European Union (EU), have sparked conversations about data localization. As the US and EU negotiate a new transatlantic data transfer regime and internet companies consider moving data to Europe, it is worth reflecting on the potential consequences of data localization.
Most commonly, “data localization” refers to legal restrictions on data location and export, which mandate online service providers to physically locate servers containing data belonging to a country’s residents within that country’s jurisdiction, and/or ban the export and processing of data elsewhere. China, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, Russia, Canada, and Australia are among the many countries where such restrictions exist or are being considered.
The 2013 revelations about the US National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance PRISM program have particularly pushed countries to turn to data localization as a reasonable solution to privacy and security concerns related to intrusive foreign intelligence. This is the rationale behind German authorities’ proposal to store Europeans’ data on servers inside EU. This is also the claim that Russian authorities used to enforce the Data Localization Law on September 1st of this year.
Click here to read more.