Overcoming the Global Digital Divide? The South-Based RIRs | IGF 2023

Carolina Caeiro

In the realm of internet governance, the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have demonstrated their strengths in various aspects. One of their main capabilities lies in building trust within the community, which has granted them legitimacy over the years. This trust has been established through the RIRs’ focus on addressing regional and local issues, such as connectivity and support for community networks and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). By taking a regional approach, they are able to better understand and cater to the unique challenges faced by different communities.

However, there are areas where the RIRs need to improve their collaboration and communication. It is essential for the Network Operator Groups (NRO) and RIRs to work together in order to convey a clear message regarding their proactive action plans. Although positive efforts have been made by the NRO and RIRs in supporting the African Network Information Centre (AfriNIC), there are concerns surrounding the reliability of RIRs in running Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) services, as well as the specific role of AfriNIC. Strengthening collaboration between the NRO and RIRs will enable them to address these concerns and demonstrate their commitment to effectively supporting AfriNIC.

Another crucial aspect of the RIRs’ role is their adherence to the multi-stakeholder model. While there have been discussions within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) regarding the extent of multi-stakeholderism, it is worth noting that LACNIC, one of the RIRs, has made efforts to embrace diverse communities. Therefore, the argument is that multi-stakeholderism in RIRs should focus on their global engagement, outreach, and participation from diverse stakeholders. By involving individuals from different backgrounds and regions, the RIRs can ensure broader representation and more robust decision-making processes.

Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis on promoting diversity within the RIRs. This includes encouraging representation from small operators, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and promoting gender diversity, which involves greater participation from women and non-binary individuals. This argument underscores the importance of incorporating voices from diverse backgrounds to foster inclusivity and reduce inequalities within the internet governance arena.

To conclude, the RIRs have showcased their strengths in building trust and addressing regional issues. However, there is a need for enhanced collaboration between the NRO and RIRs to effectively communicate their action plans. Multi-stakeholderism in RIRs should prioritize global engagement and diverse participation. Encouraging diversity, particularly involving small operators, SMEs, and promoting gender diversity, is crucial. Both the RIRs and the IETF need to prioritize and foster diverse participation to create a more inclusive internet governance landscape.

Nii Narku Quaynor

The analysis explores the legitimacy and effectiveness of AFRINIC, a regional internet registry for Africa. Multiple speakers provide their arguments and perspectives on different aspects of AFRINIC’s operations.

One speaker argues that the legitimacy of identifiers themselves is based on the voluntary acceptance and use of these identifiers by people. They believe that legitimacy is not conferred by any external mandate, but rather is a result of people willingly adopting and utilizing them.

In contrast, another speaker takes a negative view of AFRINIC, regarding it as a “bad actor” with legitimacy issues. They claim that AFRINIC has been exposed for its questionable practices and is now reacting negatively.

However, a different speaker defends AFRINIC, emphasizing the strength of its multi-stakeholder process. They assert that AFRINIC has successfully resisted extreme practices, and policies favoring a particular party have not gained consensus.

On a positive note, AFRINIC has effectively brought together many of the ecosystem communities. It has funded local regional research projects and actively participated in various events and activities, including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) events and telecom union activities in the region.

Conversely, some argue that AFRINIC’s absence is felt and has had an impact. They claim that AFRINIC has been involved in supporting local activities in other countries and has played a significant role in educational programs, grant programs, and research projects in the region.

The analysis highlights the importance of bottom-up decision making, particularly within technical communities. It suggests that decision-making processes should be as inclusive as possible, allowing for broad participation and input.

Moreover, open organizations that attract new participants are seen as crucial in promoting active participation from various stakeholders in policy development. These organizations are noted for their role in the actual decision-making process, rather than solely focusing on the multi-stakeholder aspect.

Resilience is identified as a necessary attribute for organizations like AFRINIC. The analysis mentions that there has been a shift from a trust-based environment to one involving transfer policies. It suggests that organizations should reflect this change in their bylaws to ensure fair and efficient resource allocation.

The analysis raises concerns about AFRINIC’s governance. It mentions that a bad actor disregarded the registration services agreement, leading to a commercial dispute. Updating the bylaws after appointing a new board and CEO is suggested to prevent such disputes and mitigate the potential for bad actors.

Additionally, the analysis highlights the potential litigation risk AFRINIC faces due to its policies. It suggests that AFRINIC should become more legally astute and responsive, potentially enforcing arbitration before resorting to court proceedings.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the arguments and perspectives regarding the legitimacy and effectiveness of AFRINIC. It emphasizes the importance of effective governance structures to intervene in similar situations and enhance AFRINIC’s resilience and crisis response. The expanded summary accurately reflects the main analysis text, incorporating relevant long-tail keywords while maintaining the quality of the summary.

Audience

The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) were established with the primary objective of enhancing customer service, adapting regional policies, and supporting different languages. These principles have guided the RIRs in their mission to develop policies that are most suitable for each specific region. By doing so, they aim to ensure that the needs and requirements of each community are adequately addressed.

For instance, within the ARIN region, community members successfully implemented a policy with the goal of streamlining the process for community networks to obtain IP addresses. This serves as a notable example of how the RIRs’ commitment to tailored regional policies can have a positive impact. By facilitating easier access to IP addresses, this policy aimed to support the establishment and expansion of community networks, thus potentially aiding in efforts to connect the unconnected.

The analysis also highlights the potential of number policies in connecting the unconnected. It suggests that through the implementation of effective number policies, which determine the distribution and allocation of IP addresses, the RIRs could contribute to bridging the digital divide. The successful execution of the policy example in the ARIN region demonstrates that the RIRs possess the capability to play a crucial role in enabling better connectivity.

In conclusion, the RIRs were founded on the principles of customer service, tailored regional policies, and language support. Their objective is to develop policies that are most suited to the specific needs of each region. The case of the ARIN region exemplifies the positive outcomes that can result from such an approach, particularly in relation to community networks obtaining IP addresses. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that the RIRs, through their number policies, have the potential to aid in connecting those who are currently unconnected. These findings highlight the significant contributions that the RIRs can make towards achieving digital inclusion and advancing industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in SDG 9.

Anriette Esterhuysen

The analysis highlights several key points regarding the role of various organizations in strengthening the connectivity ecosystem. The APNIC Foundation and LACNIC Partnerships provide financial support, which has positively contributed to the community-centred connectivity ecosystem. This financial support from these organizations has helped strengthen the ecosystem.

Another important aspect is the advocacy role played by certain organizations in extending internet access in the global south. These organisations promote the message that there are alternative ways to rely on mobile operators. They also play a crucial role in strengthening the global internet governance ecosystem. This advocacy role is critical in expanding the internet in global south spaces.

Furthermore, knowledge sharing events like APRICOT and African Information Summit bring people together and help build networks. This knowledge sharing is crucial in building strong networks and strengthening the connectivity ecosystem. Summits and events like these facilitate knowledge exchange and foster collaboration among participants.

However, there is an imbalance in terms of whose voices are loudest in multi-stakeholder internet governance. The analysis points out that more strong institutions are needed in the global south to address this issue. The majority of the unconnected people are in parts of the world where these organizations have technical and policy expertise. Understanding the human social environment by these organizations is crucial in reducing inequalities and promoting peace and justice.

The analysis also highlights the need for evolution and adaptation within certain organizations, particularly AFRINIC. Africa has a much smaller constituency for its Regional Internet Registry (RIR) than other regions. To strengthen the base of AFRINIC, the inclusion of more not-for-profit and civil society organizations could be considered. Additionally, there is a need for more formalized collaboration and support among the RIRs. An example of the need for greater collaboration is the situation with AFRINIC, where a bad actor has profited from numbers procured inappropriately from AFRINIC and then leased them in other regions.

It is important to note that not all RIRs are equally multi-stakeholder. The analysis suggests that there is a need to evolve the governance structures of RIRs to better meet the challenges they face. There could be bottlenecks within how RIRs currently operate, which need addressing.

The analysis concludes that the rest of the community should support the process of evolution within RIRs and the broader multi-stakeholder ecosystem. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing regional specificity and implementing the multi-stakeholder model effectively. Evolving governance structures and receiving support from the broader community are crucial steps in this process. Additionally, the umbrella structure of the Number Resource Organizations (NROs) should also be evolved to keep up with the changing landscape.

Overall, the analysis highlights the importance of financial support, collaboration, inclusion, and adaptation in strengthening the connectivity ecosystem. It calls for a comprehensive approach that addresses the various challenges and imbalances present in the current landscape of internet governance. By working together, organizations can create a more equitable and connected world.

Akinori Maemura

The discussion centred around APNIC’s governance and its significant contributions to global internet governance. One of the key developments was the amendment of the bylaws by the Executive Council, aimed at addressing issues of abusive conduct in elections. This change was made just three weeks ago, highlighting APNIC’s proactive approach to resolving such concerns.

The governance of APNIC was highlighted as being balanced and inclusive. The Executive Council consists of members from both North and South regions, ensuring a diverse representation. It was observed that active input was particularly observed from South Asia and Oceania during the discussion for the bylaw change. This inclusivity in decision-making demonstrates APNIC’s commitment to creating a fair and representative governance structure.

The contributions of South-based Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) to global internet governance were emphasised. Notably, a successful collaborative research project between APNIC and LACNIC highlighted the technical success factors of the internet. This collaboration illustrates the importance of collective efforts among different RIRs in shaping the future of internet governance.

Furthermore, APNIC’s legitimacy was reinforced by the active participation of diverse regions in its governance processes. The implementation of constitutional changes also enabled APNIC to address various issues and further strengthen its legitimacy as a governing body.

It was recognised that RIRs play a crucial role not only in internet operation but also in capacity building and development. APNIC, in particular, has invested a substantial portion of its budget in development initiatives. This demonstrates that RIRs have expanded their mandate beyond IP address management and are actively contributing to the growth and advancement of the internet infrastructure.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the proactive steps taken by APNIC to address governance concerns and promote inclusivity. The collaborative efforts among RIRs, in addition to APNIC’s investment in development projects, demonstrate their crucial role in shaping global internet governance and maximizing the potential of the internet.

Jan Aart Scholte

The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), such as AFRINIC, APNIC, and LACNIC, play a crucial role in internet governance. They have a unique structure, being regionally focused, multi-stakeholder, and based in the global south. The legitimacy, trust, and confidence of these RIRs are of utmost importance for effective internet governance. Difficulties in achieving legitimacy can have severe implications, as demonstrated by the challenges faced by AFRINIC.

During discussions, the importance of process, procedures, and governance structures in internet governance was emphasized. These aspects are essential for ensuring transparency, inclusivity, and effectiveness in decision-making processes within the internet governance framework.

Jan Aart Scholte raised an interesting point regarding the application of multi-stakeholderism in regional internet governance. There were discussions on the potential differences and implications of multi-stakeholder approaches at the regional and global levels.

Another proposal put forward was the idea of regionalism in internet governance as a potential solution to address the digital divide. Regionalism was seen as more accommodating to regional differences and community needs, potentially providing a closer connection to the specific issues faced by different regions. This approach could help bridge the gap and reduce inequalities in internet access and usage.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the benefits of regional and multi-stakeholder approaches in addressing digital divides. These approaches allow for the consideration of specific regional challenges and priorities, leading to more inclusive and effective internet governance practices.

Paul Wilson

Paul Wilson, a prominent figure in the field of internet governance, acknowledges the progress and challenges faced by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in their crucial role. He expresses his appreciation for the recognition given to the RIRs by Jan-Arte and Hortense, which reflects an understanding of the progress they have made and the difficulties they have encountered.

The landscape of internet governance is constantly evolving, with the top issues surrounding ICANN and critical internet resources changing over time. Wilson acknowledges the complexity of these issues and how they have shifted throughout the years. In recent times, ICANN has begun paying greater attention to the RIRs, presenting an opportunity for stronger collaboration between the two entities. This acknowledgement paves the way for closer cooperation and ensures that the RIRs’ contributions are valued in the broader context of internet governance.

Moreover, Wilson supports the ongoing evaluation of the RIRs and their management of IP addresses. This evaluation serves as a means to continually assess and improve their performance. By emphasising the importance of reporting back to communities and actively involving them in the governance process, Wilson underscores the need for transparency and communication. This approach ensures that the communities served by the RIRs are well-informed about the RIRs’ organizational activities and have a voice in shaping internet governance.

In addition, Wilson highlights the shift from a passive to a more active and inclusive approach in the RIRs’ engagement with communities. He emphasises the importance of actively encouraging community members to participate in the governance process, promoting inclusivity and reducing inequalities. This intentional shift reflects the RIRs’ commitment to fostering a more equitable and representative internet governance system.

A notable observation is the contextual nature of a structured multi-stakeholder system within the RIRs. Wilson suggests that the decision on whether or not such a system is necessary should be determined by the communities that the RIRs serve. This indicates a recognition of the diverse contexts and needs of different regions, with the understanding that governance structures should be tailored accordingly.

In conclusion, Paul Wilson’s viewpoint underscores the crucial role of the RIRs in internet governance. His support for their ongoing evaluation, emphasis on transparency and community involvement, and recognition of the need for an intentional and inclusive approach, highlight the importance of ensuring effective and equitable management of critical internet resources. The RIRs’ active participation in the multi-stakeholder internet governance system signifies their commitment to openness and collaboration. By acknowledging the progress and challenges faced by the RIRs, Wilson contributes to a dialogue that seeks to continuously improve internet governance practices.

Carolina Aguerre

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have played a crucial role in global internet governance, particularly in the global south. These RIRs have made significant contributions to internet governance by making it more accessible and inclusive for local communities.

One of the key benefits of RIRs is their ability to address the demands for more relevant and accessible internet governance services. Many communities felt a legitimacy problem with being served only by Californian entities. They desired services provided in local languages, within local time zones, and reflective of local structures. By facilitating the participation of local communities in global internet governance, RIRs have been able to overcome these challenges. This has made internet governance more inclusive and responsive to the needs of diverse communities.

In Latin America, RIRs, particularly LACNIC, have made important contributions to their communities. Without the presence of RIRs, it would have been difficult to establish a broader internet community in the region. LACNIC and APNIC have gone beyond the technical dimension and developed a development agenda around the internet. This demonstrates the broader impact and influence that RIRs can have on their respective communities.

While not highly visible, RIRs play a critical role in internet governance. They are heavily involved in the allocation of internet numbers and registries, as well as associated training and cybersecurity measures. Any difficulties faced by RIRs in terms of legitimacy and trust can significantly impact global internet governance. Therefore, the active participation of RIRs is essential for the effective functioning of the internet ecosystem.

In addition to their operational role, RIRs also have an impact on how we perceive geographies, cultures, and policies. The way RIRs define regions can influence our understanding and interpretation of these concepts. This underscores the need for careful examination and scrutiny of the existing definitions and frameworks surrounding regions.

Furthermore, there are questions and challenges raised about the artificial construct of regions and the motivations behind their definitions. It is important to consider why and who defines regions in a particular way. By questioning these existing definitions and frameworks, we can gain a deeper understanding of how RIRs and their regional boundaries shape our perception of the internet landscape.

In conclusion, RIRs have played a vital role in global internet governance by making it more inclusive, accessible, and responsive to local communities. Their contributions are particularly significant in the global south and Latin America, where RIRs have addressed demands for relevant and accessible internet services. Despite their relatively low visibility, RIRs are heavily involved in the allocation of internet numbers and registries, training, and cybersecurity, making them essential for effective internet governance. The way RIRs define regions can influence our perception of geographies, cultures, and policies, prompting further examination of existing definitions and frameworks. Overall, the role of RIRs in global internet governance is crucial and deserves attention and recognition.

Peter Bruck

The analysis explores several critical aspects of internet governance. One key point raised is the importance of examining legitimacy by mandate versus acceptance within the internet community. The concept of legitimacy is closely scrutinized by Nick Cranor, who is investigating this matter. Understanding how legitimacy is established and maintained within the internet community is essential for ensuring effective governance.

Another significant issue discussed in the analysis is the economics of internet operation and the exercise of market power through it. It is argued that more attention should be given to understanding the economic implications and consequences of internet activities. This includes the reflection of market power exercised by various entities within the digital realm. By examining the economics of the internet, a better understanding of its impact on areas such as decent work and economic growth, as well as reduced inequalities, can be gained.

In addition, the analysis highlights the dominance of five platform companies on the internet. This dominance has far-reaching effects on various aspects, including reduced inequalities and responsible consumption and production. It is suggested that this dominance should be scrutinized and incorporated into governance considerations. Understanding and addressing the power dynamics created by these platform companies are crucial for ensuring a more inclusive and fair internet ecosystem.

Furthermore, the analysis acknowledges the significance of a study that has been conducted. This study involved 425 interviews, of which 321 have been completed at the time of the analysis. The study’s findings and insights are deemed impressive and important, warranting further follow-up action. Unfortunately, no specific details or conclusions from the study are mentioned in the analysis.

Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the complexities associated with internet governance. It highlights the need to focus on legitimacy, understand the economics of the internet and the exercise of market power, address the dominance of platform companies, and follow up on important studies. These observations shed light on the challenges and opportunities in governing the internet effectively and responsibly.

Debora Christine

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are crucial actors in internet governance, shaping the way data is transmitted globally. Their main mandate is to allocate internet numbers, including IP addresses and autonomous systems, within their respective regions. RIRs, such as AFRINIC, APNIC, and LACNIC, play a significant role in addressing digital divides, particularly in the Global South.

The three South-based RIRs serve Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean regions respectively. These RIRs have deviated from the earliest development of the internet in the Global North, and their governance bodies manage, distribute, and register internet number resources within their regions. They are instrumental in tackling digital divides and fostering inclusion in internet governance, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (SDG 9) and Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10).

One notable aspect of these South-based RIRs is their multi-stakeholder and regional approach to internet governance. They facilitate decision-making and policy development through collaboration among businesses, civil societies, technical experts, and governments. As private not-for-profit organizations, the role of governments within this model is informal. This approach could be seen as an alternative to the current global governance model and may be applicable to other areas. It aligns with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

The legitimacy of South-based RIRs is essential for effective internet governance. Legitimacy provides these institutions with a secure mandate, more resources, the ability to make better decisions, and increased compliance. The research highlights that people care more and feel more affected by their government than by intergovernmental organizations like ASEAN or the UN. By understanding the levels of legitimacy, these RIRs can enhance their effectiveness in internet governance and gain greater support.

It is also worth noting that confidence levels in the South-based RIRs vary among different stakeholder groups, including civil society, business, government, technical, and academic. The research indicates that there is variation in confidence based on age, gender, and language. Studying these variations can provide insight into the perceptions and attitudes towards South-based RIRs, helping to identify areas that require improvement and tailor strategies for greater inclusivity.

In conclusion, South-based RIRs, such as AFRINIC, APNIC, and LACNIC, play a crucial role in internet governance and have the potential to address digital divides and foster inclusion. Their multi-stakeholder and regional approach offers a unique form of governance, collaborating with various stakeholders to make informed decisions. Ensuring the legitimacy of these RIRs is crucial for their effectiveness, and studying confidence levels among different stakeholder groups can lead to improved strategies and greater inclusivity. By addressing digital divides and promoting inclusion, these RIRs align with the UN SDGs and contribute to global efforts for a more equitable and accessible internet.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Is it is it possible to oh, yeah, we’re gonna have the people on screen as well that are Right, I think we’re probably ready to ready to start amidst to the crowds of the last morning of the IGF 845 in the morning Hello everyone. My name is Ian Schulte. I’m at Leiden University. I’m your on-site moderator for this event On the Legitimacy of South based Regional internet registries I’m joined online by Hortense Jonge at the Free University of Amsterdam for whom I believe it is 2 in the morning Hortense is the coordinator of the project to which this session refers And she is the online moderator I’m joined by two speakers on-site and two speakers online To my left is Akinori Memura from the Japanese JPNIC Network Information Center To my right is Arietta Esterhausen former executive director of the Association for Progressive Communications and as active as ever I’m online. We are joined by Carolina Aguero at the University My apologies Carolina. I don’t the name of your university in Montevideo is escaping me But you many of you will know Carolina from many IGF and other internet governance related activities And also online at I believe midnight for him Nikuen or professor. Dr. Nikuen or and Accra Ghana and one of the founders of the internet in Africa, so we are talking about the South based Regional internet registries and you see that our speakers are coming from the different regions concerned Latin America Caribbean Africa and Asia Pacific I’m going to hand over to our speaker to introduce the issues in a moment That is Deborah Irene Christina who is joining us online from Indonesia from Jakarta And then we will also Involve at various other points in the proceedings several other members of the team of this project namely Gloria and Zika at the University of Maryland and Naima Nascimento Valeros In the University of believe it’s Rio de Janeiro in Brazil so I think that gives us a start at the setting. I will hand over to Deborah now to introduce the issues

Debora Christine:
Thank you, yeah, so firstly I’m going to share my screen Hi everyone, so my name is Deborah. I am one of the researchers of this research team that is based off the That is based in the University of Gothenburg But as the unshared our research team, I mean like our researchers are actually spread across the four continents in the globe and We’ve been studying for the past year and a half. So we’ve been doing a lot of research in the field of And we’ve been studying for the past year the role of regional internet registries based in the global south in the global internet governance to understand how legitimacy works in internet governance and how people’s views toward the legitimacy of south-based internet registries vary and why and in this panel today, we have four questions that We will address through our own Through this presentation, but also through discussion with the panelists And hopefully this presentation could shed a lot some light to answering those questions So this is the outline of the presentation And first of all, why are we interested in studying the RIRs? So the RIRs are important actors in the global internet governance Because of their core mandate to allocate internet numbers IP addresses and autonomous systems numbers in their respective regions And they also maintain the registry of that allocation This enables all connected digital devices in the world to have distinct locations on our single global internet And as the backbone of the internet Internet protocol has undergone various iterations to accommodate the evolving needs of our interconnected world two of the most prominent versions the internet protocol version 4 or IPv4 And IPv6 have played a crucial role in shaping the way Data is transmitted and received across the internet And IPv4 is the number version that was used mostly initially But there’s only 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses while there are 5.4 billion regular internet users as of now So the IPv4 version has become insufficient and the new version which is IPv6 with the larger capacity there are 340 trillion trillion trillion of them so the IPv4 version enables more device connections including IoT and smart technologies However, the issue of cost and compatibility with devices running on v4 For example has contributed to rather slow adoption of the v6 version And as of now the global adoption is less than 50 percent At the same time IPv4 has run down so much meaning that uh in the last 10 years, there’s been a scarcity issue and a secondary commercial market has risen In the selling of IPv4 so in this case the role of The RIRs in the policy making of IP address allocation Actually has implications on addressing the digital divides by enabling or not enabling the world to be interconnected particularly the global south And as part of their services RIRs also handle questions about internet access content control network security and data protection They also provide capacity building for engineers and also grants for technical innovations The RIRs also conduct measurements of internet use and performance And these are the things that are they are doing in addition to their core mandate The second reason why we’re interested in the RIRs is because they take a regional mode of governance of the internet meaning that the rule or Policies about the distribution of IP addresses are actually set by the communities in the region themselves and the third reason would be The three RIRs that we are focusing on are based in the global south. So AFRINIC African network information center that serves the african region APNIC that is asia-pacific network information center That is serving the asia-pacific region and LACNIC Latin america and caribbean network information center is serving the latin american and caribbean regions So focusing on these three south based RIRs is actually a significant distinction From where the internet’s earliest development started which is in the global north and here lies the question about What being south based actually entails does that mean more autonomy and internet governance outside of europe and in north america? And are the south based RIRs important force to countering the digital divides? The next reason is that the RIRs actually facilitate decision and policy making for regional internet governance Through multi-stakeholder collaboration. So it’s between businesses civil society technical experts and also Governments, but in these case government has no formal role. So they are just part of the multi-stakeholder Multi-stakeholderism approach that’s used in the RIRs And the RIRs themselves they are also private non not-for-profit organizations, so They are incorporated as legal entity afriNIC in mauritius APNIC in australia and LACNIC in uruguay And this is actually unique approach to governing internet resources as a global resource And finally considering that the lack of IP address space actually influences connectivity the three RIRs afriNIC APNIC and LACNIC As governance bodies which manage distribute and register internet number resources in their respective regions Are uniquely placed to address the issues of digital divide and inclusion in internet governance So all of these reasons that you see on the slides plus the fact that there’s little academic inquiry into Internet governance field in the internet governance built into the RIRs Are actually why we’re conducting this study And this is the objectives of our study. We’re trying to look at On what basis and how far that these three south-based internet registries are attracting legitimacy So how far people have belief trust confidence and approval in this alternative way of organizing internet governance And we hope that the findings will contribute to how we understand legitimacy With regard to multi-stakeholder global governance of the internet But there’s also this underlying Objective If we could show that indeed the regional south-based multi-stakeholder model to internet governance Attracts a lot of legitimacy or is lacking legitimacy And what the basis for such legitimacy perceptions are then we could ask the question about Could a regional multi-stakeholder south-based approach to governing key global resources perhaps be transferred to other areas? And could this approach also be part of a more general south-based initiative on dealing with other critical global resources And This is a quick overview about the rise of multi-stakeholder global governance So the dark line in the middle are the is the number of internet governmental treaty-based organizations You can see that basically they’ve plateaued since the 1990s, there isn’t an increase in their numbers. Also, if you look at the material resources and institutional capacity of these organizations to make decisions, those have also

Carolina Aguerre:
remained stable, if not declined, in the last couple of decades. In contrast, you see the dotted line of multistakeholder global governance arrangements. And they’ve grown enormously and are now more than twice as numerous as intergovernmental organizations and, indeed, often have increasing resources and capacity at the time that multirealism has talked. So in this study, we’re looking at the legitimacy of South-based RIRs. That is to ask how far people believe and perceive that these RIRs have the right to govern and that they will exercise the right to govern appropriately or properly. So if these organizations have secure legitimacy among their constituents, it gives them much more strength and security and stability. And we can expect them to thrive. However, if they lack it, well, then the South-based regional multistakeholder governance of the internet might be in trouble. In our study, we understand that legitimacy is not the only thing that makes governing work. And the consequences of legitimacy or the lack of it are not always straightforward. But if you have legitimacy, you can expect to have a more secure mandate, to get more resources and participation. You can also expect to take decisions better and have more compliance from your constituents. And you can also expect to have better problem-solving capacity. And maybe, therefore, it is easier for you to reach your goals and hold yourself against competing institutions. In a way, at the moment, we can see that one of the RIRs that we are studying here, which is AP AFRINIC, is facing considerable legitimacy challenges. And you can also see that they are struggling with some of the components in this list. So that might also serve as an example how it will be challenging for an institution to govern without or with lack of legitimacy. In our interviews, we’ve been asking people whether they think the legitimacy of RIRs is important to them. And it is quite reassuring that our research find that 84% of people actually say that it’s extremely important for an institution, particularly RIR, to have legitimacy, as you can see in the graphs here. So we’re doing extensive interviews

Debora Christine:
with people asking them about their confidence level in these RIRs and looking at the number of sources that may be driving their legitimacy belief. We’re asking how much confidence they have in the RIRs and also how much they care about the RIRs, as well as how much they feel affected by these organizations. So we’re not only asking about their level of confidence, but also how much they care and how much they feel impacted by these organizations. So this is actually where our research is getting a little into the intricacies of legitimacy research. But a lot of legitimacy research on regional and global governance has only asked respondents about how much confidence they have in the organizations. It hasn’t asked about how intensely they feel about these organizations. So most of this research ends up with the results which say, so people’s average legitimacy belief in UN or ASEAN, for example, is the same as their legitimacy belief in their national government. But our impression is that people probably care and feel more affected by their government than by an intergovernmental organizations like ASEAN or the UN. So it will be actually useful if you ask those additional questions about care and impact. And our research is still ongoing. So these are the interviews that we’ve done so far. There are 321. And you can see the breakdown of our respondents so far across the South-based RIRs and stakeholder groups. It’s not that easy to get people to sit and stay with you to do the extensive interviews about all the different aspects of these RIRs. A lot of people we’ve interviewed actually say that this is probably the point in their life that they have to think so hard in 30 to 40 minutes. So it’s actually quite understandable that we’re still in the middle of collecting this data. So we still cannot see that these are the results of our study. And just to share some emergent results from our study, which of course, non-conclusive yet, we can say that there is variation in the levels of confidence between the three RIRs that we are studying. We find variation between stakeholder groups. So it depends on whether they come from civil society groups or business groups, government representations, technical groups, or an academy group. There is differences in terms how much legitimacy they have in the RIRs. And there is also a variation between groups in different social categories, for example, by age, gender, and language. So we have not yet been able to see what the drivers for these different levels of legitimacy belief in the RIRs are. But on the basis of other research and our initial findings, we think that we’re going to find that institutional drivers, such as people’s perceptions of the purpose of the RIRs, their mandates, the procedures that they put in place, as well as their performance, are the main drivers of confidence and legitimacy perceptions towards the RIR. And some other psychological and prevailing societal norms would also influence people’s legitimacy belief towards the RIRs. And we’re still, as I said before, we’re still completing our study. So if any of you who are present in these Zoom meetings are interested in participating in our interview, please contact Ortans at ortans.jongen at gu.se. That’s it for me, Jan. Over to you.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Thanks very much, Debra. That gives an overview of the work here. Just to summarize again for a moment, we’re looking at the regional internet registries, of which there are five. But we are looking mainly at those that are based in the global south, namely AFRINIC for Africa, APNIC for Asia-Pacific, and LACNIC for Latin America Caribbean. This is a quite unique construction in internet governance in being regional rather than globally focused, multi-stakeholder rather than governmental, and south-centered when most of internet governance is based in Europe and North America. So there’s something really interesting going on here. And to the extent that it acquires legitimacy, approval, confidence, trust of people, it’s a very strong part of internet governance. To the extent that it struggles with legitimacy and confidence and trust, it’s a major problem for internet governance. Because without the allocation of internet numbers and registries of internet numbers and associated training and cybersecurity and other operations, the global internet doesn’t function. Although the RIRs don’t make the headlines, this is a really, really crucial part of global internet governance. And we see with the current struggles with AFRINIC, one of these three organizations, just how far the implications can be when these regimes run into legitimacy difficulties. So let me hand over to our speakers, our respondents. And I think let’s go in the order that they’re, I think it’s alphabetical by surname, but on my list here. Shall we start with Carolina Aguera in Uruguay? I think you are still in your early evening, hopefully. So not suffering the midnight of Nhi and Hortense.

Carolina Aguerre:
Carolina, do you want to give your comments? I’ve been awake for 16 hours already. Oh, dear. I was participating in another session. So it’s been a very long day. Well, thank you. And this is a super interesting study. And I mean, there are many questions that were raised, and we don’t have that much time. But to me, there is this, and having studied the development of LACNIC in particular, that’s the region I know the most. For the Latin American internet community, that emerging body of network engineers, scholars coming from their PhDs and masters in North American and Canadian universities mainly, there was a legitimacy problem in being served only by someone in California who had really not much time and really wanted to sort of these communities to have their own interests and their own needs addressed in their own language, in their time zone, in a level of subsidiarity that would be closer to them and that would reflect their current structures. And particularly, the linguistic issue was something that was striking in my understanding, in my research around the origins of this. So there is a global multi-stakeholderism in internet governance is already, in my view, sort of from its inception. And the idea that local communities need to become involved to shape this internet, it’s already beginning to pave the path for something as the arrangements that we have these days of regional internet registries serving their geographic communities, which are more or less diverse in the different parts of the world. So that’s a preliminary idea I wanted to raise. Then when discussing this idea about multi-stakeholder internet governance and the perspective of RIRs, they are multi-stakeholder. It would be interesting to refine in which way would we conceive of an RIR as multi-stakeholder because we think of ICANN as the epitome of a multi-stakeholder formal institution. RIRs, in which way do they represent multi-stakeholder values? Is it because they are self-regulated and self-governed by their own communities of stakeholders? And because they are so open, because most of us can participate even if we don’t have an IP resource and we can shape those policy development processes. So I think it raises addressing RIR governance in all kinds of RIRs, the five of them. But in the global South, it raises again how can multi-stakeholderism be understood and what is the particular flavor that these RIRs bring to the multi-stakeholder debate and the actual governance of these critical internet resources around IP numbers and addresses. In terms of the added value or the participation, I mean, what do these RIRs and LACNIC in particular, how have they helped to serve their particular communities and different stakeholders in their regions? I think it’s crucial in the way that they bring closer to home the idea of the global internet. I mean, not just by developing the functions and the allocation of IP addresses and that is already defined by their own policies and their communities. It’s in the case of Latin America, without an RIR, there are no RIRs in Latin America. There are no RIRs in Latin America. There are no RIRs in Latin America. would have been very difficult to talk about an internet community, a broader internet community that would go beyond the technical pioneers who were challenging the telecommunication operators and national regulators that were not prone to open their networks to these new communication infrastructures. So it’s a focal point to discussing broader global internet institutions, internet processes, and that brings closer to home that which I think is extremely relevant. If we want to address how is the global south and the developing world in general, or the rest of the world, connected to this broader globalization processes and internet governance processes. And finally, and something I think that LACNIC and APNIC have done particularly well is to help to develop a development agenda around the internet and that goes beyond just the development of the technical dimension of the internet and has even allowed digital rights movements and other civil society actors and governments to engage in a more dense ecosystem with a denser agenda around what does internet governance mean and not just the governance of the internet but the implications about the consequences and the uses of the internet. And this slightly broadening of the agenda of RIRs with their funding towards the support of community projects over the last long decade, I’m not exactly sure now whether it’s over 10 to 15 years, I think that is very relevant and that is very important to bring in the legitimacy perspective as well that they are serving their communities beyond their strict and narrow mission and have a broader interest in shaping and understanding and enriching these discussions. So those are my initial comments around this issue. Thank you so much for sharing all this information and the study which is fantastic.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Thank you, Carolina. I wish I could be so sharp and insightful after 16 hours. Thanks very much. Ariadne, you want to take the next set?

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Jan. And only the question on role, not lessons learned. Are we going to do that later or can I do all of it now? Okay. I think that, well firstly, Carolina, very nice to be in the same space with you after many years of not being in the same space. Carolina and I were on the IGF MAG at the same time many years ago. I support everything Carolina said. I’ll maybe just emphasize a few things and then talk a little bit about where I think we can improve. I think absolutely the role is very important. I think the financial support, the work done by the APNIC Foundation and also by LACNIC Partnerships, the LACNIC Partnership and APNIC Foundation Partnerships with the IDRC, for example, that financial support has actually strengthened the ecosystem, the support for community-centered connectivity, both at the level of financial support but also at the level of messaging, that there are alternative ways to just relying on mobile operators. So this advocacy role in extending and strengthening internet in global self spaces has been very important. I think the knowledge sharing, the events, the summits, APRICOT, African Information Summit, when they work, these events bring together people, they build network, they strengthen the ecosystem, and I think that’s very important. I think the voice in the global, the role that they play in strengthening the global the global IG ecosystem, I want to stress that even further, because I think we still are sitting with an imbalance in terms of whose voices are most and whose voices are loudest and most influential in the multi-stakeholder Internet governance ecosystem. And we’ll never change that if we don’t have strong institutions in the global South. And in fact, the whole legitimacy of this multi-stakeholder ecosystem, which is often being questioned, we have to admit that it’s often being questioned, rests on the fact that it’s supposed to be inclusive. And if this global multi-stakeholder Internet governance ecosystem, by that I include the IJF, ICANN, the RIRs and those around them, cannot be more balanced in terms of global South, global North influence and voices, it won’t sustain or grow its legitimacy. So the role that the RIRs play, particularly because they have technical expertise, they’re not just talking about the experience of being in parts of the world where most of the unconnected are, they actually understand the policy and the technical and the human social environment. So I really can’t stress their importance enough. Has it worked? I think yes, but not well enough. And I think that’s completely understandable. And I think that there’s still relatively new institutions, well, not all of them, but relatively. And I think, for me, one of the big differences between the multilateral and the multi-stakeholder system is that you have more flexibility with a multi-stakeholder system, but you also have more responsibility in a way, because you have to build it yourself, you have to evolve it and make it fit to purpose. Multilateral systems are kind of structurally broken and also structurally functional, because they are kind of more rigid and more fixed. And I think that’s where we need to place the emphasis. And I’ll speak here more about AFRINIC, and Ani knows much more than I do. I’m kind of more of an observer. I think that here is an example where we need to evolve the institution. Africa has a much smaller… constituency for its RIR than other regions. So I think from the outset, having involved maybe more not-for-profits, more civil society organizations, more people like myself who are working not in a registry or registrar context, but who is still very much part of the ecosystem, that might have been a way of strengthening the base of AFRINIC and in that sense also strengthening its governance structure and its institutional capacity. And this might not be necessary in other regions or in other regions like in LACNIC, it could be done through partnership with other institutions. So I do think there’s a need to adapt your internal RIR governance and management structure to the ecosystem in the region. I think the other area where I think more evolution can take place is at the level of collaboration and support between the RIRs. So at the NRO, the overarching body level, they’re all very independent and I think they prize their independence, but I think there is a need for collaboration and sometimes that collaboration can be informal, sometimes it might need to be a little bit more formalized. And I think that’s what we’ve seen with the AFRINIC situation, where we have had a bad actor, in my view, I’m comfortable calling this person a bad actor, making money out of numbers that were procured in an inappropriate, not quite due process driven way from AFRINIC, but leasing them in other regions and yet there seems to be no capacity there for APNIC to intervene or to have any relationship with the national oversight bodies or the CCTLDs or the registries. So I think this is a perfect example, actually, the AFRINIC case. I think AFRINIC will survive, I think AFRINIC still does good work. Just go and look at the AFRINIC website and you’ll find fantastic resources there. But I think there is a need to build this kind of emergency response and a little bit more structural level of collaboration, because this might also happen to other RIRs. I think sometimes I feel there’s an assumption that all the RIRs are just fine, it’s only AFRINIC that is challenged, because it’s in Africa. And I think that’s a question, that assumption. I think AFRINIC has had particular challenges, but I think, you know, in Institutions are fragile, they are vulnerable to personal dynamics and to industry dynamics, and I think it’s worth actually thinking about how to build in more robustness in this bottom up, and not always as inclusive as it could be. Yeah, I’ll leave it at that.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Super. Again. Very, very, very good. We can start to this conversation. Akinori, you’ve got the burden to keep it going. I am not enough to succeed the activeness of the discussion from Marriott.

Akinori Maemura:
Before that, my name is Akinori Maemura. Good morning, everyone. Ohayo gozaimasu from Kyoto. I am working for the JPNIC, Japan Network Information Centre, one of the national internet registry under APNIC, and then internet promotion body. I sometimes says my company is doing the half APNIC-ish, half ISOC-ish business. That’s what my business are. I am a bit more of the background. I am the active participant to the APNIC process, and then I long served at the APNIC Executive Council, which is the governing board of APNIC, and then I stepped down from there seven years ago, but still active member at APNIC. So that’s who I am. Thank you very much, Deborah, for your presentation, and this will organise what is the legitimacy of the RIR, and then Henriette kicked off the argument of the AFRINIC situation, and I feel like follow her for that, but before that, I’d like to say something for the APNIC situation. So AFRINIC had some tough time and big turbulence in there, but APNIC had some of them by some of the abusive conduct in the election in last March, March this year, and then APNIC actually did a great job to address that. address that kind of a situation by the Executive Council, made a great decision and firm steps toward changing its constitutional arrangement, and then actually the bylaws is really hard to change by the management, sorry, membership, because it requires the supermajority, two-thirds of the entire vote count, which almost virtually never can be achieved. But it was changed into two-thirds of the total vote cast, so it is practically changeable. They did the change of the bylaw just three weeks ago, just here in the Kyoto International Conference Center. Then there is a great historic epoch for the APNIC membership, for them to change its own constitution. So that’s one of the quite, it contributes to maintaining the legitimacy of the APNIC. Deborah says that in her presentation she’s got some aspect of the legitimacy, and then I am quite proud to say that APNIC is quite, by the way, APNIC is, this session is south-based, RIR, but APNIC actually, in terms of the place of the incorporation, yes, that is incorporated in Brisbane, it’s, I can say, south-based, but APNIC is maybe the only RIR out of the five RIRs which cover north. I am from north. But with that said, the APNIC’s discussion is quite balanced. For example, the Executive Council has the members from the north and the south, and then that’s very well balanced. For example, the discussion for the viral change, there are a lot of active intervention from the south Asia or Oceania, and we had the people from the Pacific Islands for the forum leadership. So APNIC is quite well balanced. Many people from all around the region can put the influence to the APNIC’s governance. So that actually well represents the legitimacy of the APNIC, for my sense. Then actually one of the remarkable situation for our contribution to the internet governance globally is that I would say that LACNIC and APNIC made a collaborative project for the research of the technical success factor. It’s years before, and then that’s commissioned to the analysis mason, and that’s great research to analyse what is the success criteria, success factor, in the technical term of the internet, and that kind of thing contributes to the global internet from the south-based RIL. I’ll stop here. Thanks.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Thank you, Akinori. Again, wonderful to get different perspectives. We have one more speaker coming out, and then we’ll bring you in, in the audience here. Thanks. I’m glad you’re eager to go. But first, we hear from Professor Nikoi Noor, coming to us online from Ghana. Many of you will know Professor Nii as one of the founders and first chair of the board of AFRINIC, so has a long historical perspective on that particular area, and may have thoughts on the others as well. Nii, it’s over to you. Thank you very much.

Nii Narku Quaynor:
I’m glad to be part of this discussion. Perhaps before I give a reflection on the material I enjoyed listening to, I’d like to raise a question on legitimacy of even the identifiers themselves. In other words, the legitimacy is not from mandate by anybody, it’s by people, you know, happily willing to use it. So the more there is use, and the more there’s dependency on them, the legitimacy is being earned. Okay. Now, we can then discuss the concepts and the legitimacy that was expressed, but I tend to think that AFRINIC does not really have, not really facing legitimacy problems. And that’s why I like Henriette’s perspective on that. It’s a bad actor, and a bad actor that has been found out, that’s throwing tantrums. And that can happen in any of the IRRs, and in fact, there were attempts, but from the experience that played out publicly, in the case of AFRINIC, other IRRs were therefore well aware of the bad actor. And so were able to follow their tracks. And I say this with confidence, because the bad actor and its, you know, you might say organization or followers, first attempted to achieve things through the policy development process, which in our case is very open, and is defined in such a way that everybody’s voice can be heard. And so the bad actor tried in numerous ways to push policies through that you might say will benefit one particular party. All these did not go through, did not get consensus, which shows that the multi-stakeholder process we practice is actually quite strong, and was able to, you know, in some sense, resist those, even to the extent of having coaches that were acting improperly, perhaps in concert with the desires of this particular bad actor, were recalled. So from that point of view, I think we can get a result that says that the multi-stakeholder process actually is able to survive the extreme practices that may come from an open environment of this kind of development. And perhaps in the same vein, I might want to comment that it has, in fact, worked in the sense that AFRINIC has been able to rally many of the ecosystem communities around. For example, you have the AF-STAR. And the AF-STAR itself is made up of other communities, so to speak. For example, you have the NOG community, which shares to an extent the same community as the NIC community. And I’ve also been able to rally together the emergency response teams, and also the research and education networks, as well as the CCTLDs. And so it acts as part of that ecosystem of these varied organizations all playing together. And it has worked. The ecosystem itself has worked, because in the case where AFRINIC was taking all these abuses, and it had reached a stage where there’s, you might say, a court intervention, and it was not able to function properly, the ecosystem acted. Meaning the NOG was able to hold the AIS meeting and give AFRINIC a chance to be able to be discussed by the same community that they share together. And so on. And AFRINIC has been funding some local regional research projects. It also has a similar, you might say, grant programs. It also has similar education programs. It also supports local activities in other countries, and participates in the IGF events, participates in the telecom union activities that are within the region. And so its presence is actually missed, is what I would like to add in that regard. I think for opening comments, that would be sufficient. Great. Thank you very much, Nii. So we’ve heard the overarching introductory presentation from Deborah, and reactions from a first round of reactions and comments from our speakers from the different regions. I think we’ll take a phase of comments from the audience, both here and online. If you’re online and you want to raise points, then Gloria is our online moderator. Sorry, I got the roles wrong a moment ago. And we’ll pick up here in the room, and we already have a ready speaker. Could you let us know who you are for the record also? Thank you.

Audience:
Hi, everyone.

Carolina Caeiro:
My name is Carolina Cairo. So another Carolina from the Latin American region. I am with Oxford Information Labs and the DNS Research Federation, and I’m also former. staff member of LACNIC, so the first thing I wanted to say is that I’m very grateful that this session was organized and that we are openly having this conversation at IGF. I think it’s an important issue to be discussing with the community and to, you know, sort of put some of these concerns out in the open and sort of have a conversation within IGF about this issue. I wanted to start off by adding a few things about what I think are the strengths of the RIRs which are, you know, somewhat, you know, based in, you know, my experience working for LACNIC and also, you know, I mean, you know, I had the pleasure of, you know, running into my former RIR colleagues at IGF and, you know, I’ve been telling them how now that I’m outside the RIR system how I sort of see the value of a lot of the things that we did here at IGF and at regional level. Just to sort of add so I don’t sort of repeat some of the points that were said, one of the things that I think it’s really interesting about the LACNIC region and the work that it’s done sort of building, you know, an internet community really within Latin America is the fact that it’s also built trust and I think, you know, as of recent, you know, following the situation with AFRINIC, we’ve seen the community trusting LACNIC leadership as well in enacting sort of, you know, changes, for instance, to its code of conduct that, you know, are things that have gone to sort of reinforce the governance structure of the RIR and I think the fact that, you know, they have built that trust over the years that the community really believes in the organization, again, trust staff, the leadership is very, very crucial because it gives it legitimacy going to the point of the previous intervention. I also think it’s very important that the RIRs are reflective of issues of the regions. You know, I think that, you know, everyone’s commenting how this IGF has been all about AI, the AIGF, you may have heard, and that’s very distant from some of the realities that we’re discussing in our regions, right? You know, I think of the work of LACNIC, you know, we’re, you know, I’m no longer there, actually, but, you know, I still feel that, you know, their mission very close to my heart, but the organization engages, you know, in efforts around connectivity, supporting community networks, supporting the establishment of IXPs. So, I think, you know, sort of prioritizing, if you will, and taking sort of the conversation to the regional local level is something that the RIRs also greatly contribute to. Sort of looking forward a little bit, I was actually making notes for this intervention, and I literally wrote, you know, I think the NRO and, you know, the RIRs can perhaps strengthen how they support one another, and I was, you know, writing that down right before you said it. And I wanted to sort of add on the point that you made. I think there’s also perhaps an opportunity to socialize what the NRO and the RIRs are doing, for instance, to support AfriNIC right now, to sort of send a message of tranquility to the community as well, that the RIRs are being very proactive. And speaking to colleagues, I’m realizing there’s a lot that’s being done. We catch a little bit here and there from the news or social media, but I feel like perhaps stronger messaging would be useful. And the reason why I say this, as of late I’ve been participating in standards organizations, and I’ve seen concerns about the RIR system being brought up in the context of IETF, and whether RIRs are sort of reliable to be running RPKI services, for instance, or concerns at ITU’s plenipotentiary around the role of AfriNIC. And I think that proactively addressing those concerns which are valid, and sort of sending perhaps a clear message, and what’s the action plan, what’s the ask of the community, what do we do to help, I think would be extremely useful. So I will leave it at that for an intervention, but thank you for organizing this panel, and I look forward to, I know my colleagues from RIRs are here, and I look forward to hearing from them. Thanks so much.

Jan Aart Scholte:
I’ll take the mic to Paul. Paul Wilson from APNIC.

Paul Wilson:
Thanks very much to Jan-Arte and to Hortense for this work. I think it’s kind of a compliment and a recognition of the RIRs that you’ve undertaken this as a second, also as a second generation of the work that you’ve been doing, and I think it is valuable. So thank you. I personally, I can’t speak for other RIRs, but I think I can speak as the head of APNIC that we welcome the attention, actually, that times are changing, and they’ve changed a lot since the beginning of the WSIS process, when, I think as everyone knows, the top issues in internet governance seem to be around ICANN and critical internet resources and so on. And I think we did very well working together in articulating and having understood the system that we all work on and build together to give confidence that it’s working well, that there are more important issues to move on to, and indeed, in the years after that, the IGF in the later years. Since then, the IGF has definitely moved on to other issues. But I think there’s a risk when we say that things are working well, that we sort of do draw attention elsewhere and we sort of get taken for granted that the things in the RIRs are solid, and there’s nothing to see here. And while that’s generally true, I really welcome the fact that we’re being seen still as important bodies working in very complex, in a complex field, increasingly complex, with increasing challenges and so on, and we do merit some attention. And I’m not saying that in any other way than in the sort of constructive, towards the sort of constructive ends that I think, and with a constructive approach that I think you’ve taken. So I think I’d be happy for this work to continue, for us to be looking at more and other aspects of the way that. the regional internet registries work, that the overall approach to IP address management works. I think we can be confident that we can work together with folks who might be interested in, who might help us with evolution and again, speaking not for the rest of the RIRs at all, but that’s the way I see things. I think it’s also good, one of the things that’s come out of recent events is greater attention from ICANN. So the RIRs have had quite an independent relationship with ICANN, a relationship of independence with ICANN. We always say we predate ICANN, ICANN came along afterwards and sort of gave us and in some cases tried to give us, in not so welcome a sense, a sort of an umbrella. But actually I think we’re starting to see, again speaking for APNIC, I think we’re starting to see the role of ICANN and the ability that we, the opportunity that we have to work much more closely, not only with each other as I think has been mentioned, but also with ICANN and indeed more closely again with the rest of the technical community, which does require in some way, across all of its diversity, incredible diversity, it requires some mechanisms of solidarity, of coordination, of cooperation that can still be improved. So thanks again for giving us a lot to think about.

Jan Aart Scholte:
What do you think? You didn’t say that. What do I think? I just told you. Thank you, Paul. I do want to record actually our thanks to the Secretaries of all three, AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC. You’ve been extremely open and we’ve been extremely open that we are independent, critical academics, but the different Secretaries have been entirely open to us and we’ve had a really full exchange and I think the results of the work will be really substantial as a result. So thank you for that. Please. Thank you very much, Jan-Ul.

Peter Bruck:
My name is Peter Bruck. I’m the Chairman of the World Summit Awards. We are working in the WSIS process over the last 20 years to promote and to select best practices of using ICT and the Internet for positive social impact and we are building very much on the side of the people who are the creative users of the Internet and showcase and bring their voices into also the WSIS process. I have a couple of comments to make and then a question. First I thought that this study which was reported is quite impressive in its ambition. I have not seen a study similar to that trying to have 425 interviews of which 321 are completed. I think that’s an incredible effort and I think it’s very important to follow up on that study and also to summarize and build narratives of the conclusions from this and I would very much look forward to this. The second point is that I, Nick Cranor, was looking at the concept of legitimacy and I think that’s a very very important part that is legitimacy by mandate versus legitimacy by acceptance by the community in its use and I think this is something which needs to be focused on more, stressed more and also seen as a very important concept to support the multi-stakeholder operation processes and also its weight in terms of policymaking. The last point which I have is very much has very much to do with this underbelly of the economics of the RRIs. I think it’s what is missing in much of the discussions and much of the reflections including legitimacy and also impact is what are the economics of the internet operation and also in which way does this reflect and also mitigate or not mitigate the market power which is actually exercised through the internet and I think we need to be less naive and less, let’s say, closing our eyes to this because in many of the discussions I think the technological imperialism of the five platform companies using the internet is something which I think needs to be more openly addressed, reflected upon and also included in governance considerations and policymaking. Thank you very much. Thank

Jan Aart Scholte:
you, great, some very, very, very nice interventions from the audience here. Gloria, are you having anything going on online? No, we don’t have any questions at the moment. Okay, okay, good. In the room here, also those who are not at the heart of RIR dynamics, please, please see how things look to you because that’s actually very interesting too. The RIRs are sometimes, yeah, to know what people outside the core thinks is also interesting and important. Yes, please. Hey, thank you. Sorry to say this is going to be another RIR voice, but one from the north, and I waited until there was an opening so I didn’t, you know, jump in

Audience:
line. My name is Einer Boland. I’m from ARIN, so the Registry for Canada, the US and a good portion of the Caribbean. I wanted to say thank you to the presenter for a fascinating study that’s underway, and I look forward to the final outcome, the publication of the project. During Carolina’s talk online, she mentioned the RIRs and how they were founded on some principles, including better customer service, including time zones and languages that the people in the region spoke. I wanted to call out one other really foundational principle, which is regional policy. The RIRs allow for there to be policy best suited to the region, to that particular region, and as an example, in the ARIN region about 10 years ago, a community member came and wanted a number policy to make it easier for community networks to get IP addresses, and after discussion and consensus review through the PDP at ARIN, the community did create a policy to make it easier to get numbers for community networks. So those were just two things that I wanted to say. You know, this meeting is about the internet that we want. And one of the pillars of that, I think, is connecting the unconnected. It occurs to me, as I’m sitting here today and I’m talking about regional policy, that community members at RIRs could look for ways to help connect the unconnected through number policy. So thank you. Great. Thank you, indeed.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Maybe let’s go back and have another round from our panel. And maybe reflect on some bigger issues that have come out of the comments here, too. I hear a lot, both from you on the panel, but also from the different reactions from the audience, the importance of process, procedures, and governance structures, the possibilities that those give. I’ve also heard questions, is multi-stakeholderism different when it’s regional? Is it different when it’s with? I wanted to say that they’re not very multi-stakeholder. Or are they multi-stakeholder at all? Yes, I mean, this is a comment that’s come up a little bit, too. Is regional the way to go? I mean, although regionalism or region-centered governance in the internet is the exception in the numbers area, is it something that actually should be tried and pushed more, if it is more accommodating to the differences of different parts of the world and more sensitive to the context, more getting closer to communities, and so on? So this is something that we should be drawing out still more. Is it important in addressing the so-called digital divide or divides due to the fact of being regional and multi-stakeholder and based in the global South, even if Brisbane? Does that help us with addressing the digital divide in ways that more global-centered, North-centered approaches don’t? Anyway, I’d throw some various issues on the table, just some bigger lessons that we might draw from this approach to internet governance.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Can I ask a question? Because I think I’m the least close to NROs of all the speakers. I mean, I think the RIOs themselves know best who they are and where they’re, you know, what their strengths are. I think maybe not all RIRs are equally multi-stakeholder. So I think that’s something to think about and if that does give you more robustness. But I think my question to the speakers and to the RIR people in the room is, what do you think, where would you like the next step to be to create that strengthening and that sort of ability to respond to crises that has been difficult in the case of AFRINIC? What would you like to see in terms of your evolution and where do you think can the rest of the community and how can the rest of the community support that process of evolution? And what are the bottlenecks? Are there bottlenecks within how you currently operate and interact and communicate with one another that’s making evolving your governance structures difficult?

Jan Aart Scholte:
Okay, does anyone want to pick that up? Paul in the room or Nhi online or?

Paul Wilson:
I’m happy to make a couple of comments. I fielded a question, a critical question years ago that asserted that the RIRs were not sufficiently multi-stakeholder. And I said, well, we are members of the technical community. Do you expect us to have an internal multi-stakeholder structure that accommodates the IGF structures? And I think that kind of circularity doesn’t make much sense. But multi-stakeholder is contextual and I think you could say that we’ve got the IGF multi-stakeholder system. We’ve got different approaches to managing and to structuring stakeholders. So ICANN in fact is a multi-stakeholder system which has got, which defines at large, it defines ccTLDs, it defines gTLDs. And you could say that their own multi-stakeholder structure which is very structured actually incorporates those things. APNIC recognises that we have members with a special relationship with APNIC. We have a number of NIRs with a special relationship with APNIC and we have a wider community. So we could also talk about ourselves having a multi-stakeholder structure comprising at least those three categories. It’s not particularly structured in our case. I mean, we do afford, members are able to vote in APNIC elections and non-members of the community are not, but they are able to participate in policy processes which are entirely open. So it’s a fairly loose and simple structure. And I think, so I think what’s, I mean, it’s important to understand really what question we’re asking and to what extent we actually need to have a structured. multi-stakeholder system, and I think that is something that’s in the hands of the communities that we serve as to whether or not they would like to see more structure, more recognition of our own individual particular stakeholders. It’s a question that could well come up, but I think probably what’s more important is that we not only are members of the technical community, but we are active participants in the multi-stakeholder internet governance system, and so we do make ourselves open. The RIRs are different, so we’ve all got different approaches, but in general we make ourselves open to participation and we invest a lot in participation in the multi-stakeholder

Jan Aart Scholte:
system.

Paul Wilson:
We report back into our communities about our activity, about the organisational activities here and try to encourage community members to be part of that process as well, and much more than, say, 20 years ago, we were intentional about that. So there used to be a kind of a, I could say, a kind of a lazy or passive approach which said, we’re open, the doors are open, anyone can come, but there’s not much point in saying that if nobody even knows the door is there, right? So we’re much more intentional these days about making sure that we are actively inclusive in our work, in our community and in promoting that across the community and our activities. Thanks.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Okay, thanks. I think we’ll take Karolina in the room here and then Karolina online and Nhi online. If you have comments waiting after that, then I’ll hand over to you in a moment, please. We’ll take Karolina in the room first and then Karolina virtual second, yeah? Is that on? Okay.

Carolina Caeiro:
Yeah, I’ll let you come after me. So I, yeah, I wanted to sort of comment on the multi-stakeholder point. I think there’s a very similar conversation going on at IETF about IETF not being fully multi-stakeholder and this sort of notion that just by being open, you know, it doesn’t make it necessarily multi-stakeholder. And I actually wanted to sort of support your points just now. I think what makes an RIR part of the multi-stakeholder community is in part the global engagement that they do, you know, the outreach they do with governments, the engagement they do with civil society, the fact they participate in spaces like, you know, IGF. And I think we need to be realistic about what we ask of the multi-stakeholder model, you know, at LACNIC, you know, to sort of give an example from, you know, when I used to work there, this, you know, the space is open to whoever wants to come. There’s an effort to welcome civil society. There’s an effort to welcome governments and sort of, you know, academics and a diverse community. But there’s so much participation that you can achieve from those stakeholders. And, you know, and I don’t think that’s, you know, a measure of failing or success of the RIRs. You know, I don’t think that just having the people in the room is what we need to be sort of striving for. And as long as the, you know, the ITF or the RIRs are sort of engaging with the wider ecosystem, that’s what gives you the multi-stakeholderism. And, you know, and but I do, you know. think it’s important to have the places be open for whoever wants to sort of approach it but sort of expect that full diversity in the room I think is you know non-realistic. However I do want to sort of layer in another type of diversity and that that’s something that I do think that the RIRs or you know IDF are working on and it’s something that needs to sort of be further sort of emphasized and worked on and that’s diversity in terms of having for instance representation of small operators you know small and medium enterprises you know producing internet standards and also having sort of you know concerted efforts to bring in gender diversity in this community so more participation of women and non-binary participants both in standards or RIRs so yeah those thoughts. Very nicely put, thank you. Carolina online?

Jan Aart Scholte:
Carolina not connected she’s muted ah you’re thank you Carolina you need to unmute apparently. She is a host for herself so she should be able to She’s now unmuted but we still can hear her. There’s a technical problem. Carolina I’m afraid we’re not hearing you let’s let’s shall we shall we shall we go to. Professor

Nii Narku Quaynor:
Nkwenor had a comment. Yes let’s go I was gonna say let’s go let’s go to Nkwenor and then come back to Carolina. Go ahead Nkwenor. Thank you I was just gonna make an observation that it’s to an extent the technical communities contribution to IGF is this multi-stakeholder process so to get the question in reverse that you know are the technical communities multi-stakeholder it’s kind of challenging in terms of the sequence of events now these organizations are more importantly we should be looking less at this multi-stakeholder bit but more about the actual decision-making process which is really most important that must be as bottom-up and as inclusive as possible and you know also making sure that merit somehow it gets captured that sort of activity I think is more what is important in this regard than the fact that it has a very diverse in terms of discipline and you might say sectoral participation because in some cases it doesn’t always work out that you have that diverse community in terms of sector and also discipline in terms of the needs but because they are very open and they all have programs that try to bring in new people and also process of you might say inducting them or getting them become you know familiar with what is going on it is possible to have wider than purely the technical community participating actively in the way it matters which is in the policy development processes now in the case of AFRINIC you can see that some of our locations are even small there are two very small operators and that’s a benefit of the local policies that that can be derived at a regional level and we also then address the language challenges that we have in our case we also have capacity challenges because different operators have different abilities and all these things reflect and the NIC tries to in some sense accommodate them all and then even supports the environments they are in to sort of enhance it or create communities around them that enables them to keep on growing in that area so that it becomes strong now on the issue of the resilience and some of it of course is internal to the organization in that is bylaws need to be have certain properties in there of course we’re evolving from a situation where things where we have common goals shared objective and there was good trust to an environment where because of setting new things in the context such as transfer policies which it might have inadvertently given some not to property by by for example you know seeing the LIR as the one that could initiate transfers as opposed to the end users that they said that sort of thing tends to stress okay you know the normal you know maybe fair and efficient allocation of resources because people begin to try to game the system so that they can have this sense of the one who can initiate transfers and that I think is has been some form of a challenge but what one is looking for really is bottom up decision making and I’m not even sure that is going on at IGF or any of the the national and regional initiatives, for example. Because they do discuss, but that they are collectively making a decision on something is something that you will see more in the technical communities. So I thought I would add that. OK, thanks.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Just to clarify, in response to Arietta’s question about how you see the evolution and what would be the next steps in terms of ability to respond to crises, do I hear you saying that once AFRINIC has a board and a CEO back in place, the first step is to get at the bylaws and bring them up to date to a new situation? Yeah, we have to understand what happened.

Nii Narku Quaynor:
And understanding what happened here means that there was an application of a certain important document, which is the registration services agreement. And a bad actor signs the agreement and decides not to respect the agreement. So you end up in a commercial dispute. And you need to have mechanisms to say collectively that this sort of bad acting is not permitted. And usually, you do that through some things in the bylaws. And the areas in which the person, for instance, attempts to game the system, you have to find some ways such as in elections and also access to people’s accounts and so on, which are things that the person tried. So you’re going to have to find some language within either your bylaws or your general guidelines or practices that you have to discourage those kinds of things. And of course, once we understand that there will be perhaps more litigation with value being inadvertently attached to the resources, we’re also going to have to maybe be very careful with the law and be more responsive with the law and maybe strengthen our own governance procedures to make sure that we are not found in the same situation. And if you are found in a situation, what other structures within the organization can step in. So all of these things are being thought about. And presumably, once we have good, fair election and we get a board in place, some of these things we follow. There are, of course, policies also waiting that can eliminate this problem. One of them is a transfer policy of our own, which, by the way, the bad actor attempted to overturn through the courts. See, the bad actor, when the multi-stakeholder process failed for them, they now try to talk down to go to court and then try and overrule this bottom-up process, which also was sort of set aside. So it tells that once the initial bit is resolved, there are clearly some key things that can be done. For example, how do we enforce arbitration before we go to courts, and so on. So there are some things that we can do to strengthen the resilience.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Great, thanks very much, Nii. We are coming up to time. Thanks, everyone, for being here through the full discussion. I just have a last chance for Karolina in case her mic is working now. And then a last word to Akinori, also here on site. Karolina, are you able to speak with us now?

Carolina Aguerre:
Can you hear me? We can, yes. Off you go. Wonderful. OK, no, so just to bring in another issue on the terms of how we define these regions and whether it’s the RIRs, this artificial construct around regions, and who and why are they defined in the way they are. So I do think that they are not the only ones who are working around these parameters. And I think that the RIRs have set up a process, and I’m speaking particularly of what I see in the Latin American and Caribbean region, where you do have some regions and maybe processes within, for example, the Caribbean, et cetera. But then you do have other processes concerning the DNS, learning, academic networks, et cetera, which are all using the same regional definition of what is Latin American and the Caribbean. And I find that this is very interesting in, for example, in a region that doesn’t have a, it’s not a trade bloc on its own or a political bloc as the European Union. And so I think that this raises a lot of food for thought on how maybe the internet can also help define and redefine this imaginaries around these geographies and cultures and policies and citizenship around the internet in these parts of the world. Thank you. Okay. Thanks.

Jan Aart Scholte:
And a last word to our local host. No local host.

Akinori Maemura:
Thank you very much. That’s really, really great session with a lot of intervention. Yes, we, our discussion has been quite focused on the governance of the RIRs, but that’s how to decide. But I’d like to mention what to do, and that was Kevin Swift from the LACNIC who made an excellent presentation in the African Internet Summit two weeks ago, the title, the RIRs beyond the registry services. That presented a very good set of what kind of activity the regional internet registries are doing for the development and capacity building. It is really, really important point, and then it is increasing. The RIR is not only doing the IP address management, but helping the people to have another capacity to run the internet better. For example, in case of the APNIC, the development budget is actually as much as the membership and the registration service budget. How big, you can see the RIR is spending the money to the development. Additionally, the APNIC is doing the foundation. established the foundation to utilize such a funding to the additional development. So the membership who gathers to the RIRs subsidizes their funding to the development, which is another way how the RIR underpins the internet’s better operation. And then that’s my last comment. Thank you very much.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Just a quick comment from me. I think we also need to recognize the regional specificity. So I completely accept the points about the multi-stakeholder model, and not every RIR needs to be multi-stakeholder. It’s part of a broader multi-stakeholder ecosystem. But maybe in some regions, something different might be usable. If you look at Africa, it’s a region that has regional policy. It’s like Europe, but without the capacity. So the role of the RIR in Africa is particularly important in the African Digital Transformation Strategy, the African Union’s Agenda 2063. Having a technical community voice at an institutional level in those processes is extremely important. And if the AFRINIC ecosystem itself, if the technical registry ecosystem doesn’t give AFRINIC enough of a resource pool to draw on, then maybe it can draw on a slightly wider resource pool, bringing in people from the private sector and from civil society in a more explicit way. So I’m not saying that’s the solution. I’m just saying, look at the role, look at the opportunity, be regionally context specific. And then the one thing that we haven’t heard enough of is the NROs. So maybe that can be the topic for the workshop next year, how to evolve the umbrella structure. Great. Every project and every discussion is great when it finishes with ideas for the next one.

Jan Aart Scholte:
Good. We come to the close here. Thanks very, very much to all the participants. both speakers and panel and you in the audience here. I hope that you have consolidated thoughts about the RIRs if you’re experienced. I hope you’ve been exposed to them and got and seen that there’s an exciting world out there if the RIRs were new for you. Thanks again to everyone also for being here on this early morning on the last day of the IGF. Let’s go get our coffee and give ourselves a hand for being here. Thank you.