Posts Tagged ‘IGF-USA 2010’
This panel, moderated by Robert Guerra of Freedom House, focused on critical Internet resources and how to ensure that the underlying principles that have led to the Internet’s success persist in the face of security challenges. These principles include openness (open standards, open technologies), accessibility transparency, bottom-up decision-making, cooperation and multi-stakeholder engagement. Key to implementing these principles is also a broadened understanding of the role of the infrastructure providers, such as global and national Internet services/connectivity providers who build and operate the backbones and edge networks. The panel was also expected to address some of the implications for the implementation of DNSSEC and IPv6 on a national basis that contribute to the security and resiliency of CIR on a global basis.
Details of the session:
The Internet’s success well into the future may be largely dependent on how it responds and reacts to increasing security challenges, according to panelists in a critical Internet resources workshop at the IGF-USA conference July 21 in Washington, D.C.
The Internet continues to evolve. It is also growing, as it becomes accessible to billions more people. The major challenge of our generation is to make the Internet more secure while continuing to promote openness, accessibility, transparency, bottom-up decision-making, cooperation and multistakeholder engagement. It is important that organizations continue to retain these values as much as possible as they react to cybersecurity and cybertrust issues.
Panelists at this workshop included:
- Moderator Robert Guerra, Freedom House
- Trent Adams, outreach specialist for the Internet Society
- Matt Larson, vice president of DNS research for VeriSign
- Steve Ryan, counsel to the American Registry for Internet Numbers
- Patrick Jones, senior manager of continuity and risk management for ICANN
- Jeff Brueggeman, vice president for public policy for AT&T
Panelists all expressed a desire to continue to engage in multifaceted talks because a single governmental entity is not the solution; it takes many people working together. As Brueggeman put it, there’s no “silver bullet” for the issue of Internet security.
“What we do on a day-to-day basis is ensure that those conversations take place,” Adams said. “The (critical Internet) resource is not a thing you can touch. You have this mesh of interconnected components that is the critical resource. You can’t pull one of those components out. Everyone must be around that table.”
So what’s the solution? The answer to that question is still a little unclear because Internet service providers and other organizations are often reactive to issues. Brueggeman said it’s time to embrace a forward-thinking approach.
“Things can get complicated when you’re reacting to an attack,” he said. “The best way to deal with these things is to try to think about them up front. How do we detect and prevent rather than react after the fact? How can we have more cooperative information sharing before attacks to try to prevent them and have the best information we can?”
Ryan stressed, though, that not all government is bad. He said citizens and organizations need to think “carefully about what the role of the government is.” But still, there should be a symbiotic relationship.
“There’s become a sense in government policy circles, including in the most sophisticated, that somehow (the Internet) runs on its own and you can’t break it,” he said. “I have news for you: You can break it. We look at government as something that has an increasingly important role because the Internet has an increasingly important role in economies.”
Ryan continued by saying non-governmental organizations have a responsibility to work with governments and to educate the people who work in them. He and the other panelists agreed that an international governmental organization wouldn’t work, though, unless core Internet values are embraced and upheld. They said a set-up that would allow countries around the world to vote on how the Internet is governed would not be a favorable solution.
“Until we get it right,” Ryan said, “I think we’re muddling along rather well.”
DNS issues and DNSSEC
Larson spoke specifically about the security of the Domain Name System because he views the DNS as an absolutely critical Internet resource. “If you don’t have the DNS, you don’t have the Internet,” he noted. He said users can’t truly trust the DNS, though, which is a bit disconcerting because of its necessity.
He supports DNSSEC—Domain Name System Security Extensions—which give users digital signatures (origin authentication) and data integrity. “Once you have that, you can validate data and have a higher level of confidence that the data you’re getting back is valid,” Larson said.
(You can read more about DNSSEC here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnssec.)
He also said that DNSSEC makes DNS more trustworthy and critical to users as more applications—not just host names—depend on it. “We’re going to look back and realize it enabled a whole new class of applications to put information in the DNS,” Larson said. “Now you can trust the information coming out of the DNS.”
Going from IPv4 to a combination with IPv6
Ryan emphasized the importance of Internet Protocol version 6, IPv6, a new Internet layer protocol for packet switching that will allow a “gazillion numbers” vastly expanding the address space online. There is a rapidly decreasing pool of numbers left under IPv4. Ryan said the increased flexibility of IPv6 will allow for the continued growth of the Internet, but it won’t be a free-for-all.
“The numbers we have issued are not property,” he said. “We have a legal theory that’s embodied in every contract we’ve issued. They belong to community. If you’re not using them, you have to give them back. They are in essence an intangible, non-property interest, so over the next couple of years there will be some very interesting legal issues.”
ICANN in action
Jones said ICANN, which recently passed its 10-year milestone, has continued to work collaboratively with the community to take on major initiatives, such as the introduction of internationalized domain names in the root.
“We have taken requests from countries for internationalized country codes and approved 15,” Jones said.
“There’s a huge development in those regions of the world where you can now have domain names and an Internet that reflects their own languages and scripts. That will have an impact as discussion around critical Internet resources continues, especially in the IGF space.”
Physical critical resources
Brueggeman said AT&T has a broader perspective of critical Internet resources because the company is responsible for carrying Web traffic and for the underlying infrastructure, not just involved in issues tied to the DNS. He said the transition to IPv6 is daunting because it’s not backward-compatible. His main challenge has been in outreach efforts to customers.
“We have to deal with a lot of traffic that’s generated as we’re making changes to DNSSEC and IPv6,” he said. “In some cases, you might create some new security concerns, but overall both are important essential transitions.”
Brueggeman emphasized that multistakeholder discussions will be important in the coming years.
“We really need all of the parties who have the direct stake at the table to be part of the solution,” he said. “We need to have the resources handled in a way that promotes openness and promotes interoperability. There’s a huge policy risk of not managing these resources in a multistakeholder way.”
-by Colin Donohue, http://imaginingtheinternet.org
Cybersecurity is a multifaceted issue that requires attention to various strategic and operational efforts to make progress. Five overarching areas for focus are 1) development of a national strategy; 2) collaboration between government and industry; 3) cybercrime; 4) incident response; and 5) building a culture of cybersecurity/awareness. This session was scheduled to explore how the U.S. is addressing each of these, where there are opportunities for improvement and obstacles to progress, where the U.S. needs to work with international partners, and how cybersecurity contributes to Internet governance globally. Session moderators were Liesyl Franz, vice president for information security and global public policy at TechAmerica, and Audrey Plonk, global security and Internet policy specialist at Intel Corporation.
Details of the session:
Panelists and moderators discussed cybersecurity at one of the first morning workshops at the 2010 Internet Governance Forum-USA at Georgetown University Law Center. Co-moderator Liesyl Franz introduced the workshop and set the scene by presenting the session’s five overarching areas of focus, including national strategy, collaboration between government and industry to foster cybersecurity, combating cybercrime, incident response and building a culture of cybersecurity and awareness.
Developing a national strategy
The United States’ national strategy for cybersecurity has constantly evolved over the past 15 years. In the 1990s, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board was created to address issues tied to cybersecurity. A few years later the United States created the Department of Homeland Security. These organizations worked to create the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, which was put into place in 2003.
“We’ve moved even beyond the 2003 strategy towards a more comprehensive strategy that is really trying to encompass all the departments and agencies in the United States federal government and deal with the international aspects,” said co-moderator Audrey Plonk, global security and Internet policy specialist at Intel Corporation. “Having a high level of strategy is very important.”
The Obama administration conducted a “clean-slate” review to assess U.S. policy, strategy and standards regarding security and operations in cyberspace in the summer of 2009. That report, aimed at addressing economic, national security, public safety and privacy interests can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf
Collaboration between government and industry
The panelists noted that a national strategy is dependent on the collaboration of many people, including industry bodies and government agencies.
Cheri McGuire, director for critical infrastructure and cybersecurity at Microsoft and chair of the Information Technology Sector Coordinating Council, said that the public/private partnership relies on several key principles.
“One principle is trust,” McGuire said. “There is a long history of lack of trust between industry and government. This adds a unique factor to when government invited industry to the table to work collaboratively on cybersecurity issues.”
She noted that many public and private partnerships from the past can be used as a lesson on how to conduct successful partnerships today. “There is no one right model, there is no one right way to do this,” McGuire said. “There are a lot of lessons learned – that the many of us who are involved in the public and private debate have learned – that can be used to create the framework for these partnerships.”
The IT-SCC was established in 2006 to encourage cooperation between tech industry entities in addressing infrastructure protection, response and recovery. To read more, see http://www.it-scc.org/.
“Cybercrime runs the gamut of most of the bad things that humans do to each other,” said Don Codling, unit chief at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Think of everything from slavery, to human trafficking, to embezzlement, to fraud. You can even hire a hit man online.”
Codling said the domestic approach of the FBI regarding cybercrime almost instantly turns into a global effort. Due to the nature of the Internet, how records are stored and how financial transactions are performed, almost all major crimes become global instantly.
“We are members of the global community,” Codling said. “The global law enforcement community has coalesced rapidly and said we have similar problems. We need to work together.”
To read more about the FBI’s cyber mission, see: http://www.fbi.gov/cyberinvest/cyberhome.htm. For background from the U.S. Justice Department on international aspects of computer crime, see this page: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/intl.html
Incident response seen as vital
Scott Algeier, executive director of the IT Information Sharing and Analysis Center, said it is important for there to be open communication in order for people to share their expertise. He noted that when industry partners share information people are able to analyze the different trends that many different companies are experiencing.
“By sharing information, we give each other a larger capability,” Algeier said. “We are able to say ‘this is a neat trend we are seeing,’ and analyze all of the information that we are receiving.”
Computer emergency readiness teams work to assess attacks and vulnerabilities. The US-CERT site is http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/intl.html.
Building a culture of cybersecurity and awareness
Franz said the five overarching elements covered in the session are all dependent on each other.
“I don’t want to focus on five elements and that they each do their own thing,” Franz said. “But instead emphasize that it is important to collaborate between these elements.”
“Cybersecurity means preserving this open, free Internet that we have learned to value so much,” said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel and director at the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology of the Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org/about). “We are only just beginning to realize what it would be like if it was all taken away. Security allows you to use the Internet freely.”
Nojeim said correctly balancing the needs for security and privacy online is important. He added that an increase in transparency could make people really understand the need for security.
“A lot of the cybersecurity efforts necessarily have to take place behind the scenes, but I think that openness is one key to a successful program,” Nojeim said. “It builds trust, it helps companies know what happens to the information that they share.”
All panelists agreed that there will never be a time where there is no cybercrime.
“I don’t think there is a perfect system – what we have to find is what is reasonable security and the proper balance between privacy and freedom of speech and safety and cybersecurity,” said Adam Palmer, Norton lead cybersecurity advisor for Symantec Corporation, a security systems company.
-Rebecca Smith, http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org
IGF-USA Scenario Discussion: Panelists, participants discuss future that puts Internet governance in hands of governments worldwide
IGF participants broke into three different rooms to discuss three different, possible potential-future scenarios for the Internet in 2020. In this session, the description given to the discussants was: Most of us assume that the ICT industry, media companies and NGOs will continue to be the leading players on the Internet stage, with governments playing just a supporting role. This scenario describes an alternate future, where citizens and industry worldwide demand that their governments take center stage to clean up an Internet that has become infected with dangerous content and criminal conduct.
Details of the session:
Panelists and gathered participants in a scenario session at IGF-USA 2010 in Washington, D.C., expressed discouragement about an Internet future that will quickly witness larger international governmental control that would ultimately remove power from the ICT industry, media companies and NGOs, who now continue to be the main controllers of the Internet.
“A scenario is not a prediction,” said panel moderator Steve DelBianco, the executive director of NetChoice Coalition. “It’s designed to be provocative, but plausible. It’s designed to challenge your assumptions.”
Some members of the audience were skeptical that the scenario, as a whole, is plausible, but all agreed that if it became reality, it would be a frightening prospect. (Read the full description of the scenario here: http://api.ning.com/files/KeHnmv3O-PHbKeh0tKl8RaAjWl7S9siFVN8YEM6lN0ImimLqwuq6B2UlGNDtHBKp7MwNPjexPsur3DKlypEhgQ__/GlobalGovernmentfortheInternet.pdf)
DelBianco presented three converging forces that serve as drivers for the scenario:
- Consumers lose trust in online content and e-commerce.
- Businesses can no longer tolerate losses from fraud and lawsuits.
- Governments have successfully used electronic monitoring to thwart terrorist attacks.
As a result of those three forces, the scenario proposed the following about the Internet in 2020:
- Governments cooperate to oversee online content and e-commerce to a greater degree than ever before
- Government and businesses require biometric ID for online users
- Online publishers are now liable for user-generated content and conduct
- You need an “Online License” to use the Internet.
Janice Lachance, the chief executive officer of the Special Libraries Association and an invited panelist for the session, said she is anxious about the scenario’s potential to stem the openness of the Internet.
“I think this scenario gives us all a lot to think about,” Lachance said. “As someone who has an organization that’s concerned with the free flow of information and the access to information, I think that excessive government involvement raises red flags for us. It probably isn’t all bad, but if it’s certainly getting to the point that’s described here, I fear we will have a lot of consequences if you’re trying to do business.”
Walda Roseman, the founder of CompassRose International, said she thinks there’s a “rolling thunder” toward more governmental control because of the increasing security threats facing online users. A member of the audience agreed, saying the scenario is not so unlikely because it’s happening at lower levels already.
“All of these situations are going on, just not at a tipping point,” said the participant. “I don’t think this is necessarily avoidable. I think the focus should be on how to facilitate solutions, rather than to prevent something that currently exists.”
One possible solution, according to Roseman, is to rely on more and better intergovernmental cooperation. She said it’s necessary for countries to find ways to hold more cohesive and inclusive dialogues.
“Can we shape conclusions as a world as opposed to quickly avoid them?” Roseman said. “We’re seeing a lot of collaboration among governments, and the collaboration is not yet 100 percent on the cybersecurity issues, but it’s a different alliance there. We’re wanting intergovernmental organizations to make the policy decisions and a whole lot more than the policy decisions.”
Several audience members said they don’t foresee national governments getting together on the issue of Internet governance in the near future when they can’t even come to concrete conclusions on financial regulation or climate change, for example.
So if “some bizarre world government” isn’t created to handle the issue, as one participant said, then it will fall, most likely, to the local governmental level or the United Nations. Even then, there was some articulated concern that a governmental body simply can’t respond and react in a timely fashion to any problems that may arise.
“I’m concerned about notion of institutional competence,” said an audience member. “Does the government have the competence to run the Internet? I don’t think they have the expertise or the quickness to react.”
Markus Kummer, executive coordinator of the Internet Governance Forum, said that government shouldn’t shoulder all of the blame for ineffective policies.
“We need to avoid having a black-and-white picture of all government is bad and all the other institutions are good,” Kummer said. “I think it’s a little more complex than that. How do we find a fruitful cooperation among all the actors?”
No matter who might claim Internet governance, panelists and participants expressed concerns about the future of anonymity, security, openness and freedom of information on the Internet. They said it’s up to the people who work together through IGF to continue having conversations that could lead to a positive future. “Citizens and business have lost patience, and they need solutions,” DelBianco said. “If we don’t deliver, entities that discuss may be seen as not fast enough to solve problems. We need to show progress. Lots of organizations will have to start delivering results so we don’t get the result we don’t want. We need to avoid having the Exxon Valdez of Internet security.”
Two U.S. government employees who were part of the audience for the scenario said the United States needs to look carefully and closely at how it views and values the Internet to figure out what it truly wants and needs. “This is moving so much faster than we expected,” said a U.S. State Department participant. “Are we going to lose by maybe trying to be idealistic and assuming that everyone else is going to take on our same model? Maybe we need to get together as U.S. citizens and ask, ‘What do we absolutely want for our Internet, what do we want as a country?’ and get really clear on that so that when we start making foreign policy decisions we’re not compromising our values.”
-Colin Donohue, http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org
9:00 –9:50 Opening Ceremony
Marilyn Cade, president of ICT Strategies, moderator
Introductory Remarks: Pablo G. Molina, chief information officer Georgetown University
Remarks: Markus Kummer, executive coordinator, Internet Governance Forum
Remarks: Ambassador Philip Verveer of the U.S. State Department
10:15 –11:45 Workshops and Scenario Breakout Sessions:
EVENT 1. Workshop: A National Framework for Cyber security: The U.S. Approach and Implications for Internet Governance Discussions
Cyber security is a multi-faceted issue and requires attention to both strategic and operational efforts to make progress. Five overarching areas for focus include 1) development of a national strategy; 2) collaboration between government and industry; 3) combating cyber crime; 4) incident response; and 5) building a culture of cyber s ecurity/awareness. This session will explore how the U.S. is addressing each of the areas, where there are opportunities for improvement and obstacles to progress, where we need to work with international partners, and how cyber security contributes to Internet Governance globally. The panelists will share their initiatives, successes and observations in these five areas, followed by interactive engagement with the session participants.
Moderators: Liesyl Franz, vice president, information security and global public policy, TechAmerica; and Audrey Plonk, global security and Internet policy specialist, Intel Corporation
- Chris Painter, director for cyber security, National Security Council, The White House (invited)
- Cheri McGuire, director for critical infrastructure and cyber security, Microsoft and chair of the Information Technology Sector Coordinating Council (IT-SCC)
- Don Codling, unit chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Scott Algeier, executive director of the IT Information Sharing and Analysis Center (IT-ISAC)
- Greg Nojeim, senior counsel and director at the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology of the Center for Democracy and Technology
- Adam Palmer, Norton lead cyber security advisor for Symantec Corporation
Scenario Breakout Sessions:
Scenarios are a way of examining trends and possible futures that recognizes drivers and external activities that affect outcomes, in our case, of Internet governance. These sessions will use an adaptation of scenario thinking to examine and discuss three possible futures for Internet Governance by the year 2020. The discussion from the breakouts will form the basis of a plenary session later in the afternoon, and contribute to input into the IGF 2010 in Vilnius from the IGF USA.
EVENT 2) Scenario: Internet Islands:
Facilitators: Garland McCoy, founder and chief development officer of the Technology Policy Institute; Andrew Mack, founder and principal of AMGlobal Consulting; Iren Borissova, senior manager for international public policy, VeriSign
Government, businesses, civil society and citizens everywhere have recognized the transformational power of the Internet as it creates a new world that is connected as never before. However, by 2020 the unitary Internet as we know it is no more. Concerns over national security and cybercrime concerns lead to calls for “safe zones” on the net. Governments tax e-commerce as a way to address budget deficits and trade barriers are constructed, closing off markets for goods and information. Mega-companies construct their own walls to keep criminals out and customers in. At the same time the digital divide grows quickly as poorer nations and smaller companies cannot afford to keep up with the new security requirements and the entry fees needed to gain entry to the secure parts of the web. Large parts of the world find themselves “outside the wall” and are left to fend for themselves, facing a combination of rapacious criminals, radical groups and bottom-feeding enterprises selling high cost security services. For those on an Internet Island, life goes on, albeit in a more limited way than before. Those without access are literally adrift, as advances in finance, education, healthcare and transportation – all dependent on the free moving data – are cut off.
EVENT 3) Scenario: Global Government for the Internet
Facilitators: Steve DelBianco, executive director for NetChoice Coalition; Walda Roseman, founder of CompassRose International; Janice Lachance, chief executive officer of the Special Libraries Association
Most of us assume that the ICT industry, media companies, and NGOs will continue to be the leading players on the Internet stage, with governments playing just a supporting role. This scenario describes an alternate future, where citizens and industry worldwide demand that their governments take center stage to clean up an Internet that has become infected with dangerous content and criminal conduct.
EVENT 4) Scenario: Users Reign
Facilitators: Jonathan Godfrey, Dan O’Neill; Pablo Molina, chief information officer at Georgetown University
Social networks and online applications “in the clouds” are far advanced by 2020; and in many ways, innovation and users’ rights are drivers. The economic crisis and environmental concerns from the early days of the 2010-2012 years have been addressed in a way that has seemingly calmed and addressed concerns about privacy and security in the online worlds. The introduction of mandated digital citizenship training in preschools and primary schools has spread around the world. Advances in software and other technological advances have made it possible to rely on network-based language translation and young people, in particular are avid, and full users of the always switched on world of applications and services. However, the advent of the always-switched-on world has introduced a new form of digital divide – the divide between Millennials, and the ‘other users’ of the online world. The reliance on appliances and networks drives huge consumption of energy, and the search for solutions in energy and disposal of ‘e-waste’ continues. Climate change and environmental pressures have continued to grow, and the formerly called developing countries have established strict prohibition rules against digital dumping, of both physical and “soft” waste, but these are largely undertaken via voluntary efforts focused at consumer awareness and much easier to use mechanisms to deal with disposal and impact on the environment. However, the role of intellectual property protection is unclear, and in many ways, users are left on their own to find solutions to challenges they encounter online.
11:45- 1:00 Networking Lunch break
Hart Auditorium Reception Area
1:15—3:15 Concurrent Workshops:
EVENT 5) Workshop:
The Promise and Challenges of Cloud Computing
Cloud computing holds great promise both to customers and entrepreneurs, in the United States and around the world. Cloud computing offers users – including governments and enterprises – the opportunity to pay only for the computing they use rather than maintaining all their computing needs and resources themselves. For innovators, the cloud offers a greatly reduced cost of entry into a market heretofore dominated by big players. However, there are policy challenges to be addressed. Fully realizing this potential requires unprecedented cooperation between the industry, consumers and governments to ensure individual privacy, data security and ensure confidence in the remote storage of critical information. Not all are optimistic about the future of cloud computing because of the centralization of personal information, concentrated threats to security and the questions it raises about national sovereignty. This panel will explore some of the opportunities that cloud computing represents as well as challenges and potential pitfalls in the public policy arena which could make or break those opportunities in the coming years.
Moderator: Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology
- John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology
- Dan Castro, senior analyst, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
- Jack Seuss, vice president of information technology, University of Maryland
- Evan Burfield, chief executive officer of Synteractive
- Marc Berejka, policy advisor in the Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce
Respondent: Michael Nelson, visiting professor, Georgetown University
EVENT 6) Workshop:
Critical Internet Resources
This panel focuses not only on the “what” of critical Internet resources but on how to ensure that the underlying principles that have led to the Internet’s success persist in the face of security challenges. These principles include openness (open standards, open technologies), accessibility transparency, bottom-up decision-making, cooperation and multi-stakeholder engagement. Key to implementing these principles is also a broadened understanding of the role of the infrastructure providers, such as global and national Internet Services/Connectivity providers who build and operate the backbones and edge networks. The panel will also address some of the implications for the implementation of DNSSEC and IPv6 on a national basis that contribute to the security and resiliency of CIR on a global basis.
Moderator: Robert Guerra, Freedom House
- Trent Adams, outreach specialist for the Internet Society
- Matt Larson, vice president of DNS research,VeriSign
- Steve Ryan, counsel, American Registry for Internet Numbers
- Patrick Jones, senior manager of continuity and risk management, ICANN
- Jeff Brueggeman, vice president for public policy, AT&T
EVENT 7) Workshop:
E-Crimes and Malicious Use in
the DNS: Implications and Observations
The online world and the Internet are continuing to expand at exponential rates, with the rapid spread of the Internet into broadband and mobile. As more and more users, and more applications move into the online world, concerns about online crimes and malicious threats to the Internet and to users also grow. This workshop will examine the range and scope of the kinds of online crimes and malicious use of the Domain Name System. For instance, scam artists are hiding identity by hosting a website with false information, or a phisher registers a domain intended to resemble a famous brand. Consumers and businesses can be victims of abuse, and legitimate service providers are seeing crime and fraud in the network. This session covers some of very real-time examples of the fight against DNS‐related abuse such as phishing, malware and fraudulent uses of domain names. Members of the panel will also comment on the scope and growth expected in various kinds of fraud and abuse as the domain name space continues to grow exponentially and the use of DNS Security (DNSSEC) as part of a mitigation strategy.
Moderator: Dr. James Galvin, director of strategic partnerships and technical Standards, Afilias
- Garth Bruen, Internet fraud analyst and policy developer, KnujOn Internet Security
- Doug Isenberg, attorney with GigaLawFirm.Com
- Shaundra Watson, counsel for international consumer protection at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- John Berryhill, intellectual property lawyer
- Robert Flaim, special agent with the FBI
- Margie Milam, senior policy advisor, ICANN
- Matt Serlin, MarkMonitor – remote participant
Suzanne Sene from the Office of International Affairs at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Sarah Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel for Verizon Communications
EVENT EIGHT) Best Practice Forum:
Considerations on Youth Online Safety
in an always-switched-on world
The topic of youth experiences online is drawing attention in the US, and around the globe. During 2010 in the U.S., discussions, and activities received both governmental and private sector attention, and a new report was provided to the U.S. Congress: “Youth Safety on a Living Internet” in early June. The topics addressed by this report – risks young people face; the status of industry voluntary efforts; practices related to record retention; and the development of approaches and technologies to shield children from inappropriate content or experiences via the Internet – are also active in global arenas, including the global IGF 2010, to be held in Lithuania, in September. In fact, the discussions on a global basis seem to mirror and reflect the topics examined by the Online Safety and Technology Working Group and the questions and topics that will be discussed in this forum.
Moderator and Opening Comments: Danny Weitzner, associate administrator for the Office of Policy Analysis and Development in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
- Michael W. McKeehan, executive director for Internet and technology policy, Verizon Communications
- Braden Cox, policy counsel for the NetChoice Coalition
- Anne Collier, executive editor of NetFamilyNews.Org
- Jennifer Hanley, policy counsel for the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI)
- Stacie Rumenap, president of Stop Child Predators
- Morgan C. Little, research associate, Imagining the Internet
- Jane Coffin from the Office of Policy and Development at the NTIA
- Bessie Pang, executive director of the Society for the Policing of Cyberspace (POLCYB)
3:15 –5:15 Afternoon Plenary Session
3:15-3:45 Speaker: Andrew McLaughlin, deputy chief technology officer for Internet policy at the White House
3:50 Outcomes of Scenario Stories – Implications for the Internet Governance Debate and for the IGF
Presentations of Scenarios and Observations for Internet Governance: “Internet Islands”; “Global Government for the Internet”; “Users Reign”
Panel of Respondents and Audience Participation
Moderator: Marilyn Cade, president of ICT Strategies
- Marc Rotenberg, executive director, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
- Rebecca McKinnon, co-founder of Global Voices and Internet activist
- Milton Mueller, professor, Syracuse University and leader of the Internet Governance Project
- Michael J. Nelson, visiting professor, Georgetown University
- Phil Bond, president, TechAmerica
- Leslie Martinkovics, director of international public policy, Verizon Communications
- Richard Beaird, senior deputy United States coordinator for international communications and information policy, U.S Department of State
- Kirsten Bennett, communications fellow, Elon University
- Audience Participants
- Summing Up: Moderator
5:00 -5:30 Closing Session – Introduction by Fiona Alexander, Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs, NTIA
Remarks: Markus Kummer, executive administrator for the global IGF Secretariat
Remarks: Larry Strickling, assistant secretary, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce
Remarks: Lithuanian Embassy: IGF 2010 in Vilnius, Lithuania
Invitation to Reception: ISOC DC Chapter
5:30-7:00 Reception for participants and invited guests – Onsite at Georgetown Law
The second IGF-USA will take place July 21, 2010 at the Georgetown Law Center, in Washington, D.C. The one-day event will offer expert panels and workshops on important global Internet governance issues, as well as a plenary session on the continuation of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum.
If you are interested in receiving information about the upcoming IGF-USA join the community today.
The Internet Governance Forum USA (IGF-USA) is a multistakeholder effort to illuminate issues and cultivate constructive discussions about the future of the Internet. It provides a domestic forum in the US to engage civil society, government, technologists, research scientists, industry and academia, helping to create partnerships, coalitions and dialogues that demonstrate best practices and help move policy forward.