Back to home page

Activities of the Association for Proper Internet Governance

• Contribution to the Informal Expert Group of the ITU's World Telecommunications Policy Forum, Contribution to IEG, 23 January 2013
• Information Documents submitted to the ITU's World Telecommunications Policy Forum, April 2013
• Proposed revisions to draft Opinion 5 on multi-stakeholderism
• Proposed revisions to draft Opinion 2 on broadband
• Draft new Opinion on Reducing the cost of International Internet Connectivity
• Internet as a paradigm
• Defining the Internet
• Key characteristics that distinguish the Internet
• The Internet's multi-stakeholder model
• The way forward for Internet governance?

A more formal version of the last five papers listed above is published and can be cited as Richard Hill (2014), "The Internet, its governance, and the multi-Stakeholder model", Info, vol. 16. no. 2, March 2014

• Documents submitted to the Online Consultation of the ITU's Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy matters, July 2013
• Development Aspects of the Internet: The Last  Gasp of Colonialism, or Imperialism by Other Means?
• International Public Policy Issues Concerning IPv4 Addresses: Should Governments Intervene to Correct a Standardization Failure?

A more formal version of first paper listed above has been published and can be cited as Richard Hill (2013), "Internet governance: the last gasp of colonialism, or imperialism by other means", in Rolf H. Weber, Roxana Radu, and Jean-Marie Chenou (eds), The evolution of global Internet policy: new principles and forms of governance in the making?, Schulthess/Springer
Available in Switzerland at: http://www.schulthess.com/buchshop/detail/ISBN-9783725569083
Available elsewhere at:
http://www.springer.com/law/international/book/978-3-642-45298-7

• Documents submitted to the March 2014 Open Consultation of the ITU's Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy matters
• Response to the March 2014 Open Consultation:  What actions are to be undertaken by governments in relations to certain international Internet-related public policy issues?
• Second response: comments on the NetMundial meeting
• Document submitted to the June-August 2015 Open Consultation
• Response to the June-August 2015 Open Consultation: Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)
• Document submitted to the October 2015-January 2016 Open Consultation
• Response to the October 2015-January 2016 Open Consultation: Access to the Internet for Persons with Disabilities and specific needs
• Document submitted to the February-September 2016 Open Consultation
• Response to the February-September 2016 Open Consultation: Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet
• Document submitted to the October 2016-January 2017 Open Consultation
• Response to the October 2016-January 2017 Open Consultation: Developmental aspects of the Internet
• Documents submitted to the June-September 2017 Open Consultation
• Response to the June-September 2017 Open Consultation: Issues regarding OTTs
• Second response: Why should data flow freely?
• Third response: Analysis of responses submitted to the open consultation: the limits of multi-stakeholder approaches
• Document submitted to the October 2017-January 2018 Open Consultation
• Response to the October 2017-January 2018 Open Consultation: Bridging the digital gender divide
• Document submitted to the October 2019-January 2020 Open Consultation
• Response to the October 2019-January 2020 Open Consultation: Harnessing new and e merging telecommunications/ICTs for sustainable development
• Second response: UNCTAD Digital Economy Report 2019;
• Third response: Bread for the World Study
• Fourth response: Digital Justice Manifesto
• Fifth response: Building Digital Ecosystems
• Document submitted to the February-December 2020 Open Consultation
• Response to the February-December 2020 Open Consultation: Expanding Internet connectivity
• Second response: Data Sharing Requires a Data Commons Framework Law
• Third response: Digital New Deal
• Document submitted to the February-September 2021 Open Consultation
• Response to the February-September 2021 Open Consultation: Mitigating pandemics

• Inputs to the WSIS+10 High Level Meeting preparatory process:
• Input to first meeting
• Input to second meeting
• Input to third meeting
•   Inputs to fourth meeting (Statement Preamble, Statement,
  Statement Challenges, Vision Priorities)
• Input to the fifth meeting
• Statement annexed to the Report of the fifth meeting
  
• Inputs to the WSIS+10 UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting (Overall WSIS Review)
• July input to non-paper
• Comments on non-paper
• Comments on zero draft
• Comments on 4 November draft outcome
• Comments on 7 December draft outcome
  
• "Human Rights, the Internet, and its governance", Third World Resurgence, no. 287/288 (Jul/Aug 2014)
• Partial catalog of human rights related to ICT activities
• "Why global Internet governance must matter to social justice activists" (with Sean O'Siochru et al.), Media Development (4/2014)
• "The True Stakes of Internet Governance", State of Power 2015, Transnational Institute, January 2015
    A slightly revised version is "The Politics of Internet Governance: Imperialism by Other Means", ALAI, November 2017
• Policy statement delivered at the WSIS+10 High Level Event
• "What Questions did the WSIS+10 High Level Event Answer?", article in Intellectual Property Watch
  
• "No, Democracy is not Excess Baggage", article in Intellectual Property Watch
  
• "Internet governance, multi-stakeholder models, and the IANA transition: shining example or dark side?", article in the Journal of Cyber Policy, Vol. 1, No. 2
• "Digitalisation and the gig economy: Implications for the developing world" (with Parminder Jeet Singh), Third World Resurgence, no. 319/320 (Mar/Apr 2017)
• A slightly modified version of comments submitted to the Open Consultation on how to best understand and implement the proposed norms in the 2015 Report of the UN Governmental Group of Experts on Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security has been published as "Best practices in cyber security from intergovernmental discussions, and a private sector proposal" in Frey, S. and Bartsch, M., eds. (2018) Cyber Security - Best Practices, Springer
  
• "Some thoughts on cyber-war", ALAI, September 2018
• “Trump and CDA Section 230: The End of an Internet Exception?”, in BotPopuli (July 2020)
• “A New Convention for Data and Cyberspace”, in the call for a Digital New Deal (October 2020)
• Articles and submissions regarding WTO and its e-commerce discussions
• E-Commerce discussions at WTO: More Neo-Liberal Policies Negotiated in Secret?
• An expanded version titled "E-commerce discussions at the WTO: Neoliberal policies negotiated in secret are not acceptable" has been published in Third World Resurgence, No. 324-325, December 2017
• Why should data flow freely?
• E-signatures and trade
• Micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and e-commerce
• Audio of 3-minute argument against the proposition "That trade agreements should be used to limit the protectionist use of data localisation rules"
• Here is a 15-minute audio on on the same topic:
• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Relation between trade rules on e-commerce and telecommunication and work in ITU
• Development oriented proposals

We support this call for action regarding WTO and e-commerce: https://wto-ic.justnetcoalition.org

•  Submissions to the UNCTAD Intergovernmental Group of Experts on E-commerce and the Digital Economy
• Submission to second meeting (2018)
• Subission to third meeting (2019)
• Submission to the fourth meeting (2020)
• Second submission to the fourth meeting
  
• Submission to eighteenth meeting (2019) of the UNCTAD Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Competition Law
  
• Articles and submissions regarding privacy and surveillance
• Audio of interventions at the 8 December 2017 conference on The Legal Framework for Countering Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online, University of Lausanne
• Part 1
• Part 2
• Submissions to the 18-19 January 2018 meeting of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, Rome Italy
• Paper: "A Concrete Proposal to Enshrine the Necessary and Proportionate Principles Explicitly in International Law"
• Presentation
• Verbal statement (11 mintues) on "The Problem with Internet" made at the 12-14 February 2018 MAPPING Final General Assembly, Malta.
• Written submission to the UNHCHR Expert workshop on the right to privacy in the digital age, 19-20 February 2018, Geneva
• Verbal statement (2 minutes) on the overall issues
• Verbal statement (3 minutes) on new and emerging issues
• Participation as observer in the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC)
• Analysis of discussions
• Input to Correspondence Group   
• Input to the CSTD Ten-year review of WSIS
  
• Inputs to the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation 2016-2018 (WGEC)
• Second meeting

• Enhanced Cooperation
• Equal footing with respect to ccTLDs
• Good Faith: A Characteristic of Enhanced Cooperation
• International Internet Public Policy Issues: Gaps Requiring Study
• Jurisdiction and equal footing with respect to Internet domain names and addresses
• Protection of country names
• Revisiting roles and responsibilities
• Third meeting
• Amendments to Compliation of Recommendations
• Comments on Contributions to Second Meeting
• Fourth meeting
• Revised Recommendations for consideration
• Fifth meeting
• Final version of Recommendations for consideration; updated version
• Information paper on relevant trends in telecommunications/ICTs
• Are there inconsistencies in positions taken by Member States?
• Analysis of outcome of fifth meeting ; audio version (3 minutes)
• Comments regarding WGEC submitted to the 14-18 May CSTD meeting
  
• Contributions to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, Sao Paolo, 23-24 April 2014.
• Principles
• Roadmaps
• Fundamental principle
• The background paper for those contributions is
• The Future of Internet Governance: Dystopia, Utopia, or Realpolitik?
  A more formal and updated version of this paper is published as
  Richard Hill (2018). The Future of Internet Governance: Dystopia, Utopia, or Realpolitik?. Sociology and Anthropology, 6 , 392 - 423. doi: 10.13189/sa.2018.060406
• An analysis of the 187 contributions submitted to that meeting is found at:
• Quantitative analysis of contributions to the NETMundial meeting
• An article summarizing that analysis has been published by Intellectual Property Watch
• Short talk delivered in March 2014 to the European Pirate Party in Bruxelles and to the Milton Wolf Seminar in Vienna
• One-minute video clip for the launch of the Geneva Internet Platform
  
•  Interview (with transcripts), 13 August 2018, "US Policy Toward Global Internet Governance Is Misguided" for The Real News Network
• Interview (with transcripts), 12 May 2021, “The future of the International Telecommunication Union” for Ayden Féderline
• Informal submissions to the 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference
• Increasing the transparency and the openness of the ITU
• Participation of civil society in ITU
• Accession to the ITRs
• Response to the US NTIA's 2018 request for comments on Internet policy priorities

• Review of Schiller, Dan (2014) Digital Depression: Information Technology and Information Crisis, University of Illinois Press
• Review of McChesney, Robert (2014) Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy, The New Press
• Review of Powers, Shawn M., and Jablonski, Michael (2015) The Real Cyber War: The Political Economy of Internet Freedom, University of Illinois Press
• Review of Scott Malcomson (2016) Splinternet: How Geopolitics and Commerce Are Fragmenting the World Wide Web, OR Books 
• Review of  David Golumbia (2016) The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism, University of Minnesota Press
• Review of Milton Mueller (2017) Will the Internet Fragment? Sovreignty, Globalization and Cyberspace, Polity
• Review of Bernard Harcourt (2015) Exposed: Desire and Disobedience in the Digital Age, Harvard University Press
• Review of Johannes M. Bauer and Michal Latzer, eds. (2016) Handbook on the Economics of the Internet, Edward Elgar
• Review of Tim Wu (2018) The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age, Columbia Globat Reports
• Review of Nicola Palladino and Mauro Santaniello (2020) Legitimacy, Power, and Inequalities in the Multistakeholder Internet Governance: Analyzing IANA Transition (Palgrave MacMillan)
• Review of Michael Kende (2021) The Flip Side of Free: Understanding the Economics of the Internet (The MIT Press)
• Review of Cory Doctorow (2021) How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism (OneZero)
• Review of Laura DeNardis (2020) The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch (Yale University Press)

• "WSIS+10: issues, actors, what to expect, what to achieve" in Towards a People's Internet, Latin America in Movement, May 2015
  
• "ICTs, Internet, Human Rights and TNCs" (with Parminder Jeet Singh) in Transnacionales y derechos humanos, America Latina en Movimento, Dec 2016

• Policy Statement delivered at the WSIS Forum 2015
• Policy Statement delivered at the WSIS Forum 2016
• Policy Statement delivered at the WSIS Forum 2017
• Policy Statement delivered at the WSIS Forum 2018
• APIG is a signatory of the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, August 2013
  and has submitted a blog post for the September 2014 Week of Action
  
• APIG is a signatory of the open letter Security for All
• APIG is a member of the Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet (Just Net Coalition), and adheres to its:
• Delhi Declaration
• Principles for Internet governance
• Framework for the evolution of Internet governance

• APIG is participating in the Internet Social Forum
• See the concept paper: Why the Internet's future needs social justice movements
• Audio of 15-minute presentation made for the 28-30 June 2017 Quito, Ecuador meeting Dialogues for a People’s Internet: “Our America” towards the Internet Social Forum (for more on that meeting, see also here):
• Part 1 of presentation
• Part 2 of presentation
• Part 3 of presentation

APIG has co-authored, as contributions towards the development of democratic multi-stakehold models:

•  a draft proposal for best practices for multi-stakeholder participation processes
• draft reflections on making Internet governance democratic and participative

Back to home page

Send mail to webmaster@apig.ch with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2013 Association for Proper Internet Governance
Last modified: 23 June, 2015