Comments by Croatian IGF
Comments by Croatian IGF on the Report of the UN Secretary General’s High level Panel on Digital Cooperation
We welcome the UN Secretary General effort in developing a comprehensive report on the digital cooperation through the High level Panel. The report considers the crucial questions on digital cooperation while having in mind diverse perspectives on – the social, ethical, legal and economic impact of the always changing digital eco-system.
We find it particularly important and useful that panel was asked to consider how digital cooperation can contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
We support its recommendations. We also recognise the need to enhance and clarify the multilateral aspect of the Internet governance and at the same time we support the multistakeholder model that has functioned well so far and that has contributed to the state of the Internet today. It is important that Internet remains open to multistakeholder model and it is also important that governments have clear and equal possibilities to influence the public policy related issues through a set of globally agreed processes. We support the idea of a Technology Envoy at the UN level.
On the evolution of the IGF, we strongly support the IGF as forum for open discussion of all the interested parties and we would recommend not to rush in giving the IGF more demanding scope that would be difficult to agree and implement. We also support the efforts to move IGF out of Europe from time to time, to demonstrate its global character. A model for financing has to be agreed where the cost for organising a global IGF would be covered in a more acceptable way for countries that cannot afford to cover all the costs as hosts.
So we find very important that one of the tasks put in front of the High-level panel was to consider models of digital cooperation to advance the debate surrounding governance in the broader digital sphere on the new challenges like the AI and other emerging issues.
We remain open and hope to be able to contribute to the global efforts for enhanced cooperation.
CRO-IGF Executive Committee, in Zagreb, 15 October 2019
Recent Comments on this Site
31st July 2021 at 6:00 pm
There have been some comments about the messages on the WS-16 mailing list rather than being logged as part of the messages procedure. The final result was a list of messages agreed by consensus.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:39 pm
I suggest to rephrase more concrete: There must be a global collaborative effort in the form of dialogic regulation between governments, tech companies, and civil society to develop a solution grounded in human rights that will address disinformation and harmful content
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:36 pm
delete “being”
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:34 pm
I suggest tp rephrase a bit more concrete: Liberal approaches of governments towards online platforms at there start of the platform economy led to …
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:24 pm
Although I was the one who mentioned this during the session, I am not sure that we should push for frequency regulation – besides, it is very likely to be be outside our scope
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:12 pm
NEW WORDING PROPOSED:
One institution ALONE CANNOT solve the problem. Multistakeholder approach IS needed, TO BUILD AN HARMONIOUS SYSTEM WHERE HARD AND SOFT REGULATION MECHANISMS FIND A BALANCE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOUNDARIES, MANDATES AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS. IN PARTICULAR Platforms have a big stake, and should be required to develop transparent self/co-regulation.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:09 pm
propose to add at the end of the phrase: “Those defenses should be strengthened by media education: a field where public service broadcasters have a special role to play based on their remits.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:01 pm
This legitimacy needs to arise from clear legislative frameworks in which hard regulation and soft regulations could find an equilibrium, each one with its own specific role and with clear boundaries and accountability mechanisms.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 12:57 pm
[that will address disinformation and harmful content]
See in context
10th July 2021 at 9:16 pm
As I mentioned during the session, I believe we should be careful with using the term ‘content moderation’ in the context of the Internet infrastructure level, as these services are typically very far removed from the actual content. I would like to suggest amending this paragraph to read: “Recent cases show that certain infrastructure providers unwillingly take action that could be argued to be content moderation by suspending services for the platforms in an ad-hoc manner without any transparent policy. But infrastructure services have limited possible options, which tend to be temporary solutions (clearing cache), overbroad reactions (limiting access) or options that open up websites to cyberattack (terminating services of particular users).”
See in context