APC's priorities for the 10th Internet Governance Forum, Brazil, 2015


1. Preamble

The 10th annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will be held in João Pessoa, Brazil, from 10 to 13 November 2015 with the overall theme of “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development”.

Over the past 10 years the IGF has matured into more than an annual meeting. Aside from its contribution to regional and national IGFs across the globe, IGF intersessional work is producing substantial outputs. In 2015 six Best Practice Forums tackled issues ranging from countering abuse of women online to policy options for connecting the next billion, not to mention the ongoing work of the Dynamic Coalitions. These initiatives have produced outcome documents that will enrich discussions at the IGF and inform policy making elsewhere in the internet governance ecosystem. The IGF’s mandate ends this year, with its fate to be determined by the UN General Assembly on 15 and 16 December. APC’s view is that the IGF is an invaluable mechanism for capacity building, networking between different stakeholder groups, identifying emerging internet policy issues, facilitating inter-institutional interaction, and identifying solutions to internet policy and regulation problems. For civil society it provides an opportunity to network, exchange knowledge, connect local and global dimensions, and strategise on how to improve the governance of the internet, so that it serves the public interest.

We recommend that the IGF’s operational capacity be strengthened and that its mandate be renewed for another 15 years.

The 2015 IGF has added significance for APC as it takes place in the year of APC’s 25th anniversary, and in the home country of one of APC’s founders, Carlos Afonso. The APC community and our many friends and allies will celebrate this achievement in João Pessoa.

2. Key internet-related political developments since IGF 2014

The past year has seen a number of developments in legislation, regulation and normative frameworks affecting internet policy as well as the 10-year review of the WSIS and the finalisation of the post-2015 development agenda.

2.1 Developments in the UN

At the UN level, key developments include the establishment of a new Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, whose mandate includes technology-related challenges to privacy. The new UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, issued a groundbreaking report establishing encryption and anonymity as key enablers of human rights, as well as a report on protection of whistleblowers and sources. The Human Rights Council (HRC) recognised for the first time that cyber bullying and cyber stalking as a pattern can constitute violence against women, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) issued a General Recommendation on Access to Justice which includes substantial reference to information and communications technologies (ICTs) and recommends that states take specific measures to protect women against internet crimes and misdemeanours.

2.2 WSIS+10 and the future of the IGF

The IGF is an outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society, which is undergoing a 10-year review – a process which, as stated above, involves the UN General Assembly making a decision on the future of the IGF. The WSIS+10 process has been useful in refocusing the internet community’s attention on development concerns, and alerting those involved in the post-2015 development agenda of the critical linkages between sustainable development and information and communications. APC strongly recommends renewing the IGF’s mandate for another 15 years. A 15-year mandate is critical for ensuring that the IGF is adequately funded, as well as ensuring its integration with the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

We recommend that the IGF continue using intersessional work as a mechanism for consolidating the learning and information exchange that takes place at the annual global forum and at linked national and regional IGFs. We believe that the IGF can play a stronger role, where appropriate, in making recommendations, and that this will emerge from BPFs and the ongoing improvement of the IGF. But we also believe that the IGF should not become a negotiating or policy-making forum. We recommend that in future, the relationship between the IGF, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and other UN agencies be strengthened and expanded to included UN Women, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and other agencies involved in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

APC is organising a pre-event on WSIS, together with the Internet Democracy Project and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, to explore whether the 10-year review is moving forward in a way that will help us come closer to the WSIS goal of a “people-centred, development-oriented, inclusive information society”. We welcome the fact that the co-facilitators of the WSIS+10 overall review, Ambassador Jānis Mažeiks of Latvia and Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates, will be attending the IGF and participating in a main session on WSIS+10 that will allow members of the IGF community to share their views on the draft outcome document. We encourage the co-facilitators to take advantage of their time in Brazil to experience the unique nature of the IGF by attending workshops, pre-events, and the variety of activities that the IGF encompasses.

2.3 Increased legislation, regulation and judicial cases addressing internet policy at the national and regional levels

At the national level, courts and legislatures have continued to grapple with complex policy matters that impact internet rights. To mention just a few examples, France passed a sweeping new surveillance law in May that allows authorities to collect and analyse metadata on millions of web users, and forces them to make that data freely available to intelligence organisations, and is considering another piece of legislation that would legalise mass surveillance beyond France’s borders. In Pakistan, the National Assembly is on the verge of adopting a new cybercrime bill, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill, which would give the government and law enforcement agencies broad and sweeping powers to curtail free speech online and violate the online privacy of citizens. In South Africa, the Film and Publication Board is considering a draft regulation that poses serious threats to online freedom of expression under the guise of child protection, and in October 2015, during country-wide student protests against university fee increases, the high court issued an interdict against the hashtag #feesmustfall. A South Korean court recently ruled that Google should disclose the history of users’ personal data provided to a third party. In India, the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India Supreme Court decision on sections of the Information Technology Act of 2000 has major implications for online censorship, intermediary liability, and blocking of communications services.

In Brazil, while the passing of the Marco Civil da Internet (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet) in 2014 was a huge achievement, some of its provisions remain contested, while others are still not being implemented effectively. Of particular concern is draft bill 215/2015 which, among other provisions, would add to the Marco Civil the so-called “right to be forgotten”. This move is considered dangerous by internet rights advocates as it goes beyond the European concept of the right to be forgotten, for removal (not only de-indexing) of content associated to someone’s name or image referring to a crime (acquitted) or that could be considered defamatory, calumnious or infamous to the person. As such, it is seen as a potential threat to the rights to information and freedom of expression. It is important to note that although these rights need to be balanced with the right to privacy, due to the history of corruption in the country and the fact that Brazil does not even have a bill on data protection, this provision has been interpreted as an attempt to protect politicians rather than advance the right to privacy or other rights.

Regionally, the European Court of Justice has ruled invalid the US-EU Safe Harbor agreement relied on by thousands of companies, including all the major tech giants, to transfer personal data to the United States. The Court found that the arrangement infringes on Europeans’ rights to privacy. Late last month, the European Parliament voted not to adopt amendments that would have brought clarity to the net neutrality regulation, and allows for providers to be allowed to offer “specialised services” at higher speeds than standard services, and to offer “zero-rating”.The future of net neutrality in Europe is tied to guidelines that will be prepared by the committee of European regulators (BEREC), which will give a binding interpretation to the ambiguous text and answer many questions about what real effects this regulation will have on freedom of expression and innovation in Europe.

2.4 Threats to online expression

Threats to internet rights have continued from both state and non-state actors. Governments have blocked access to online content, social media platforms, or communications networks entirely, in particular ahead of elections or in times of political and social instability, for example, in Malaysia, Turkey (the host of last year’s IGF), India and Burundi, among others. Bloggers and human rights defenders continue to be jailed and murdered with impunity, including in Mexico, host country of the 2016 IGF. In Bangladesh, attacks on bloggers and publishers reached an alarming rate in 2015, with seven attacks this year alone, five of them fatal. Scores of human rights defenders who use the internet in their work remain imprisoned, including APC partners Alaa Abdel Fattah and Khadija Ismayilova.

Take Back the Tech!, APC’s collaborative campaign calling on women and girls to use technology to end violence against women (VAW), recently faced attacks on Twitter simply for working on this issue. The misinformation and intimidation campaign against Take Back the Tech! and its broad network of women activists and survivors included attempts to shut down the work of the IGF BPF on countering abuse against women online. The attackers conflate work on violence against women with efforts to dismantle freedom of expression and anonymity, ignoring that Take Back the Tech! was part of a coalition that successfully pressured Facebook to make changes to its real name policy, which exposes VAW survivors and others at risk of violence to those who would abuse them by forcing them to use their real names.

2.5 Access, bridging the digital divide and net neutrality

Net neutrality and the expansion of zero-rated services have been topics of intense debate this year. In India, Facebook’s Internet.org and Airtel.org sparked such intense criticism and debate that when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India opened up a public consultation on the matter, it received over a million emails. Although the government has yet to reach a final decision on the matter, the Department of Telecommunications has indicated that it considers Internet.org to be in violation of net neutrality. In response to severe criticism, Facebook rebranded Internet.org as Free Basics, which adjusts aspects of the service, but does not fundamentally change the “walled garden” nature of the project. On a positive note, in the United States, after years of advocacy from public interest groups, the Federal Communications Commission voted in favour of net neutrality. However, despite this major development, cable companies and others are taking a number of measures to undermine the net neutrality rules.

The question of how to bridge the digital divide is not a new one, but has seen increased attention this year. In September, the world’s governments adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which call for significantly increased access to information and communications technology and universal and affordable access to the internet in least developed countries by 2020, and mention the importance of ICTs for women’s empowerment, higher education, and science, technology and innovation. The Agenda for Sustainable Development also calls for the establishment of the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, which will consist of a UN inter-agency task team on science, technology and innovation for the SDGs, a collaborative annual multistakeholder forum on science, technology and innovation (STI), and an online platform as a gateway for information on existing STI initiatives, mechanisms and programmes.

2.6 IANA transition and ICANN accountability

The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has issued a report with its recommendation on how to transition the management of aspects of the Domain Name System away from the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The ICG proposal calls for the creation of a new legal entity, the Post-Transition IANA (PTI), which would handle IANA functions as an ICANN subsidiary. This proposal needs to be paired with the ICANN Cross Community Working Group on Accountability recommendation and its implementation before it can be approved by the NTIA. There has been some criticism about the fact that the improvement in ICANN accountability will involve internal multistakeholder mechanisms as opposed to external oversight. Any external oversight, however, would meet opposition from the US government and was never part of the possible solution. The IANA transition was initially supposed to conclude by September 2015, but NTIA has granted an extension of a year on the contract; the extension can be prolonged for as long as an additional three years if necessary. Further extensions, however, are seen as problematic in terms of US elections in 2016 and a possible change of administration.

3. APC’s priorities at IGF 2015

3.1 Human rights

Human rights issues ranging from speech online (e.g. blasphemy, hate and dangerous speech), to the implications for privacy of big data and the internet of things, to content control, LGBT rights and online activism will be covered at the IGF 2015 by a main session and the approximately 38 workshops that touch on human rights-related topics.1 Usefully – and demonstrating the practical value of the IGF – there are workshops that will focus on the implementation and measurement of human rights online, through, for example, implementing core principles, ranking and benchmarking ICT companies, and building internet observatories.

We note that there is still a gap in discussing economic, social and cultural rights at the IGF. Given the recognition that the internet has a significant impact on the right to education, health, culture, an adequate standard of living, and other rights, it is time that greater attention be given to how internet policy and regulation can help achieve greater social inclusion.


APC is organising, co-organising or participating in a number of workshops and pre-events with the goals to:

  • Jointly create a set of principles to guide the development of mechanisms to prevent and respond to technology-related VAW through the IGF BPF on Countering the Abuse of Women Online and a pre-event on gender and the internet. The pre-event will provide space to build understanding of technology-related VAW as a freedom of expression issue and to examine responses from states and intermediaries.
  • Shed light on the practical steps that people can take to protect themselves and their activism through Disco-tech, a peer-learning session we are organising together with Coding Rights and Tactical Tech on 9 November.

APC will also participate in meetings of the Dynamic Coalitions on Internet Rights and Principles and on Platform Responsibility, as well as the Best Bits pre-even.

3.2 Access

Approximately 20 workshops2 will address aspects of access such as capacity building and investment, enabling policy environments, measuring access, producing data to inform policy, community-owned infrastructure and access to content.


APC’s priorities with regard to access are to:

  • Promote public internet access facilities, access for women and girls, access to radio spectrum, infrastructure sharing, and integrated national broadband planning. We believe that addressing gender and access to the internet requires a broad-based approach that considers economic, social, political and cultural contexts and existing inequalities.
  • Find ways to minimise barriers to entry for access providers through new technologies, better and targeted subsidies, direct investment in infrastructure roll-out, and more effective, transparent and accountable public-private partnerships. We would like to see a stronger response from states to establish effective access through, for example, investing in public access in libraries and community centres, facilitating community-owned networks, and promoting net neutrality and non-discriminatory access, in addition to support for capacity and content development, relevant applications, and an enabling cultural, economic and political environment.
  • Encourage a rights-based approach to access. People need to be involved in policy development and decision-making processes to ensure they meet real and expressed needs, take broader social and economic divides into account, acknowledge that there are barriers beyond the technical ones, and put the human dimension at their centre.

APC has also been contributing to intersessional work in the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access in Libraries and on policy options for connecting the next billion.

3.3 Fostering good internet governance and enhancing multistakeholder cooperation

Approximately 17 workshops3 specifically reference the multistakeholder approach. Multistakeholder cooperation will also be addressed by the main session on the “NETmundial Statement and the Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem” and the BPF on Strengthening Multistakeholder Participation.


Multistakeholder participation in internet governance has evolved, and it needs to evolve further to be fully democratic, inclusive, transparent and accountable. More effort needs to be made to bring a diversity of voices into internet governance discussions, in particular from developing countries, and from vulnerable and marginalised communities. But recognising the need for improving multistakeholder processes should not undermine affirmation of the principle. Nor should support of multistakeholder processes be interpreted as denial of the need for regulation, or of the important role of governments in creating an enabling environment for social justice and development and protecting human rights. Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholder internet governance are not mutually exclusive. They are mutually reinforcing. We recommend that any initiatives to establish spaces for discussion and cooperation among governments with regard to internet governance be linked to the IGF process.

There is a need for a normative framework to consolidate transparent, accountable and inclusive decision-making – that puts the public interest first – across the internet governance ecosystem. The NETmundial Principles on Internet Governance agreed on by multiple stakeholders in 2014 was a giant step towards achieving this. We recommend that the IGF consider using and disseminating the NETmundial Principles as a basis for common principles and guidelines for internet policy making at all levels. The IGF community should focus on establishing inclusive, democratic, transparent and accountable internet governance processes that involve all stakeholders, and that are based on an understanding of the internet as a global public resource which should be governed in the public interest, at national, regional and global levels.

3.4 Net neutrality

A dynamic coalition on the issue of net neutrality was formed in 2013, and has made substantial contributions to addressing its nuances and diverse angles. It is an issue on which consensus is hard to build as different actors have different interests and therefore views. The fact that the IGF 2015 is dedicating a session to a dialogue on zero-rating and network neutrality, and that four workshops will discuss it from different perspectives, is an indicator of its significance.


The essence of the network neutrality and zero-rating debate can be framed by three key questions: To what extent should internet access providers (the operators of the pipes) be allowed to interfere with the content that flows through them? And by extension, how rigidly should the end-to-end principle be observed? And, to what extent should content providers be allowed to come to agreements with access providers to subsidise their content? These questions are particularly relevant to developing country contexts, where access happens mostly through mobile networks and is expensive, and there are fewer, if any, alternatives for low-cost access.

Zero-rating (not charging users for data-related costs when using specific platforms through an agreement between the mobile operator and the platform) may be motivated by good intentions, and there is research that indicates it drives demand for mobile data services. But, does this offset the potential harmful impacts? Zero-rating services of established global platforms can impact negatively on smaller or newly emerging content and application providers. In the context of increasing vertical integration, where access and content providers are owned by the same companies, these strategies can result in abuse of market power.

Research should be conducted to determine the extent of net neutrality abuses and zero-rating activities that are taking place in order to inform public policy responses, and there is a need to look at the relationship between net neutrality and human rights, such as freedom of expression, privacy and access to knowledge.

3.5 Cyber security and trust

Eleven workshops will talk about cyber security issues at the IGF.4 They look at the intersection of human rights and cyber security, how to build trust, managing cyber threats, maintaining online identities, sharing national experiences, and offering new models for capacity building.


Our participation in workshops and discussions on cyber security and trust at the IGF will focus on advancing the following:

  • Cyber security approaches that are inclusive of all stakeholders and proactively ensure that cyber security policies are, from their inception, rights-respecting and consistent with the international human rights framework. APC rejects the false dichotomy of security versus rights, since human rights and security are mutually reinforcing.
  • Internet protocols and standards that take into account rights ramifications in addition to the technical context of the security and resilience of the network.
  • Privacy as a key pillar in building frameworks of trust and capacity building in the context of cyber security. APC will continue to focus on the right to privacy in order to address the issue of mass surveillance, and demand that the Necessary and Proportionate principles be applied to the technical architecture of communications and surveillance systems.
  • Preserving strong encryption and other applications enabled by cryptography, which serve a critical role in enabling the exercise of rights online. We are deeply concerned by attempts to weaken, sabotage or ban cryptographic protocols that enable privacy online. APC believes that the IGF community should support and build on the recommendations made by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, in his report on the use of encryption and anonymity in the digital age.

APC is alarmed by the increasing discourse we are seeing that cyberspace is the fifth domain of war. Civilians, particularly those living in war-affected areas, depend on communications infrastructure for their health, safety and security. We believe unequivocally that the internet should be a demilitarised space. A demilitarised internet contributes towards international peace, safety and stability. Furthermore, terms like cyber warfare, cyber attacks and cyber weapons can be misleading. In many instances, cyber weapons and cyber attacks can be indistinguishable from exploits and methods used in cyber crime. A secure internet infrastructure should be able to secure civilians from all forms of exploits, regardless of who the actor is.

3.6 Gender and internet governance

APC has been committed to cross-movement building, working on bringing more women’s rights and sexual rights activists into internet governance, as well as opening up the internet governance spaces at national, regional and international levels to the views and concerns of gender and sexuality activists. As part of our work in the Gender Dynamic Coalition, we have been working with the IGF secretariat since 2012 to carry out the Gender Report Card to monitor and assess the level of gender parity at the annual global IGF. We have found that while there have been more “women in the room”, more effort is needed to ensure that women are present as moderators and panellists and not simply as participants. Of equal importance is to have diversity within the “gender” category itself and include considerations of sexual orientation, geographies, languages, ethnicities and generation.

It is significant that the 2014 findings show an improvement in terms of how the organisers made the link between gender and internet governance, with 15 workshops reporting gender being mentioned.

APC will also participate in the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance.

3.7. Global Information Society Watch 2015 (GISWatch)

APC is launching Global Information Society Watch 2015 (GISWatch), our annual joint publication with Hivos, on 12 November. This year’s edition covers Sexual Rights and the Internet, with reports ranging from the challenges and possibilities that the internet offers lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) communities to the active role of religious, cultural and patriarchal establishments in suppressing sexual rights, including same-sex marriage, to the rights of sex workers, violence against women online, and sex education in schools. While these reports seem to indicate that the internet does help in the expression and defence of sexual rights, they also show that in some contexts this potential is under threat – whether through the active use of the internet by conservative and reactionary groups, or through threats of harassment and violence. The reports suggest that a radical revisiting of policy, legislation and practice is needed in many contexts to ensure that the possibilities of the internet for guaranteeing sexual rights are realised all over the world.

The eight thematic reports introduce the theme from different perspectives, including the global policy landscape for sexual rights and the internet, the privatisation of spaces for free expression and engagement, the need to create a feminist internet, how to think about children and their vulnerabilities online, and consent and pornography online. These thematic reports frame the 57 country reports that follow. Each country report includes a list of action steps for future advocacy.

3.8 Strengthening the impact of regional and national IGFs

APC has been participating in IGFs at all levels based on our view that stronger and more sustained national-level multistakeholder participation will in turn inform regional and global processes and help address the current gaps in participation and influence between stakeholder groups, and between people from developing and developed countries. We will strive to use IGF 2015 to more effectively integrate regional and national perspectives into the global dialogue. In 2015, APC helped organise and/or participated in the following regional and national IGFs:

  • Asia-Pacific IGF: held in Macau in June/July 2015
  • Africa IGF: held in Addis Ababa in September 2015
  • Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) IGF: held in Mexico City in August 2015
  • Arab IGF: to take place in Beirut on 17-18 December 2015
  • Zimbabwe IGF: held in Harare in August 2015
  • Colombia IGF: held in Bogota in September 2015
  • South Africa IGF: held in Stellenbosch in September 2015
  • Paraguay IGF: held in Asuncion in November 2015.

3.9 Capacity building in internet governance

In the last year, APC has invested considerable resources in linking our capacity-building work in internet governance to regional IGFs, guided by the belief that such efforts are needed to enable stakeholders from developing countries to participate effectively in internet governance processes and debates at the national, regional and global level. We held our third annual African School on Internet Governance (AfriSIG) ahead of the African IGF, which gave alumni the opportunity to immediately try out the skills they gained.

In recognition that there is a gap in participation by women’s rights advocates in internet governance policy processes and development nationally, regionally and globally, in every sector and stakeholder group, APC began a new initiative – Gender and Internet Governance Exchanges (gigX) – in 2015 to strengthen the capacity and confidence of women and girls to participate in internet governance processes. We held gigX’s ahead of the Asia-Pacific, African and LAC IGFs, involving more than 50 women, to discuss and build awareness and understanding of the relationship between gender, women’s rights and internet governance.

We are pleased that a large number of AfriSIG and gigX alumni will be at the 2015 IGF.

4. APC’s presence at IGF 2015

5. Follow APC online at IGF 2015

Useful background reading before the IGF in Brazil

In-depth resources on our publications page

IGF resources on our IGF page

Updates on gender and ICT policy on GenderIT.org

2015 Global Information Society Watch edition

2015 Betinho Communications Prize

We will be sharing updates on:


APC staff Twitter list

APC members Twitter list

Our Facebook page

Flickr (send us your images to the group)

Media contacts: flavia@apc.org in English, Spanish or Portuguese, and leila@apc.org in English and Spanish.

For GenderIT.org contact katerina.fialova@apcwomen.org in English.

6. APC members and staff at IGF 2015

APC members at IGF 2015: Aida Mahmutovic and Valentina Pellizzer (OWPSEE, Bosnia and Herzegovina); Anabella Rivera (Instituto DEMOS, Guatemala); Ariel Barbosa and Julian Casasbuenas (Colnodo, Colombia); Arij Riahi and Michel Lambert (Alternatives, Canada); Arnold Pietersen (CECS, South Africa); Arturo Bregaglio (Radio ViVa/Asociación Trinidad, Paraguay); Ashnah Kalemera, Lillian Nalwoga and Wairagala Wakabi(CIPESA, Uganda); Buddha Deb Halder, Rafik Dammak and Ritu Srivastava (DEF, India); Byoung-il Oh (Jinbonet, South Korea); Carlos Afonso (Nupef, Brazil); Claudio Ruiz, Gisela Perez de Acha, Juan Carlos Lara and Paz Peña (Derechos Digitales, Chile); Dhyta Caturani (EngageMedia, Australia/Indonesia); Eduardo Rojas and Miriam Rojas (Fundación REDES, Bolivia); Gayatri Khandhadai, Tehmina Zafar and Zoya Rehman (Bytes for All, Pakistan); Grace Githaiga (KICTANet; Kenya); Hamada Tadahisa (JCAFE, Japan); Jamael Jacob, Lisa Garcia and Nica Dumlao (FMA, Philippines); Jeanette Hoffman (Germany); Kazmi Torii and Steve Zeltzer (LaborNet, USA); Liz Probert (GreenNet, UK); Manavy Chim (Open Institute, Cambodia); Mohammad Kawsar Uddin (Bytes for All, Bangladesh); Pinda Pisitbutr (Thai Citizen Network, Thailand); Reza Salim (BFES, Bangladesh); Towela Jere (South Africa); William Drake (Switzerland); Y. Z. Ya’u (CITAD, Nigeria).

APC staff, interns and volunteers at IGF 2015: Karen Banks, Roxana Bassi, Valeria Betancourt, Deborah Brown, Avri Doria, Anriette Esterhuysen, Flavia Fascendini, Alan Finlay, Cristiana Gonzalez, Mike Jensen, Jac sm Kee, Nadine Moawad, Jan Moolman, Yolanda Mlonzi, Leila Nachawati Rego, Lori Nordstrom, Dafne Plou, Erika Smith, Mohammad Tarakiyee, Emilar Vushe.


[1] Most of these fall under the internet and human rights subtheme, with some falling under the subthemes of emerging issues, openness, enhancing multistakeholder participation, inclusiveness and diversity, cybersecurity and trust, and internet economy.

[2] These are linked to several IGF subthemes, including: Inclusiveness and Diversity, Internet Economy, Openness, Emerging Issues, Critical Internet Resources, Internet and Human Rights, and Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation.

[3] They fall under the sub-themes of enhancing multistakeholder cooperation, cybersecurity and trust, internet economy, internet and human rights, and inclusiveness and diversity.

[4] Most workshops are under the sub-theme Cybersecurity and Trust; however, there is one workshop under the Internet Economy subtheme, and another under Human Rights and the Internet.

« Go back