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

Arguments

APNIC took concrete steps to resolve issues of abusive conduct in elections

---

APNIC's governance is balanced and inclusive

---

Role of RIRs has expanded beyond IP address management to help in capacity building and development

---

Report

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.

Arguments

The financial support from APNIC Foundation and LACNIC Partnerships has strengthened the community-centered connectivity ecosystem.

---

The advocacy role of these organizations in extending internet in global south spaces is critical.

---

Knowledge sharing events like the summits build networks and strengthen the ecosystem.

---

There is an imbalance in terms of whose voices are loudest in multi-stakeholder internet governance. More strong institutions are needed in the global south.

---

Not all RIRs are equally multi-stakeholder

---

There could be bottlenecks within how RIRs currently operate

---

Importance to recognize regional specificity and the diverse ways multi-stakeholder model can be implemented

---

Evolve the umbrella structure of the NROs

---

Report

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.

Arguments

The RIRs were founded on principles including better customer service, time zones, languages and regional policy, aimed towards best suited policies for a region.

---

Report

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.

Arguments

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have facilitated the participation of local communities in global internet governance.

---

The need for RIRs was born out of community demands for more relevant and accessible internet governance.

---

Latin American RIRs, particularly LACNIC, have made important contributions to their communities.

---

RIRs and the way they define regions could affect how we perceive geographies, cultures, and policies

---

Report

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.

Arguments

The strengths of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) lie in their ability to build trust and reflect regional issues

---

The Network Operator Groups (NRO) and RIRs need to strengthen each other and send a clear message about their proactive action plans

---

Multi-stakeholderism in RIRs is more about their global engagement, outreach, and diverse participation

---

Encouraging greater diversity, in terms of representation from small operators and SMEs, gender diversity including women and non-binary participants, is crucial

---

Report

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.

Arguments

RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) are crucial actors in internet governance, shaping the way data is transmitted on our global internet. They also have implications on addressing digital divides, particularly in the Global South.

---

South-based RIRs, such as AFRINIC, APNIC, and LACNIC, could potentially be instrumental in tackling digital divides and fostering inclusion in internet governance.

---

The legitimacy of South-based RIRs is crucial for effective internet governance

---

There is variation in the levels of confidence between the different South-based Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) being studied.

---

Report

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.

Arguments

The legitimacy, trust, and confidence in Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are crucial for internet governance

---

The three RIRs based in the global south (AFRINIC, APNIC, and LACNIC), are unique in their structure and focus.

---

Implications can be severe when RIRs run into legitimacy difficulties.

---

The importance of process, procedures, and governance structures to internet governance

---

Questioning if multi-stakeholderism is different when it's regional

---

Proposing regionalism in internet governance as a potential solution

---

Report

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.

Arguments

The legitimacy of even the identifiers themselves

---

AFRINIC does not really have legitimacy problems

---

AFRINIC has been able to rally many of the ecosystem communities around.

---

AFRINIC's presence is actually missed.

---

The technical communities contribution to IGF is the multi-stakeholder process

---

Open organizations with programs that bring in new people can have wider than purely the technical community participating actively in policy development

---

Resilience is necessary for organizations, reflecting in their bylaws to ensure fairness and efficiency in allocating resources.

---

Need to update the bylaws after appointing a new board and CEO to prevent commercial disputes and bad acting

---

Need to be more legally astute and responsive due to potential for higher value litigation.

---

Report

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.

Arguments

Paul Wilson welcomes the recognition and appreciation of the RIRs by Jan-Arte and Hortense

---

Paul Wilson acknowledges the changing times and complexity of internet governance

---

The RIRs are often taken for granted even though they are still crucial

---

There is an opportunity for RIRs to work more closely with ICANN

---

RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) don't need to have internal multi-stakeholder structure that accommodates the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) structures - multi-stakeholder approach is contextual

---

RIRs are active participants in the multi-stakeholder Internet governance system and make themselves open to participation

---

Paul Wilson emphasizes the importance of reporting back to communities about their activities

---

Paul Wilson stresses the need to actively encourage community members to be part of the process

---

Paul Wilson highlights the shift from a passive to a more active and inclusive approach

---

Report

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.

Arguments

There should be more focus on the concept of legitimacy by mandate versus legitimacy by acceptance in the Internet community.

---

The economics of the internet operation and the reflection of market power exercised through it need more attention.

---

The dominance of the five platform companies on the internet needs to be addressed, reflected upon and included in governance considerations.

---

Report

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.