Map of Internet Governance Maps: Toward a NETmundial Solutions Map, Updated

The  NETmundial Initiative was launched on 6 November 2014, as a multistakeholder initiative to energize bottom-up, collaborative solutions in a distributed Internet governance ecosystem. Within the context of the Initiative, the GovLab, in close collaboration with ICANN, is facilitating and coordinating the creation of a new tool called the “NETmundial Solutions Map” – an effort to enable coordination among Internet governance actors by providing a comprehensive map of what solutions exist to what issues, developed by what actors and in what region. The tool will seek to organize content with a rich search, browsing and navigation interface to let people find relevant solutions, experts, and initiatives.

To help us co-design the NETmundial Solutions map, please fill out a short survey here.

As part of this effort, we have mapped several existing projects that aim to map the Internet governance landscape. Below is a non-exhaustive list of initiatives and frameworks that have been proposed or developed till date. As you will see, they are complementary and non-duplicative, and serve different needs and audiences. Moving forward the NETmundial Solutions Map will seek to learn from these efforts and build upon the lessons learned.

Let us know if you are aware of other examples we should include in our Map of Internet Governance Maps.

Map of Internet Governance Maps

 

The “Clearing House Function

What:
A paper outlining a “a proposal to enhance the gathering, assessment and distribution of governance-related information and facilitation of distributed governance networks.” The paper suggests that “the underlying objectives of such an initiative would be to help empower developing country governments and other non-dominant actors to respond effectively to policy challenges, particularly with respect to ‘orphan issues;’ and potentially, to enhance the spread and application of good governance principles, such as transparency, accountability, and inclusive participation.”

Why:
The core aim is to help developing countries with orphan issue policy challenges, and to help the global community more generally with improving the quality of governance across institutions by aggregating and making comparable indicators (for example, of performance) in terms of transparency, accountability, and inclusion. Proposes a “holistic on-going monitoring of and analysis of governance issues, policies and institutions” in order to “assess and compare all these activities, or to construct a network of relationships that would facilitate the development of viable solutions”.

For Whom:
According to the paper, civil society and academia would benefit most from a mapping tool.

Status:
This project is in the concept phase of development. The audience is primarily the Internet governance community. The article was presented at the 2014 Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul under the workshop title: “Institutionalizing the ‘Clearinghouse’ Function” (see a video recording of the workshop here) and discussed at the Beyond NETmundial book release event.

Taxonomy Used:
N/A.

Friends of the IGF (FoIGF)

Who:
Susan Chalmers

What:
The Friends of the IGF project (FoIGF) is a grassroots effort aiming to increase public access to the important discussions that unfold at the IGF, thus encouraging more diverse and informed participation by all stakeholders. Its core element is the friendsoftheigf.org archive website, a searchable database of transcripts, video, agendas, and reports from IGF events stretching back to the first IGF in 2006, in Athens. All content is sourced from the official UN channels, without editorial action

When:
The website catalogues all available IGF discussion content from 2006 to today. It is updated on a rolling basis and the project hopes to “continually improve with community input and support.”

Why:
The goal of FoIGF is to make content from the Internet Governance Forum meetings more accessible. In the long term, Friends of the IGF hopes that the site will “evolve and expand as a resource for the IGF itself, as well as national and regional IGFs.”

For Whom:
Researchers, policymakers, IGF participants and the general public can use the website to search the content of IGF sessions across the years.

Status:
Friends of the IGF is an ongoing project, and continues to be updated with content from each IGF meeting.

Taxonomy Used:
The IGF sessions are organized by the following topics: Access, Critical Internet Resources, Diversity, Enhanced Cooperation, Human Rights, Internet Governance for Development, Internet Governance Principles, Multistakeholderism, Openness, Other, Privacy, Regional & National Initiatives, and Security.

The Geneva Internet Platform (GIP)

Who:
DiploFoundation, with support from the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (EDA) and the Swiss Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM).

What:
Fulfills the mission of an observatory, a capacity building centre (online and in situ), and a centre for discussion.

When:
Launched April, 2014.

Why:
According to the project description, the GIP was initiated “because Geneva is one of the main hubs where digital policies are debated, evaluated, and adopted, and because it has the potential to become a prominent hub for this digital debate – a place where innovations are fostered; where policies are debated; and where leaders, experts, and decision-makers meet regularly – and a place where solutions are born and implemented”. Other reasons listed by the GIP include helping small and developing countries to find resources and providing a neutral and inclusive space for Internet governance discussions.

For Whom:
The framework is especially geared towards diplomats, policy makers and researchers in the field of Internet Governance.

Status:
Launched April, 2014; currently a work in progress.

Taxonomy Used:
Seven “baskets” of Internet governance issues (telecommunications infrastructure, Internet infrastructure, cyber security, human rights, economic, development, socio-cultural). See “Introduction to Internet Governance” for more information on these dimensions, as well as the “Building under construction” for graphic illustrations of Diplo’s old and new taxonomy iterations, and “A Map for a Journey through Internet Governance” that reflects the seven key baskets as they relate to 40 key Internet Governance issues. The Geneva Internet Platform uses the Geneva Internet Governance Index (GIGI) which calculates an actor’s role in Internet governance based on a set of indicators.

 

The Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO)

Who:
The European Commission’s DG CONNECT.

What:
A platform that “would help overcoming the problems of information overlap, overload, fragmentation and complexity” in Internet governance. This initiative focuses on data acquisition and automated analysis methods to create an information “observatory” for Internet governance. GIPO does not provide an issues-taxonomy for Internet governance.

When:
First announced May 13, 2013.

Why:
The main objective of the Global Internet Policy Observatory(GIPO) is the technical development of an online Web-based platform for monitoring Internet-related policy,regulatory and technological developments across the world, to help to increase expertise and understanding among all actors, particularly more disadvantaged stakeholders – including those countries, NGOs and interest groups which may feel somewhat marginalised in Internet governance debates and decisions.

For Whom
Anybody who would like to use the platform.

Status:
In the first half of 2014, the Commission asked for a feasibility study including a demo version of some of the technological solutions proposed that can be tested online.. The results of the feasibility study are published, and the European Commission has released a tender for technical development of the online GIPO platform.

Taxonomy Used:
The GIPO uses data-scrapers to produce a “Field Terminology” of topics, which currently include, for example: human rights, last-mile service, domain names, law enforcement, nonprofit, and Web sites. The GIPO shall ensure classification of data into pre-defined categories (e.g. “privacy”, “cyber-security”, “trade”, etc), including the identification of the most relevant “policy processes” and “debates”

 

The Internet Development and Governance Map (IDGOVMAP)

What:
An effort currently in development to provide textual documentation on Internet governance topics, institutions and fora, and issues, including meta-governance issues such as accountability and scope of Internet governance.

When:
The project has been under discussion since the 2011 Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi.

Why:
To help individuals and stakeholder organizations “figure out what are the relevant fora where the particularly important debates and decision-making processes happen, and how effective participation can be achieved.”

For Whom
According to the website, “all stakeholder organizations are invited to participate and support this work.”

Status:
The map is currently under construction with some topics more developed than others. Current pages about key Internet governance fora are “reasonably well fleshed out” while other parts of the Map are in skeletal form. The website was last updated May 5, 2012.

Taxonomy used:
IDGOVMAP contains a list of 50 issues; they are bucketed into specific topics, e.g. Topics addressed by IANA (including the DNS root zone and time-zone database management), human rights, and “challenges for the public interest in Internet governance”. IDGOVMAP includes a section for “meta-governance issues” such as accountability, scope of Internet governance, and transparency.

 

MAPPING (Mapping Alternatives for Privacy, Property and Internet Governance)

Who:
Supported by the European Commission; trainings conducted by Law and Internet Foundation. Partners include University Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Hannover, University of Groningen, Interpol, University of Malta, EPMA (The European Projects & Management Agency), EUSTIx (Enterprise-and Useroriented Strategy for Trust and Identity eXchange), Diplo Foundation, Hoplite Software, British Business Federation Authority, Association for Technology and Internet, National Research Council (Italy), Laboratory of Citizenship Sciences (Italy).

What:
A fora to mobilize a range of ICT stakeholders and social actors from EU Member States and associated countries “for better coordination and utilisation of knowledge.” The platform will describe the status quo of Internet Governance practices and allow for discussion among stakeholders including increased public engagement.

When:
The project began in March 2014 and is scheduled to run until February 2018.

Why:
The main goal is “to create an all-round and “joined-up” understanding of the many and varied economic, social, legal and ethical aspects of the recent developments on the Internet, and their consequences for the individual and society at large.” To that end, the project is “looking for balance between territorial jurisdictions and “the universal heritage of mankind” in the European space.”

For Whom
The site is aimed toward “a wide spectrum of ICT-related stakeholders and social actors from both EU Member States and associated countries, including academics, law and policy makers, ISPs, international and EU Internet governance bodies, NGOs and civil society organisations.”

Status:
Currently a work in progress.

Taxonomy Used:
N/A

 

Mapping Global Media Policy

Who:
The Global Media Policy Working Group of the The International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). Steering Committee: Marc Raboy, Claudia Padovani, Gerard Goggin, Arne Hintz.

What:
An online platform and resource database containing information on the actors, processes, outcomes, and resources of global media policy. The database is structured according to four categories: people, organizational actors, policy documents, and resources. Content is crowdsourced; people can apply to become content-contributors. The site does not exclusively focus on Internet governance, but rather governance of media, information and communication on a global level. Currently, the content can be visualized in 5 ways, including as a List, Sunburst Chart, Dendrogram, Network or Arc.

When:
Project planning started 2007; the website was created 2010 and content is added continuously.

Why:
The main goals of this project are “to build and share knowledge on the complex field of global media policy, to identify the relevant actors, processes, outcomes and resources, as well as the interactions between them, to foster access to information and reflections on global media policy, to enhance actors’ capacity to effectively intervene in relevant policy settings and thus reduce barriers to meaningful participation and to stimulate collaboration between scholars and stakeholders worldwide.”

For Whom
The site is aimed toward “researchers and research groups who want to study a specific policy topic”, but also invites civil society and other stakeholders.

Status:
Content is added on an ongoing basis.

Taxonomy Used:
Categorizes database content according to thematic “sections” such as “Internet Governance”, “WSIS+10”, “Net Neutrality” or “Gender and Media”. Each section is composed of many “profiles” (organisations, policy statements, declarations, etc.). Each profile is classified according to criteria such as levels of policymaking, geographic location, related topics and actors, etc., in order to allow comparisons, relations and visual mapping.

 

NetGovMap

What:
NetGovMap is “a collective data compiling and mapping project, traces the relations between the internet governance events, processes, and organizing institutions” by using GraphCommons, a graph-based database tool. The map covers the past 2 years of Internet governance events. This map is based on a previous initiative with a static output. The database and categories from the static output have been included in the dynamic map, which will eventually contain the same levels of metadata as the static version (such as time and location) as well as additional data (such as relevant documents) along with options to filter content.

Why:
To “better focus civil society advocacy by understanding where main discussions about global internet governance are taking place.”

For Whom
Mainly civil society stakeholders, in order to maximize the impact they can have by making it clear what events and initiatives are happening so that civil society can prioritize its participation.

When:
Released September/October 2014.

Status:
Currently a work in progress.

Taxonomy used:
N/A. NetGovMap focuses primarily on events/initiatives and organizations/actors.

 

The NETmundial Solution Map

Who:
ICANN, The GovLab @NYU and SecondRise

What:
A knowledge management effort to help Internet governance actors better understand, contribute and collaborate around Internet governance issues. The map will seek to enable coordination by providing an open data-set of what solutions exist to what issues, developed by what actors and in what region. The tool organizes content with a rich search, browsing and navigation interface to let people find relevant experts, share experiences, start new initiatives. The content for the NETmundial Solutions Map will be crowdsourced.

Why:
To enable greater coordination and collaboration in Internet governance; to provide pathways to act on information; and to enable a distributed Internet governance ecosystem. This effort is based on the recommendation in the President Ilves Report, which calls for the creation of an enabling tool to “map issues to existing DG groups and provide assistance in the implementation of existing DG groups’ solutions.”

For Whom
All Internet governance actors — both those who seek information, and those who produce information.

When:
The first prototype is planned to launch in January 2015. The development of the tool will occur in phases from October 2014 through January 2015.

Status:
The tool is in the first phase of development. The GovLab is currently conducting user interviews and scoping the first set of project specifications.

Taxonomy used:
The NETmundial Solutions Map is organized by actors, solutions and issues. The issues category is currently organized by an ACCTT framework (Access, Content, Code, Trade and Trust) taxonomy. However, this framework could change based on feedback we receive during public engagement.

 

UNESCO Internet Study

Who:
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

What:
According to the website, the study will “examine current and emerging inter-related trends, challenges and opportunities around access to information and knowledge, freedom of expression, privacy, and ethical dimensions of the information society.”

Why: 

The study was mandated by UNESCO’s 195 Member States through Resolution 52 of the Organization’s 37th General Conference Resolution in November 2013.

For Whom:

“Governments, civil society, academia, private sector, the technical community, inter-governmental and international organizations as well as noted thought leaders, innovators and pioneers in the Internet Governance space.”

When:
The study was mandated by UNESCO’s 195 Member States through Resolution 52 of the Organization’s 37th General Conference Resolution in November 2013.

Status:
The consultation process is ongoing until November 30, 2014. The results of the will be discussed at a multi-stakeholder conference (CONNECTing THE DOTS) on 3-4 March 2015 in Paris.

Taxonomy used:
The taxonomy is based on the concept of “Internet Universality”, which summarizes UNESCO’s positions on the Internet and highlights four R-O-A-M principles: (i) that the Internet should be human Rights-based (ii) Open, (iii) Accessible to all, and (iv) nurtured by Multi-stakeholder participation.

 

The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Mapping of International Internet Public Policy Issues

Who: 
The Intersessional Panel of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development  (CSTD)

What: 
In November 2014, the CSTD published findings of a review of international public policy issues related to the Internet. This review “continues the work towards creating a more comprehensive set of information on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, the mechanisms dealing with these issues, and potential gaps in those mechanisms.”

The draft report builds on the related work from the WGEC, which posted a questionnaire that included the prompt “What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet?” The responses to this questionnaire revealed 25 broad “issue areas”. In the second phase, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) gave the CSTD a mandate to review and reorganize the data from the survey, and list “where there are international mechanisms addressing these issues, and identify the status of these mechanisms, if any.”  The report identifies gaps and makes recommendations to fill them.

 

Why: 
The purpose of the questionnaire was to “examine the mandate regarding enhanced cooperation as contained in the WSIS Tunis Agenda” and make recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate.

 

For Whom:
The mapping is designed to include individuals, government, the private sector, civil society, academia and technical associations.

 

When:
The most recent work was carried out in August –November 2014, and “has been supported by independent expert advice and comments from peer reviewers.”

Status: 
The most recent review was published in November 2014.

Taxonomy used:
In the first version of this survey 25 major “issue areas” were identified, including: Technical standards; Critical Internet Resources(CIR)management (including IP addresses, the Domain Name System, and the root zone); Fostering a sustainable and innovative Internet for future generations; Internet and security; Cybercrime; Child online protection; Privacy and data protection; Human rights; Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations; E-commerce and trade; Intermediary liability; Consumer rights; Intellectual property rights (IPR),ICT4D, Capacity building; Access, accessibility and affordability; Net Neutrality; Multilingualism and cultural diversity on the Internet; Legal and regulatory frameworks; Applicable jurisdiction. cross border coordination;Media convergence; Internet uses and applications; Stakeholders and governance; Emerging issues; and Other Issues.

In the most recent review, the CSTD adjusted and reorganized the issues “to allow more detailed information on the relevant mechanisms.” These issues were reclassified into seven clusters according to their main attributes, including: Infrastructures and Standardisation, Security, Human Rights, Legal, Economic, Development, and Sociocultural. The taxonomy is organized within the CSTD Mapping of Internet public policy issues database.

Initiatives monitoring Internet Governance issues

Below are some of the initiatives that do not map the field but play a monitoring role in the Internet governance space:

  • Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre – The Centre focuses on “developing a framework for understanding what works, what doesn’t work and why – across all areas of cyber security capacity”
  • InternetGov – This platform aims to enable “multistakeholder collaboration and community feedback for effective Internet Governance”
  • Internet Jurisdiction Project  – This project “facilitates a global multi-stakeholder dialogue process to address the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and geographically defined national jurisdictions.”
  • Internet Monitor Project – This research project aims to “evaluate, describe, and summarize the means, mechanisms, and extent of Internet content controls and Internet activity around the world.”
  • Internet Policy Observatory – The observatory aims “to research the dynamic technological and political contexts in which [….] Internet governance debates take place” and to “serve as a platform for informing relevant communities of activists, academics, and policy makers, displaying collected data and analysis.”
  • Network of Centers – The network is “a collaborative initiative among academic institutions with a focus on interdisciplinary research on the development, social impact, policy implications, and legal issues concerning the Internet.”

 

 

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply