V.Opportunities for Engagement A.Data Localization

C.Improving Internet Deployment

• 
  Use the Forum’s existing survey and outreach tools to explore the relationship between policies and Internet deployment in order to identify effective and limiting policies.
  

• 
  Identify and support the research of key case studies for conducting a deep exploration of the factors that lead to effective Internet deployment and use.
  

• 
  Assist in conducting in-person survey research in key countries in order to better understand the obstacles for effective Internet use and the needs of end users.
  

• 
  Leverage extensive relationships with policymakers to ensure that the existing educational tools are effective and reach the necessary individuals.
  

• 
  Assess the educational tools and resources necessary for ensuring that users can make the most effective use of Internet access, and assist Forum members in developing new tools to address the gaps.
  

• 
  Develop best practices and standards for zero-rating services.
  

• 
  Help Forum members ensure a match between technologies being deployed and the needs of citizens and policymakers.
  

D.Cyber-crime

• 
  Facilitate discussions between private and public actors with a focus on improving the current channels for information sharing.
  

• 
  Work to establish trust between stakeholders through facilitating working groups that can find solutions to “low-hanging fruit” and less politically charged or controversial issues.
  

• 
  Convene experts and stakeholders to define and organize new models for sharing information that extend beyond threats and incidents to issues such as enhancement of existing regulation, guiding principles and tool kits, best practices, joint operations, and research.
  

• 
  Support research into needs assessments for both public and private actors to determine gaps in existing government organizational structures that inhibit or constrain opportunities for public-private information exchange.
  

• 
  Facilitate dialogue on the balancing of cybersecurity needs and the law enforcement access to data.
  

1^ John Perry Barlow, “A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace,” Feb. 8, 1996, https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html.

2^ Exceptionalism has cast doubt on what rights extend online. See, e.g., NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, Apr. 24, 2014, § 1, http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf.

3^ See John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems (New York: Basic Books, 2012).

4^ See Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).

5^ Initial data was primarily compiled through keyword-based searches using standard search engines, academic databases, and reviews of publication collections produced by expert agencies in the relevant fields. Our searches were conducted using core terms (e.g., “data localization,” “internet fragmentation,” “data residency”) alongside regionally-relevant search terms where appropriate (e.g., “Schengen Net”). Where possible, we also conducted searches in non-English languages (English, French, German, and Portuguese) to obtain a broader perspective on the policy landscape in certain regions.

6^ To be clear, by “Internet governance” we do not refer only to the narrow set of questions about who determines top-level domains or sets underlying Internet protocols; instead, we use “Internet governance” to refer to the broader set of policy questions that ultimately influence how the Internet relates to law, business, and society. Under that broader conception, the topical areas of this mapping fall squarely within our understanding of Internet governance. See, e.g., DeNardis, Laura, and Mark Raymond. “Thinking Clearly About Multistakeholder Internet Governance,” 4–5, 2013. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2354377 (describing a taxonomy of Internet governance spanning six functional areas: (1) “Control of ‘Critical Internet Resources’”; (2) “Setting Internet Standards”; (3) “Access and Interconnection Coordination”; (4) “Cybersecurity governance”; (5) “Information Intermediation”; and (6) “Architecture-Based Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement”).

7^ DeNardis, Laura. The Global War for Internet Governance. 226. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.

8^ Dutton, William H. “Multistakeholder Internet Governance?” Rochester, NY, May 16, 2015. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2615596. (noting that each actor “playing in one or more games within a larger ecology of interacting games.”).

9^ Ibid., 19; Ibid., 30-31 (describing Internet governance “as a dynamic ‘ecosystem’ or rapidly changing ecology of technical artifacts, people, including users, and techniques that comprise what we view broadly as the Internet and related ICTs….”).

10^ See Chander, Anupam, and Uyen Le. “Breaking the Web: Data Localization vs. the Global Internet.” UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper, April 2014.

11^ See WEF in partnership with Accenture, “Advancing Cloud Computing: What to Do Now? Priorities for Industry and Government.” 2011. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_IT_AdvancedCloudComputing_Report_2011.pdf.

12^ The pattern of governments seeking greater authority and control in emergent, and initially more unregulated spaces, is not a new phenomenon. See Drake, William. “Comments at NCUC Workshop.” presented at the NCUC Workshop, ICANN, Beijing, China, April 10, 2013. (“But of course to anybody who has a broad perspective on history none of this was new at all. Every media system, every electronic media system for global communications that has ever evolved has gone through a period in which essentially states have sought to embed it within frameworks of public authority. This is a natural phenomena that happens all the time and so we shouldn't be surprised that this is going on now in the Internet environment as well.”).

13^ Force Hill, Jonah. “The Growth of Data Localization Post-Snowden: Analysis and Recommendations for U.S. Policymakers and Industry Leaders.” 3. Lawfare Reserach Paper Series, July 21, 2014. http://tagteam.harvard.edu/hub_feeds/1783/feed_items/1339728.

14^ See Rosenbush, Steve. “Google’s Vint Cerf Warns Against Fragmentation of Internet,” May 14, 2015. http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/05/14/internet-pioneer-vint-cerf-warns-against-fragmentation-of-internet/. (quoting Vint Cerf stating ““In my view, fragmentation is destructive of the basic functioning of the Internet. … Fragmentation would be a terrible outcome [and] destroy value …. But we have to work to make sure there is no reason to fragment.”).

15^ See William J. Drake, Vint Cerf, Patrik Fältström, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Forthcoming (Dec. 2015).

16^ Palfrey, John, and Urs Gasser. Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems. 6. New York: Basic Books, 2012.

17^ Cryptography is one area where the US government has limited the export of data, although such restrictions have been eased over time. See, e.g., “Commerce Control List Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 Category 5 Part 2 – Telecommunications and ‘Information Security.’” Bureau of Industry and Security, December 7, 2012. https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/forms-documents/doc_view/335-supplement-no-1-to-part-774-category-5-part-ii-information-security. The restrictions are currently under renewed scrutiny as part of the United States’ approach to the Wassenaar Arrangement. Andrea Peterson. “The government is headed back to the drawing board over controversial cybersecurity export rules.” Washington Post. July 29, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/07/29/the-government-is-headed-back-to-the-drawing-board-over-controversial-cybersecurity-export-rules/.

18^ Lomas, Natasha. “Europe’s Top Court Strikes Down ‘Safe Harbor’ Data-Transfer Agreement with U.S.” TechCrunch, Oct. 6, 2015 http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/06/europes-top-court-strikes-down-safe-harbor-data-transfer-agreement-with-u-s/

19^ Wong, Gillian. “China to Get Tough on Cybersecurity.” Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2015, sec. Tech. http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-get-tough-on-cybersecurity-1436419416.

20^ Goodin, Dan. “Repeated attacks hijack huge chunks of Internet traffic, researchers warn.” Ars Technica, Nov. 30, 2013. http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/repeated-attacks-hijack-huge-chunks-of-internet-traffic-researchers-warn/

21^See, e.g., King & Spalding. “Three Things In-House Counsel Needs to Know About Russia’s New Data Localization Law.” King & Spalding Client Alert, Sept. 2, 2015. http://www.kslaw.com/imageserver/KSPublic/library/publication/ca090215b.pdf.

22^ See, e.g., Rothrock, Kevin. “Russia Says Twitter Doesn’t Need to Comply With Its New Data-Localization Law.” Global Voices Advocacy, July 2015. https://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2015/07/23/russia-says-twitter-doesnt-need-to-comply-with-its-new-data-localization-law/.

23^ See Chander, Anupam, and Uyen Le. “Breaking the Web: Data Localization vs. the Global Internet.” 35. UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper, April 2014.

24^ See Rosenbush, Steve. “Google’s Vint Cerf Warns Against Fragmentation of Internet,” May 14, 2015. http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/05/14/internet-pioneer-vint-cerf-warns-against-fragmentation-of-internet/. (noting that data localization efforts as a backlash to the Snowden revelations have appeared to subside).

25^ Bauer, Matthias, Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Erik van der Marel, and Bert Verschelde. “The Costs of Data Localisation: Friendly Fire on Economic Recovery.” ECIPE Occasional Paper, n.d. http://www.ecipe.org/publications/dataloc/.

26^ Goldstein, Gordon M. “The End of the Internet?” The Atlantic, August 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/07/the-end-of-the-internet/372301/.

27^ United Nations. “Digital Opportunities for All: Meeting the Challenge. Final Report of the Digital Opportunities Task Force.” May 11, 2001. https://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/general/reports/26092001_dotforce.htm.

28^ WEF. “Annual Report of the Global Digital Divide Initiative.” Jan. 2002. http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Initiatives/Digital_Divide_Report_2001_2002.pdf.

29^ “National Cybersecurity Strategy 2: From Awareness to Capability.” National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism -The Netherlands. http://english.nctv.nl/images/national-cyber-security-strategy-2_tcm92-520278.pdf.

30^ Muggah, Robert, and Misha Glenny. “Why Brazil Put Its Military In Charge of Cyber Security.” Defense One, January 13, 2015. http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/01/why-brazil-put-its-military-charge-cyber-security/102756/.

31^ Rafael Canabarro, Rafael, and Thiago Borne. “Brazil and the Fog of (Cyber) War.” NCDG Policy Working Paper. National Center for Digital Government, March 1, 2013. http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/research/working_papers/13_002_Canabarro-Borne_BrazilandFogofCyberWar.pdf.

32^ Oppermann, Daniel. “Internet Governance and Cybersecurity in Brazil.” Multilateral Security Governance, Conference of Forte de Copacabana, 167–81. Rio de Janeiro, n.d. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587178.

33^ “Cyber-Sicherheitsstrategie Für Deutschland.” Ministry of the Interior - Germany, 2011. http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/OED_Verwaltung/Informationsgesellschaft/cyber.pdf.

34^ Chang, Amy. “Warring State: China’s Cybersecurity Strategy.” Center for a New American Security, December 2014. http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_WarringState_Chang_report_010615.pdf.

35^ Wong, Gillian. “China to Get Tough on Cybersecurity.” Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2015, sec. Tech. http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-get-tough-on-cybersecurity-1436419416.

36^ Parameswaran, Prashanth. “Indonesia’s Cyber Challenge Under Jokowi.” The Diplomat, January 21, 2015. http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/indonesias-cyber-challenge-under-jokowi/.

37^ “Global E-Government Readiness Report 2004.” United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affaris, Division of Public Administration and Development Management, November 2004. http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2004-Survey/Complete-Survey.pdf.

38^“United National E-Government Survey 2014.” United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affaris, Division of Public Administration and Development Management, 2014. http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2014-Survey/E-Gov_Complete_Survey-2014.pdf.

39^ See “United Nations E-Government Surveys.” United Nations Public Administration, n.d. http://www.unpan.org/egovkb/global_reports/08report.htm.

40^ See Goldsmith, Stephen, and Susan Crawford. The Responsive City: Engaging Communities Through Data-Smart Governance. 25. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014.

41^ See Bertot, John C., Paul T. Jaeger, and Justin M. Grimes. “Using ICTs to Create a Culture of Transparency: E-Government and Social Media as Openness and Anti-Corruption Tools for Societies.” Government Information Quarterly 27, no. 3 (July 2010): 264–71. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X10000201.

42^ “The European eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015: Harnessing ICT to Promote Smart, Sustainable & Innovative Government.” European Commission, December 15, 2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0743:FIN:EN:PDF.

43^ “Report: Workshop on New EU eGovernment Action Plan.” European Commission, May 22, 2015. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/opengov/event/workshop-new-eu-egovernment-action-plan.

44^ Ibid.

45^ “A Digital Single Market for Europe: Commission Sets out 16 Initiatives to Make It Happen.” European Commission, May 6, 2015. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4919_en.htm.

46^ Ibid.

47^ “Value of Connectivity: Economic and Social Benefits of Expanding Internet Access.” 9. Deloitte, February 2014. https://fbcdn-dragon-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t39.2365/851546_1398036020459876_1878998841_n.pdf.

48^ Ibid., 10.

49^ Ibid., 15.

50^ Gonzalez Fanfalone, Alexia, and Emmanuelle Auriol. “Post-2015 Consensus: Infrastructure Broadband Assessment Paper.” Copenhagen Consensus Centre, December 4, 2014. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/publication/post-2015-consensus-infrastructure-assessment-auriol-fanfalone.

51^ “Measuring the Information Society Report: 2014.” International Telecommunications Union, 2014. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2014/MIS2014_without_Annex_4.pdf.

52^ See “The Affordability Report 2014.” Alliance for Affordable Internet, 2014. http://a4ai.org/affordability-report/report/#the_affordability_index.

53^ Rai, Saritha. “Facebook’s Internet.org Faces Heat In India Over Net Neutrality.” Forbes, April 16, 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritharai/2015/04/16/facebooks-internet-org-faces-heat-in-india-over-net-neutrality/.

54^ See MacDonald, Raegan. “Wikipedia Zero and Net Neutrality: Wikimedia Turns Its Back on the Open Internet,” August 8, 2014. https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open.

55^ Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society, IXP Deployment Experiences in Africa: 80% Social and 20% Technical Engineering (Aug. 15, 2012).

56^ Adam, Lishan. “Understanding What Is Happening in ICT in Ethiopia.” 12. Policy Paper. Research ICT Africa, 2012. http://www.researchictafrica.net/publications/Evidence_for_ICT_Policy_Action/Policy_Paper_3_-_Understanding_what_is_happening_in_ICT_in_Ethiopia.pdf.

57^ “Telecoms in Ethiopia: Out of Reach.” The Economist, August 24, 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21584037-government-expands-mobile-phone-network-tightens-its-grip-out-reach.

58^ “The Affordability Report 2014.” Alliance for Affordable Internet, 2014. http://a4ai.org/affordability-report/report/#the_affordability_index.

59^ Ibid., 2.2.1.

60^ Ibid.

61^ See, e.g., “Broadband Growth and Policies in OECD Countries.” OECD. June 17, 2008. https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/40629067.pdf.

62^ See Carolina Rossini and Taylor Moore. “Exploring Zero-Rating Challenges: Views From Five Countries.” Public Knowledge. July 2015. https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/blog/Final_Paper-Jul_28-TM.pdf.

63^ Dredge, Stuart. “Bill Gates Criticises Google’s Project Loon Initiative.” The Guardian, August 9, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/09/bill-gates-google-project-loon.

64^ This has, on occasion, motivated security researchers to publicly disclose vulnerabilities in the hope that it will motivate technology creators to patch the vulnerability more quickly. In this process this potentially alerts bad actors to weaknesses in technology that may be exploited. See, e.g., Eduard Kovacs. “Google Discloses Unpatched Windows 8.1 Vulnerability.” Security Week. Jan. 5, 2015. http://www.securityweek.com/google-discloses-unpatched-windows-81-vulnerability.

65^ See, e.g., “Bundesamt Für Sicherheit in Der Informationstechnik,”. https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Home/home_node.html; “ENISA Analyses the Incentives and Challenges to Public – Private Information Sharing — ENISA,” July 9, 2010. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/news-items/enisa-analyses-the-incentives-and-challenges-to-public-2013-private-information-sharing.

66^ “U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC),”. https://www.us-cert.gov/nccic.

67^ See, e.g., “National Council of ISACs,”. http://www.isaccouncil.org/.

68^ “Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik,”. https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Home/home_node.html.

69^ “ENISA analyses the incentives an challenges to Public-Private information sharing,” July 9, 2010. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/news-items/enisa-analyses-the-incentives-and-challenges-to-public-2013-private-information-sharing.

70^ Threat information is shared with the private sector through: “U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC),”. https://www.us-cert.gov/nccic.

71^ See, e.g., Tummarello, Kate. “Tech Industry Wants Surveillance Focus after ‘Big Data’ Report.”

Download 274.55 Kb.

Share with your friends: