Public Policy 

Internet Governance

ISOC's blog on IGF 2009

RSS feed    Atom feed

Workshop 150: Global Capacity Building for Internet Governance

Panelists :

Posted: Friday, December 18th, 2009 by hackshawt@mpa.gov.tt

Day 4 Wednesday, 18 November

Last day for the Forum, the host country honorary session was today seeing the visit of the First Lady of Egypt Mrs. Suzanne Mubarak. I was at the ISOC booth from 8am to 11:30. It was a pleasure being at the booth today because after the session Mrs. Mubarak took a tour of the village. I planned being in the workshop Global Capacity Building for Internet Governance but ended up in the workshop Taking stock and looking forward – on the desirability of the continuation of the Forum. I was surprised there were so many speakers that the chairman had to use a stopwatch and be firm with the time. I was surprised because all the speakers praised the institution of the forum acknowledging its achievements and called for an extension with some proposing recommendations. The last part of the day was spent in the Net neutrality workshop. One question that has been with since the workshop on net neutrality is WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY? And what does it mean to a small country with poor infrastructure and just a limited bandwidth serving the whole country?

Posted: Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 by Godfred K Ahuma

Workshop 151: Cyber Security R&D: Developing a Vision & Road Map

It was a very bright and early morning, 9:00 a.m. on the first day of the IGF, in the Biblioteca Alexandrina.

Well, maybe not so melodramatic.

Organised by the Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies, (CSDMS) from UP, India, a not-for-profit research institution established in 1997, the workshop brought together bring together Cybersecurity production personnel, Cybersecurity researchers, and scientific application researchers from across the globe.

The Workshop’s purpose was to primarily identify the research needs and opportunities associated with Cybersecurity, focusing especially discussion will focus especially on those needs associated with supercomputing, user facilities, high-speed networks, laboratories, and other open collaborative science stakeholders.

Panelists who led the discussion were:

Tulika Pandey, Additional Director, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Information Technology, Government of India

Tracy Hackshaw, Republic of Trinidad & Tobago, Internet Society (ISOC) Ambassador

Sherif El Tokali, Assistant Resident Representative, Poverty Reduction, MDGs & Private Sector Team Leader, UNDP (Egypt)

The Workshop  sought to create a proactive and forward-looking approach to research and development in the Cybersecurity area from a rigorous analytical and technical basis that would stimulate new open science research directions and have a lasting impact on Cybersecurity.

Key Goals:

• Identify the research needs and opportunities associated with cybersecurity for science
• Gather future science cybersecurity priorities
• Develop a list of research and development priorities for Cybersecurity R&D
• Produce a report describing the results of the discussion, which will provide further impetus to the researchers and the studies in the field.

Tulika Pandey of the Government of India’s Ministry of Communications & IT opened the session by providing the platform for discussion. Ms. Pandey indicated in her presentation that there was an increasingly critical need to develop and new R&D Agenda for Cybesercurity. Why?

1. Monitoring and control of various core infrastructure like electricity, water supply, and medical services are getting computerised, increasing their dependency on ICT
2. The emerging information infrastructure differ radically in scale, connectivity and dependencies from traditional structures
3. Communication systems are interconnected resulting in global interdepencies and vulnerabilities including threats to the national systems
4. Protective measures require continual technological improvements and new approaches to minimize threats on ICT

Internet Society (ISOC) Ambassador Tracy Hackshaw from Trinidad & Tobago – a Social Psychologist by training – sought to tackle the issue from a non-technical perspective. He also sought to highlight the perhaps unique needs of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) where Cybersecurity issues may have deeper  and somewhat submerged dimensions, therefore requiring a multidisciplinary approach to R&D.

Mr. Hackshaw’s presentation argued, that in order to develop an effective global Cybersecurity R&D Agenda, the unique needs of SIDS needed to be factored in which include, inter alia:

1. Social & economic dislocation
2. Cultural Contestations
3. Subjectivity of security
4. High technological barriers

By referring to the case of Trinidad & Tobago, he suggested that the major research question for Cybersecurity first recognize that:

Technology WILL advance and along with it, the technological sophistication of Cybersecurity threats – this is certain

With this recognition, we neccessarily have to ask ourselves:

How do we reconcile the fact the human behaviour is inherently unpredictable and irrational, despite the best social & economic theories to predict same?

Mr. Hackshaw’s recommendations therefore were to develop a Research Agenda which engaged BOTH the qualitative and quantitative study of issues surrounding four (4) key dynamics:

Sherif El Tokali of the UNDP Country Office in Egypt presented a detailed examination of the current trends within the Cybersecurity R&D sphere and by linking the Egyptian experience with the wider international sphere also called for a multidimensional approach to counter Cybercrime.

Sherif identified three (3) broad areas of Cybersecurity threats:

1. Threats to individual users through viruses or identity theft, spam, spyware or pop-ups;
2. Threats to businesses, governments or other organizations through exploitation of vulnerabilities in their data storage, industrial espionage, system downtime, etc. and;
3. Threats to critical public infrastructures, including electronic communication networks, financial systems, emergency services, navigation systems, electrical power grids, air traffic control, water control systems etc.

The ensuing discussions took on a interesting slant with the call by Mr. Hackshaw for a more localized approach to Cybersecurity finding support from representatives from countries like Mauritius and Mexico.

Indeed, and to this end, the discussions moved swiftly and fluidly from the theoretical to the practical as participant after participant spoke to the peculiar issues in dealing with Cybercrime and Cybersecurity in their jurisdiction. Some of the core themes included:

1. The need for international capacity building and knowledge sharing in the area of Cybercrime/Cybersecurity policies and legislation – reference was made to the toolkits and model laws produced by the ITU and Commonwealth Secretariat (for example);

2. Knowledge sharing regarding practical solutions employed by the public and private sectors to combat Computer Misuse and Credit Card Fraud for example.

Perhaps the major or central outcome of the Workshop could have identified by the need to examine Cybercrime from a non-traditional viewpoint … is Cybercrime and Cybersecurity therefore uniquely different from traditional crime and will different approaches be required to not only protect, but also to develop proactive strategies to mitigate against the potential risks?

A Cybersecurity R&D Workshop participant poses a question to the Panelists

Comments from the floor during Cybersecurity R&D Workshop, November 15, 2009 at the IGF 2009

The IGF 2009 Cybersecurity R&D panelists consider questions from the audienceComments from the floor during Cybersecurity R&D Workshop, November 15, 2009 at the IGF 2009

Posted: Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 by hackshawt@mpa.gov.tt

Day 3 Tuesday, 17 November

My day started at the ISOC booth, I was there for a while then left for the ITU Open Forum on Cyber Security. Mr. Sami Al Basheer Al Moshid, Director, BDT, ITU spoke on the ITU Global Cyber Security Agenda which is a cooperative framework aimed at address cyber security in a coordinated and integrated manner through the 5 pillars of Legal, Technical and Procedural, Organizational, Capacity and International Cooperation. The Global Cyber Security Agenda is now in its operational phase. The ITU also has in the past year introduced IMPACT with more than 40 countries joining in. ITU is also building capacity through various toolkits. Panelists at the Forum touched on initiatives by ITU in addressing the menace of Cyber security. Later on the presenters focused each on the 5 pillars.

The afternoon was a jack of all trades afternoon, I had a bit of the following workshops; Adopting IPv6: What You Need To Know, Mitigating the Financial Crisis with Open Source Applications, The Privacy & Security Implications of Cloud Computing. It was an interesting afternoon trying to have a feel of all the parallel sessions. I wasn’t able to attend the workshops on IPv6 Transition: Economic and Technical Considerations and Internet Governance in the Light of the WSIS Principles

Posted: Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 by Godfred K Ahuma

Day 2 – Monday, 16 November

My first session for this day was the The Commonwealth Internet Governance Forum – Open Forum, I was so keen to participate in this forum because prior to the IGF together with my colleague Emmanuel from Nigeria we tried organizing something similar which was not success full due to some challenges experienced. This forum then proved to be one of the best platforms to push for Internet Governance Capacity Building in the region. The Commonwealth Internet Governance Forum (CIGF) seeks to encourage greater participation from Commonwealth member states on policy issues and discussions related to Internet Governance, with a view to coming up with informed solutions or the pooling of good practice to address their needs more directly.

The objectives of the Commonwealth IGF are:
To promote awareness of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) amongst policy makers and stakeholders from industry, civil society and academia in Commonwealth member countries.

To establish IGF links around the Commonwealth with the particular aim of securing the engagement of those Commonwealth member countries which have not previously participated in the Internet Governance Forum.

To foster links between Commonwealth national and regional IGFs and the identify areas of common concern such as affordable and secure access for all.

To provide a forum for stakeholders from Commonwealth member countries to discuss and formulate Commonwealth-wide policies, best practice and position papers to be tabled at the IGF in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, on 16 -18 November 2009.

To inform national positions on public policy issues for the good governance of the Internet and provide a forum for Commonwealth members to enable them to work towards formulating Commonwealth wide policies or positions to be tabled at the IGF.

Tony and Alice highlighted on the Commonwealth Connects programme and East African IGF respectively. All the discussions at the forum focused on building a community of practice on IG issues in the commonwealth.
The forum was filled with many interesting ideas and contributions on supporting and promoting the activities of the Commonwealth IGF. We had to convene again in the evening to continue and conclude the discussions.
There were lots of contributions to the discussions on the future of the Commonwealth IGF. It was agreed to share best practises and existing resources and experiences as far as possible.

The priority areas that were suggested were:
1. Promotion of Regional and National IG Groups
2. Capacity building and awareness raising for policy makers, and legislators
3. Fighting Cybercrime through Prevention, Regulation and enforcement.
4. Supporting the continuance of IGF

Teaching Internet Governance – The experience of the Summers School of Internet Governance was the second session for the day. The workshop described the three summer Schools on Internet Governance that took place during 2007 and 2008. It was mentioned that majority of all who have been through this programme are deeply and actively involved in various IG processes. This is very true because for one to be able to follow and contribute meaningfully in the Internet Governance debate, the fellow must have a thorough understanding of the process and IG Capacity Building Programmes offers the right foundation because it is difficult to find teaching programmes that cover all aspects of Internet Governance.

In reviewing the existing experiences and trying to find improvement for subsequent summer schools I made a comment about expanding the number of people that participate in the programme annually because it was noted that the organizers are not able to offer seats to majority of the applicants because of funding. Since this is a good initiative the introduction of elearning platforms will prove very useful.

Nearing lunch time already, the third workshop was Managing Internet Addresses: Global and regional viewpoint organized by the NRO. The aim of this workshop was to present detailed information about the functioning and main activities the RIRs develop, including description and analysis of their processes (PDP, allocation process, criteria and evaluation of the requests), their involvement in the projects to foster the Information Society and their current challenges in the management of the Internet resources.

The process of IP Address allocation coming from IANA and distributed to the RIRs to the ISP’s then finally to the users was explained giving the functions of each player at each stage. Address space and IPv4 depletion as a resource management challenge was an issue of major concern looking at the introduction of IPv6 and arrangements being made for successful transitions.

RIRs operate on a basic principle of open, transparent, consensus-based decision-making, following a self-regulatory model, based on a broad and multi-stakeholder participation in their activities. The activities and services of each of the RIRs are defined, performed, discussed in open forums within each of their communities, accomplishing a bottom-up decision-making process. The workshop answered the question of what do RIR’s do, here it was known that amongst its functions RIRs beyond their registry function, have an important role in educating and informing their communities. The activities carried out by the individual RIRs vary, but include open policy meetings, training courses, seminars, outreach activities, statistical reporting, research and projects related to whois, RPKI, cybersecurity and encouraging the launching of IXPs, among others. Another role for the RIRs is to represent the interests of their communities by participating in global forums and cooperating with other stakeholders involved in Internet addressing issues.

This day was tight I must confess with three workshop already in the morning session with the afternoon session to go. The next session for me was the role of Internet Exchange Points in creating Internet capacity and bringing autonomy to developing nations. This workshop explained how Internet bandwidth, the capacity to route Internet traffic, is produced within Internet exchange points, an overview of the distribution of Internet exchange points globally, and discussion of the role of Internet exchange points in making developing regions autonomous from the draining expense of international telecommunications carriage. The creation of an Internet exchange point is the single most economically-empowering decision that the Internet community within any region can make, and the one which will most secure their future as an independent and viable center of local content and online community.

Experiences from different IXP’s were shared from the way they begun to how they operate and challenges they encounter.

I Thought I had another session but that was all for the day. Two other workshops I intended to attend were the 2CENTRE, the Cybercrime Centres of Excellence for Training, Research & Education workshop and Managing Critical Internet Resources. Well that’s all for the second day.

Posted: Monday, December 7th, 2009 by Godfred K Ahuma

Day 1 – Sunday, 15 November

The first session I attended on this day was, Cyber Security R&D: Developing a vision & Road map. On the panel was Tulika Pandey from the Department of Information Technology, Government of India. Tracy Hackshaw from Trinidad and Tobago and an ISOC Ambassador, Mr. Sheriff assistant resident representative poverty reduction, MDG and private sector team leader, UNDP Egypt.

The objective of the workshop was to identify the research needs and opportunities associated with cyber security and was looking together to develop a vision and roadmap for cyber security.

The workshop tried to find certain missing capabilities in today’s cyber security approach such as provable methods for quantifying trustworthiness and risk within a component or system of components.

Mr. Hackshaw from the perspective of Trinidad and Tobago looked at 4 dynamics in Cyber Security research in the areas of Social Behaviour, Psychological and Cultural, Economic and Technological.

According to Mr. Sheriff, the full potential of the internet has not been realized. Due to security concerns there is a level of refrain from respondents this he said is from an ITU research.

3 areas of cyber security threats were identified, namely; individuals, business and critical internet resources. To ensure security in cyber space there is also the need for multidisciplinary research and development in cyber security. From the floor it was made known that for instance in Mauritius users of credit cards have a limit after which the customer will be called for further transactions. This model proves to be efficient in small countries compared to bigger countries. Some best practices from the commonwealth models and approach to cyber security were also shared.

One interesting question at the workshop was: What is cyber crime and what makes it different from other crimes? It was noted that most countries find it difficult to prosecute because of the definition of new crimes.

Some recommendations were: the Egyptian model of safe internet for families, jurisdiction for cyber crime, CERTS, country and professional readiness, policy and implementation issues, the need for a bottom up approach and securing networks and authentication.

Due to lack of time the workshop had to end to make way for another session. The workshop broke new grounds and dimensions in further research work in cyber security.

My second session for the day was Understanding Internet Infrastructure: an Overview of Technology and Terminology. This workshop served as an introduction to the topology of the internet, providing definitions and explanations for key terms like transit, peering, hot-potato, exchange point, root and top-level domain name server, routing and forwarding. This was a good workshop that answered the questions of many lay people who participated in the workshop. It was interesting to see the questions about how the internet runs and certain key concepts being explained to participants. I think more of such workshops will demystify the internet as a place for only techies. This workshop achieved its purpose I must say.

The official opening ceremony took the second half of the day. The high level participation of the Egyptian Government with the presence of the Prime Minister affirmed the level of importance the Government of Egypt attached to the 4th Internet Governance Forum and the IG process as a host. According to Sha Zukang we share a common understanding as we progress in bridging the digital gap and building the foundation for our emerging formation and knowledgeable society. The way we deal with the Internet will become increasingly important.

Since the inception of the internet it has continued to lead the world in innovations and ICT and Internet Applications. Speaking on the desirability of the continuation of the forum he encouraged all to participate fully in the stocktaking meetings and share views on how valuable the forum has been, suggest improvements if necessary and check the IGF against its mandate as set out in the Tunis agenda for the Information Society.

There were two other sessions I could not attend due to the parallel nature of the sessions, namely: Issues Regarding the Mobile Internet and Internet Governance – Setting the Scene. I am glad I will be able to refer to the archive of webcasts and transcripts.

Posted: Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 by Godfred K Ahuma

4th Internet Governance Forum Meeting, Sharm El Sheikh, 14 – 18 November, 2009

I arrived in Sharm El Sheikh on the 14th November around 1am and checked in my hotel about an hour later. The morning of the 14th saw me in the scheduled ISOC ambassadors briefing. I wished I had more sleep the night before. Well, Thanks to ISOC for making it possible for me to participate in this important event. The briefing brought together all ambassadors in addition to ISOC staff with the exception of Veaceslav and Ceren who got incapacitated. Bill, Connie, Constance from ISOC took turns to address the gathering on various issues. Ranging from disseminating ISOC objectives, leveraging and promoting its activities as well as explaining ISOC policy issues at the IGF, also discussed was participation of ambassadors in the ISOC ambassador alumni programme, outreach activities, the Next Generation Leaders Programme. Ambassadors were encouraged to press regional concerns. For the archives, ambassadors had photo sessions with our mentors and a group photo with the ISOC team present at the IGF. Each ambassador gave a presentation on his/her focus and expectations for the IGF. My main areas of attention were and continue to be Capacity building in Internet Governance and Cyber security. These happen to be my focus areas because coming from sub Saharan Africa; we do not have greater participation and involvement in the Internet Governance process because of capacity. It has been found out that most developing countries have limited understanding and awareness of the intricacies of Internet governance issues and do not have sufficient capacity to effectively participate in global Internet governance. Making issues relating to the developmental aspects of Internet Governance, in particular capacity-building in developing countries one of the four key areas established by the working group on Internet Governance.

Posted: Monday, November 30th, 2009 by Godfred K Ahuma

更多元化的互聯網管治

2009 年互聯網管治論壇（Internet Governance Forum, IGF）終於曲終人散。總結這次第四屆在埃及沙姆沙伊赫舉辦的 IGF，討論的各種互聯網管治相關議題，從接入（Access）、多元（Diversity）、開放（Openness）、保安（Security）、重要互聯網資源（Critical Internet Resources）、發展（Development）、建立能力（Capacity Building）各種角度，探討各項全球互聯網發展和管治面對的問題。

就著這些方向，政府、互聯網社群、公民社會、商界、跨政府組織等對包括保護兒童、資訊自由與私隱、網絡安全、知識產權、數碼共融、綠色網絡、社會媒體等新舊議題分享。筆者覺得最大的得著，在於與來自全球互聯網社會不同地區、崗位和階層的新知舊雨的聚頭，建立重要的人際合作網絡。

IGF 是在五年前聯合國資訊社會世界高峰會（WSIS）議程中決定成立的，當時暫定舉辦五屆，如今已過了四年，在明年在立陶宛首都維爾紐斯舉辦第五屆 IGF 後是否繼續，也是今年 IGF 主要討論題目和政府之間幕後爭議之一。普遍來說，商界、互聯網業界和公民社會都希望這議程繼續下去，但小部分政府和跨政府組織的態度就有保留。基本上，IGF 的多持分者政策對話方式，開放給任何人士和團體參與，但有些政府卻會覺得浪費時間，甚至失去控制，也有些跨政府組織，說不定寧願把這些議題的討論收歸旗下，也未必支持 IGF 議程持續。

筆者還記得在 07 年於巴西里約熱內盧舉辦的第二屆 IGF，保護兒童和支持言論自由兩派人士雖然分庭抗禮，在最後還得以坐在一起尋求共識。另外討論成立互聯網用戶權利原則約章（IRP）的群組成立，今次情況也有微妙發展。IRP 的約章草擬工作尚進行中，而今年 IGF 中討論保護兒童的工作坊似乎比討論表達自由的多，而且兩年前保護兒童議題因公民社會主導，已變為有更多政府參與甚至積極介入，而在表達和媒體自由的討論中，也多番論及各國政府以保護兒童為名，在各層面以不同手法干預言論自由。

的確，今年很多國家的官員或半官方組織人士已很具體地談論其各種監管手段，包括要求互聯網甚至無線服務供應商監察內容、或要服務供應商和網吧等成立守則等。當然各國文化、宗教及社會情況有異，但共通點在於針對打擊兒童色情，遠比恐怕兒童接觸所謂不良資訊能達共識，尤其是在一些發展中國家因為經濟等原因，成為供應兒童色情內容主要市場，更成為問題焦點。

在其中一節的討論中，一位北歐社會工作者提及在網上對兒童的侵害，最常見是來自其他兒童，而非我們一向腦海中成年人性侵犯兒童的映像。的確，在很多青少年問題上，由性至各種網上欺凌，都是青少年或兒童之間互相發生，很多情況下雙方也是受害者，究竟是否只以監管主導已可，還是要重新思維如何教育、防範，由保護網上青少年轉向青少年自己保衛網絡的開放，更積極以年青人參與甚至帶領，教育更多其他年青人善用網絡和各種科技？

所以，難怪來自各地的參與 IGF 年青人愈來愈多，也是 IGF 發展方向之一，相信未來除了在各地會出現區域性 IGF 之外，也會產生青年人的 IGF 論壇，把互聯網管治討論更多元性及廣泛地推廣出去！這次由香港去參加 IGF 也有六位大學生，相信香港舉辦區域性 IGF 和年青人 IGF 的日子不遠了！

Posted: Sunday, November 29th, 2009 by Charles Mok

互聯網的民主管治實驗

什麼是IGF？聯合國在2003和2005年分別在瑞士日內瓦和突尼西亞突尼斯，舉行了兩階段的信息社會世界高峰會(World Summit on Information Society, WSIS)，分別在瑞士日內瓦和突尼西亞突尼斯筆行，通過《突尼斯議程》(Tunis Agenda)，「重點將放在彌合數字鴻溝的融資機制、互聯網治理及相關問題以及對峰會日内瓦階段和突尼斯階段所做各項決定的落實的跟進工作方面。」而其中一項重要的工作，乃是議程中第71點，成立「有關利益相關多方政策對話」(multi-stakeholder policy dialogue，以上是聯合國官方比較難明的中譯本)的IGF。

根據突尼斯議程第72點，IGF「是一個多邊的、利益相關多方參與、民主和透明的論壇」，但「不得履行監督職能，不應取代現有的安排、機制、機構或组織」(第77點)，即不制定或執行政策。議程定下創立後的五年，論壇參與者需按議程檢討論壇是否需繼續運作，，並就此向聯合國成員提出建議」(第76 點)，故此，IGF在明年九月在立陶宛首都維爾紐斯舉辦的第五屆IGF後足否繼續今年的IGF，除了各互聯網管治議題外，各方關注和持分者幕後政治角力之焦點，因為有少數國家(如中國)曾經暗示不支持IGF的延續。

每年IGF正式議程持續四天，包括由官方主辦的「主要會議」(main sessions)和數十個由各持分者團體申辦的工作坊(workshops)。誰可在IGF議程內辦工作坊，由IGF旗下的「多持分者諮詢組織」(Multi-stakeholders Advisory Group, MAG)決定，但決策往往頗政治化。由於全球各團體都希望舉辦，不但令很多工作坊無論時間和主題均重疊，以致有些籌備經年的工作坊落得講者多、聽眾少的場面，可惜之餘，還引來批評指這種工作坊沒有用。

如何改良IGF？

其實這種會議方式對全球互聯網群體各方討論、互相學習分享，的確是民主、開放的，但效率有時會較低，IGF的交流方式也可以改進一下，例如筆者認為各主要關注主題，例如數碼共融、重要互聯網資源、言論及表達自由、私隱、資訊保安等，應由中立機構或學者作全球政策及區域性分析比較，帶動討論，因為這些議題相關的國際發展資訊，對各國公民社會與互聯網業界很重要，往往也在政策討論時被各地政府有意無意用於誤導公眾制訂其屬意的政策。但難處是多持分者機構也是「咁高咁大」，MAG怎樣公平處理各主題和避免部分勢力支配，也是個很政治化的難題。

雖然IGF會議理論上可在網上參與，但實際參加會議始終較能有效交流和建立人際網絡，而很多公民社會甚至業界也沒經濟能力到會，未來IGF要延續的話，也要更積極鼓勵和發展區域性IGF論壇：在一些國家已有政府與民間合作把這些互聯網管治議題作公開討論及記錄，作參與全球討論的政策及意見基礎。今屆的 IGF首次有政府資訊科技總監葛輝親身在埃及全程參與，加上多位來自香港各所大學的學生「網域使者」(NetMission Ambassadors)和幾位業界和學界人士，是歷年最多人從香港參與IGF的一屆，參與有助未來改善香港參與互聯網管治的國際發展，有望未來可港舉辦本地或區域性的IGF論壇，筆者希望這是我們從埃及帶出來的收獲。

IGF是否繼續運作，今屆會議最後一天舉辦了一個由大會主席，聯合國經濟和社會事務副秘書長沙祖康主持的諮詢會議，數十位與會代表發言就IGF的未來「表態」，包括代表香港互聯網協會的筆者，其中絕大多數(包括筆者)支持在明年之後延續IGF；最終決定如何，IGF的形式和程序有何改變，還看各方尤其是主要大國政府在背後的角力，和未來數月的諮詢相議。

Posted: Thursday, November 26th, 2009 by Charles Mok

IGF issues – Dubai “Gulf News” (Friday Nov 20, 2009)

On my homeward flight I read Dubai’s “Gulf News” (Friday, Nov 20) which included two articles which highlighted IGF issues related to the improper use of the internet – cybercrime and improper use of social networking sites. The issue for us in the Pacific is the lack of any laws to address issues such as these should cybercriminals use our networks for activity which in other countries is dealt with by the courts?

The cybercrime article was entitled “Cybercriminal gets six months jail for job hoax: Accused promoted Education Ministry job on a fake website”. (Here is an abridged version of the article) “Dubai: A visitor has been jailed for six months after he promoted a teacher’s job in the Education Minister on a hoax website and defrauded a London-based teacher. [The judge ordered that he will be deported after his jail term]. The fraudster had earlier denied indulging in a cybercrime, which involved designing a hoax website claiming it to be that of the UAE’s Education Ministry, promoting a teaching job and defrauding US$4,100 from a London-based Slovakian teacher.  [The accused was charged by the Public Prosecution who asked the jury to impose the toughest possible punishment applicable. The teacher claimed she referred to an email address on the site which belonged to the accused and that he pocketed her money.] “The site advertised the job application as being issued by the Labour Ministry and promoted the Education Ministry’s teaching job. The accused [and a number of other unidentified accomplices] were charged with committing a cybercrime by abusing the internet and defrauding and swindling [the teacher’s] money. .. An Emirati lieutenant from Dubai’s Police section combating cybercrime testified that they tracked down the email of the accused before they arrested him.”

The second article was a whole page dedicated to “Letters to the Editor” about an earlier Gulf News article (Nov 18) “Man accused of defaming former employee” where “a business partner [from Dubai ] admitted cursing and defaming his former employee on Facebook during the first-of-its-kind trial involving the world wide electronic social networking tool. This is believed to be the first court hearing which involves suspects abusing Facebook for unlawful acts, to be highlighted in the media.” Unfortunately only parts of the original article were printed, but there were 23 letters to the editor commenting on the pros and cons of the social networking site and some suggestion of censorship. Some examples of the letters reflect views similar to those which were raised in the IGF “Social networking and privacy” session I attended.

Be careful
Face book is a social networking site that is open to millions of people. Whatever you put on the internet would somehow be read by people as the information gets passed on from one person to another very quickly. A person should always think twice before uploading some information or document on Facebook. As an advice, never put anything that is related to work or anything that would insult somebody. Yes, we are entitled to our own opinions, but many cultures and people are not open to criticism, jokes or sharing of personal views. (Mr Q, Dubai)

Continuing issues
Facebook is not the problem. It someone wants to cause harm to another, he or she will find a way. Libel and slander existed before Facebook and they will continue, whether the social networking website exists or not. (Ms A, Dubai)

Budding community
We all have to utilize and use Facebook in the right way! Blocking the website is not a good decision. If it is blocked, tomorrow another communication website will be launched with a different name. Instead of blocking it, education people on how to use it in the correct manner. It’s a social community – it someone doesn’t like it, do not register yourself there. (Mr S, Ras Al Khaimah).

Stop them
Electronic networks allow users to use harsh words which can easily hurt of offend someone. The new generation exploits such freedom! Values, respect and ethics don’t matter in such forums which makes the users extremely vulnerable. Please stop the use of such networks. (Mrs S, Dubai).

Changing times
Let us take a step back and see why Facebook was created. It is used by millions of people around the world to keep in touch with friends and family. It forms a platform through which people can share photos and videos. It has changes how people communicate. If certain individuals take advantage of this freedom and instigate others, it is not the fault of the network or of other users. If we have a problem with certain people on Facebook, we should either report them to the moderators, or personally modify our accounts and avoid them. (A reader, Dubai).

Posted: Wednesday, November 25th, 2009 by Maureen Hilyard