RIPE NCC Response to the Report
RIPE NCC Response to the Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation
September 2019
As an organisation that plays a key role in managing the infrastructure upon which the global Internet operates, and as a facilitator of Internet technical community coordination throughout Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, the RIPE NCC is committed to a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, ensuring that Internet governance decisions (including public policy decisions at all levels) are informed by the knowledge and concerns of all relevant stakeholders.
While the core functioning of the Internet is not directly referenced in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the continued development and health of the global Internet is key to many of the solutions and innovations that will help to fulfil the SDGs. In this light, there is an urgent need to identify approaches and structures that can ensure the effective participation of all stakeholders in global Internet governance.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has provided a unique and valuable function for the past 13 years, bringing together a diverse range of Internet stakeholders, including the technical community, to share their perspectives and further discussions around all aspects of Internet governance. Over this period, it has offered the chance for people to learn about, examine and discuss a wide range of Internet governance issues, and through processes such as Dynamic Coalitions and Best Practice Forums, it has facilitated the production and publication of valuable background and analysis on issues including IPv6 adoption, cybersecurity, Internet exchange points and the Internet of Things.
However, the RIPE NCC recognises that both the technology and policy landscapes have changed considerably during that time and that, faced with a growing range of Internet governance challenges, many stakeholders (including some in the Internet technical community) are seeking global governance structures that can provide more in the way of concrete outcomes and the active participation of high-level policymakers and industry representatives. For all the value that we believe the IGF has generated, it is clear that the forum, as currently constituted, has not been able to meet the needs of all stakeholders.
We believe, however, that building on the successful aspects of a proven model offers the greatest chance of success moving forward. We therefore support the general concept of an “Internet Governance Forum Plus” model as outlined in the Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation. Specifically, we support a next-generation model of digital governance that maintains the core values of inclusiveness, transparency and a multistakeholder approach.
We would encourage the Secretary-General to place a high emphasis on the valuable role played by national and regional Internet governance forums and events. These events provide important venues for discussion of region-specific issues, challenges and opportunities, and it is vital that we recognise that the Internet experience, and the associated challenges, vary hugely across different countries and communities. We also note that such regional structures have provided important venues for raising awareness of, discussing, and responding to the work of the panel. We urge the inclusion of a formal process for ensuring that the perspectives and strategies identified at the regional and national levels are transmitted into the global “IGF Plus” model outlined in the panel’s report.
We would also encourage the Secretary-General to prioritise securing concrete financial commitments from the full range of stakeholders as a fundamental aspect of implementing the “IGF Plus” model. The RIPE NCC is among those that have proudly and consistently contributed to the financial sustainability of the IGF since its inception; however, along with many others, we have noted the increasing difficulty in securing adequate funding and the adverse effect that this has had on successful IGF planning. A broad base of reliable financial support, drawing on contributions from all Internet stakeholders (inasmuch as they are able) and collected via the panel’s recommended IGF Trust Fund, is essential to secure the model’s sustainability for the foreseeable future.
Recent Comments on this Site
3rd July 2023 at 2:58 pm
I agree with Michael’s comment.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 2:56 pm
This first message makes no sense. Please take into consideration the comment made by Torsen.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 2:37 pm
3 The Ukrainian Internet resilience is impossible without worldwide cooperation, help and support. There are very good examples of such cooperation, and not very good. These lessons also have to be documented and analysed.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 12:14 am
In responding to the points around the impact encryption, I would ask that the comments I made around the UK’s Online Safety Tech Challenge Fund and academic paper by Ian Levy and Crispin Robinson are added to the key messages.
I referenced a paper by Ian Levy and Crispin Robinson, two internationally respected cryptographers from the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, which set out possible solutions to detecting child sexual abuse within End-to-End Encrypted Environments that companies could be exploring to balance both the rights to privacy and the rights of children to grow up in a safe and secure environment free from child sexual abuse.
The link to the paper is copied below:
[2207.09506] Thoughts on child safety on commodity platforms (arxiv.org)
And the UK Safety Tech Challenge Fund:
Lessons from Innovation in Safety Tech: The Data Protection Perspective – Safety Tech (safetytechnetwork.org.uk)
It is important that we balance the concerns about the breaking of encryption, with the possibilities that should be being explored to prevent child sexual abuse from entering or leaving these environments.
Andrew Campling also made points about the right to privacy not being an absolute right and the need to balance this right, with other rights- another point I think that is worth reflecting in this final paragraph.
See in context
3rd July 2023 at 12:00 am
I agree with the amendment Torsten has proposed to the initial text.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 11:58 pm
I would be careful about saying these images have been created consensually. Just because an image is “self-generated” it does not mean it has been created through “sexting”. Children are being “groomed” and “coerced” into creating these images as well.
I agree- however, with the rewritten text above regarding what companies currently do and what they will be required to do if the EU proposal becomes law and is clearer than what was written in the initial text.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 3:21 pm
The Internet has changed how war is fought, and how it is covered by media. At
the same time, the war has put “One world, one Internet” to a stress test. The foundations of global and interoperable Internet should not be affected by the deepening geopolitical divide, even though it has fragmented the content layer.
No one has the right to disrupt the global network that exists as a result of voluntary cooperation by thousands of networks. The mission of Internet actors is to promote and uphold the network, and to help restore it if destroyed by armed aggression.
The war has been accompanied by heightened weaponization of the content layer of the Internet. New EU legislation is expected to curb at least the role of very large platforms in spreading disinformation and hate speech.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:36 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
Please add these two important points that were said by the speakers/audience:
– There is an initiative on the Nordic level to protect children from the harms of the Internet, and this initiative has already been promulgated into legislation in Denmark.
– As the role of parents is crucial in educating children to use the Internet in a savvy way, also parents need education. That’s why we need adult education also from beyond the formal education system, just like the adult education system in Finland already provides training in basic digital skills.
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:35 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
– governs => governments
– Replace this: ”Therefore, the contemporary political landscape requires three-level trust: political power; knowledge organisations; and individual.”
– By this:
– ”Therefore, the contemporary political landscape requires three levels of trust: trust in basic societal functions and structures of the society, trust in knowledge organizations, and trust between one another as individuals.”
See in context
2nd July 2023 at 2:32 pm
I kindly suggest the following changes:
Replace this: ”Thus, one of the key priorities is to enhance citizens digital literacy and education going beyond only digital competencies and including cultural aspects.”
with this: ”Thus, one of the key priorities is to enhance citizens’ digital literacy and education by going beyond just digital competencies and including also ethical, social and cultural dimensions.”
Add this important point that was said by the speaker: Responsibility for digital information literacy education lies not only with the formal education system, but also cultural institutions, NGOs, youth work play a key role.
See in context