ISOC Member Surveys

ISOC Member Surveys

Cyber-Survey #18 - WGIG Report
Total number of survey responses: 349

Q1. Which area are you from?
Answer	Count	Percentage
Africa	36	10.32%
Asia	42	12.03%
Europe	109	31.23%
Latin America and the Caribbean	22	6.30%
North America (Canada, US, Mexico)	119	34.10%
Oceania (including Australia, New Zealand)	21	6.02%

Q2. In what way have you followed the activities of the WGIG?
Answer	Count	Percentage
I have attended one or more WGIG/WSIS meetings	28	8.02%
I followed the discussions via WGIG webcasts	47	13.47%
I followed the discussions via ISOC's briefings and web site	185	53.01%
I followed the discussions via other web sites	150	42.98%
I have not followed the WGIG activities at all	75	21.49%

Q3. The WGIG report provides the following working definition of Internet Governance: "Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." [How strongly do you agree with this definition?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	67	19.20%
Agree	187	53.58%
Neither agree or disagree	42	12.03%
Disagree	23	6.59%
Strongly disagree	22	6.30%
No opinion	8	2.29%

Q4. Issue: Administration of the root zone files and root server system of the Domain Name System (DNS) [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	151	43.27%
High priority	140	40.11%
Medium priority	42	12.03%
Low priority	8	2.29%
Very low priority	2	0.57%
No opinion	6	1.72%

Q5. WGIG recommendation: Administration of the root zone files and root server system of the Domain Name System (DNS) Define the institutional arrangements and the responsibilities and relationships between the institutions that are required to guarantee continuity of a stable and secure functioning of the root server system of the DNS. Noting that the number of root servers cannot be increased to more than 13 due to protocol limitations, carry out a requirements analysis to determine the appropriate evolution, including possible restructuring, of the architecture to meet end-user requirements. Clarify the institutional arrangements needed to guarantee continuity of a stable and secure functioning of the root system during and after a possible period of governance reform. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	82	23.50%
Agree	174	49.86%
Neither agree or disagree	29	8.31%
Disagree	33	9.46%
Strongly disagree	16	4.58%
No opinion	15	4.30%

Q6. Issue: IP addressing [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	158	45.27%
High priority	123	35.24%
Medium priority	54	15.47%
Low priority	6	1.72%
Very low priority	3	0.86%
No opinion	5	1.43%

Q7. WGIG recommendation: IP addressing Transition to IPv6 should ensure that allocation policies for IP addresses provide equitable access to resources. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	145	41.55%
Agree	148	42.41%
Neither agree or disagree	31	8.88%
Disagree	12	3.44%
Strongly disagree	3	0.86%
No opinion	10	2.87%

Q8. Issue: Interconnection costs [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	119	34.10%
High priority	119	34.10%
Medium priority	77	22.06%
Low priority	21	6.02%
Very low priority	4	1.15%
No opinion	9	2.58%

Q9. WGIG recommendation: Interconnection costs Invite international agencies and the donor community to intensify their studies in this area, in particular to examine alternative solutions, such as the development of regional IP backbones and the establishment of local and regional access points. Call on the groups studying Internet governance issues to take note of the WSIS Declaration of Principles, i.e., to be multilateral, transparent and democratic and to have the capacity to address Internet governance in a coordinated manner, based on a multi-stakeholder approach. Invite relevant international organizations to report on these matters to whatever forum, body or mechanism(s) that the WSIS will create for issues related to Internet governance and global coordination. Encourage donor programmes and other developmental financing mechanisms to take note of the need to provide funding for initiatives that advance connectivity, Internet exchange points (IXPs) and local content for developing countries. Building on current international agreements, encourage interested parties to continue and intensify work in relevant international organizations on international Internet connectivity issues [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	80	22.92%
Agree	179	51.29%
Neither agree or disagree	40	11.46%
Disagree	19	5.44%
Strongly disagree	17	4.87%
No opinion	14	4.01%

Q10. Issue: Internet stability, security and cybercrime [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	194	55.59%
High priority	99	28.37%
Medium priority	32	9.17%
Low priority	12	3.44%
Very low priority	8	2.29%
No opinion	4	1.15%

Q11. WGIG recommendation: Internet stability, security and cybercrime Efforts should be made, in conjunction with all stakeholders, to create arrangements and procedures between national law enforcement agencies consistent with the appropriate protection of privacy, personal data and other human rights. Governments, in cooperation with all stakeholders, should explore and develop tools and mechanisms, including treaties and cooperation, to allow for effective criminal investigation and prosecution of crimes committed in cyberspace and against networks and technological resources, addressing the problem of cross-border jurisdiction, regardless of the territory from which the crime was committed and/or the location of the technological means used, while respecting sovereignty. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	114	32.66%
Agree	155	44.41%
Neither agree or disagree	36	10.32%
Disagree	14	4.01%
Strongly disagree	23	6.59%
No opinion	7	2.01%

Q12. Issue: Spam [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	127	36.39%
High priority	99	28.37%
Medium priority	90	25.79%
Low priority	25	7.16%
Very low priority	4	1.15%
No opinion	4	1.15%

Q13. WGIG recommendation: Spam There is a need for global coordination among all stakeholders to develop policies and technical instruments to combat spam. WSIS should recognize the need to act against spam and include common principles of action concerning cooperation in this field. It should recognize the need to produce anti-spam efforts, not only for legislation and cross-border enforcement but also in terms of industry self-regulation, technical solutions, partnerships between Governments and the Internet community, awareness-raising and user education. Special attention should be given to the connectivity and bandwidth limitations of developing countries. A joint statement could be agreed on the occasion of the WSIS and annexed to the final document(s) of the Summit. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	113	32.38%
Agree	147	42.12%
Neither agree or disagree	47	13.47%
Disagree	23	6.59%
Strongly disagree	12	3.44%
No opinion	7	2.01%

Q14. Issue: Freedom of expression [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	208	59.60%
High priority	82	23.50%
Medium priority	46	13.18%
Low priority	5	1.43%
Very low priority	3	0.86%
No opinion	5	1.43%

Q15. WGIG recommendation: Freedom of expression Ensure that all measures taken in relation to the Internet, in particular those on grounds of security or to fight crime, do not lead to violations of human rights principles. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	200	57.31%
Agree	108	30.95%
Neither agree or disagree	18	5.16%
Disagree	12	3.44%
Strongly disagree	5	1.43%
No opinion	6	1.72%

Q16. Issue: Meaningful participation in global policy development [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	100	28.65%
High priority	121	34.67%
Medium priority	85	24.36%
Low priority	29	8.31%
Very low priority	9	2.58%
No opinion	5	1.43%

Q17. WGIG recommendation: Meaningful participation in global policy development International organizations, including intergovernmental organizations where relevant, should ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in the determination of policy decisions that affect them, and promote and support such participation. Specific efforts should be made to address the lack of funds of the different stakeholders of developing countries, which impedes them from actively and consistently participating in international Internet governance processes. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	96	27.51%
Agree	148	42.41%
Neither agree or disagree	56	16.05%
Disagree	28	8.02%
Strongly disagree	14	4.01%
No opinion	7	2.01%

Q18. Issue: Data protection and privacy rights [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	189	54.15%
High priority	111	31.81%
Medium priority	35	10.03%
Low priority	10	2.87%
Very low priority	0	0.00%
No opinion	4	1.15%

Q19. WGIG recommendation: Data protection and privacy rights Encourage countries that lack privacy and/or personal data-protection legislation to develop clear rules and legal frameworks, with the participation of all stakeholders, to protect citizens against the misuse of personal data, particularly countries with no legal tradition in these fields. The broad set of privacy-related issues described in the Background Report should be discussed in a multi-stakeholder setting so as to define practices to address them. The policies governing the WHOIS databases should be revised to take into account the existence of applicable privacy legislation in the countries of the registrar and of the registrant. Policy and privacy requirements for global electronic authentication systems should be defined in a multi-stakeholder setting; efforts should then be made to develop open technical proposals for electronic authentication that meet such requirements. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	115	32.95%
Agree	156	44.70%
Neither agree or disagree	40	11.46%
Disagree	21	6.02%
Strongly disagree	10	2.87%
No opinion	7	2.01%

Q20. Issue: Consumer rights [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	94	26.93%
High priority	112	32.09%
Medium priority	100	28.65%
Low priority	25	7.16%
Very low priority	10	2.87%
No opinion	8	2.29%

Q21. WGIG recommendation: Consumer rights Efforts should be made to render consumer protection laws and enforcement mechanisms fully and practically applicable and to protect consumers during the online purchase of physical and digital goods and online services, especially in cross-border transactions. Efforts should be made to define global consumer rights industry standards, applicable in the use and/or purchase of online services and digital goods. These efforts should be agreed by all stakeholders and should take into consideration applicable local laws and regulations on consumer protection, IPR and other relevant matters. An ongoing multi-stakeholder assessment process for newly developed technologies that may affect consumer rights should be created. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	78	22.35%
Agree	182	52.15%
Neither agree or disagree	51	14.61%
Disagree	16	4.58%
Strongly disagree	11	3.15%
No opinion	11	3.15%

Q22. Issue: Multilingualism [How important is this issue for the future of the Internet?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Very high priority	81	23.21%
High priority	92	26.36%
Medium priority	101	28.94%
Low priority	42	12.03%
Very low priority	27	7.74%
No opinion	6	1.72%

Q23. WGIG recommendation: Multilingualism Domain names: Ensuring bottom-up and inclusive development of a transparent policy for the introduction of multilingual domain names. Strengthening the participation and coordination of all Governments and all stakeholders in the governance process. This is required to push forward the development and implementation of multilingual domain name solutions, including multilingual e-mail addresses and key word lookup. Strengthening cooperation between IETF and IDN registries, thus creating a sound international environment for the further development of technical standards and action plan for global deployment. Content: More effort should be put into developing content development tools to facilitate the creation of multilingual content. Governments, the private sector and civil society are encouraged to promote and create more content in local languages to be posted on the Internet. [Do you agree with this recommendation?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	59	16.91%
Agree	141	40.40%
Neither agree or disagree	80	22.92%
Disagree	42	12.03%
Strongly disagree	16	4.58%
No opinion	11	3.15%

Q24. The WGIG report recommends a "Forum Function" to be a space for dialogue between all stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet governance-related issues. What is the best way to achieve this? [Creation of a new forum]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	65	18.62%
Agree	58	16.62%
Neither agree or disagree	71	20.34%
Disagree	67	19.20%
Strongly disagree	63	18.05%
No opinion	25	7.16%

Q24. The WGIG report recommends a "Forum Function" to be a space for dialogue between all stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet governance-related issues. What is the best way to achieve this? [Strengthening the existing governance structures (e.g. ISOC, ICANN, RIRs, W3C, IETF, IEEE etc)]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	121	34.67%
Agree	127	36.39%
Neither agree or disagree	46	13.18%
Disagree	24	6.88%
Strongly disagree	12	3.44%
No opinion	19	5.44%

Q25. If you believe there is a need for a new forum, what could ISOC's role be in that forum?
Answer	Count	Percentage
Answer	104	29.80%

Q26. If you believe in strengthening existing forums, how would you recommend that is done?
Answer	Count	Percentage
Answer	153	43.84%

Q27. The WGIG proposed four different organisational models for global Internet public policy oversight. [Please indicate how strongly you agree that a recommendation that focuses on institutional structures at this point in the process is appropriate?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	63	18.05%
Agree	110	31.52%
Neither agree or disagree	73	20.92%
Disagree	46	13.18%
Strongly disagree	32	9.17%
No opinion	25	7.16%

Q28. WGIG proposed model 1 This model envisages a Global Internet Council (GIC), consisting of members from Governments with appropriate representation from each region and with involvement of other stakeholders. This council would take over the functions relating to international Internet governance currently performed by the Department of Commerce of the United States Government. It would also replace the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). 53. The functions of the GIC should include: Setting of international Internet public policy and providing the necessary oversight relating to Internet resource management, such as additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. Setting of international public policy and coordination for other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, cybersecurity and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by other existing intergovernmental organizations. Facilitating negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies. Fostering and providing guidance on certain developmental issues in the broader Internet agenda, including but not limited to capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based international interconnection costs, and equitable access for all. Approving rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required. 54. The relationship between the GIC and technical and operational Internet institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. 55. The GIC should be anchored in the United Nations. 56. For the issues dealt with in this body, the governmental component will take a leading role. The private sector and civil society will participate in an advisory capacity. [Do you agree with this model?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	50	14.33%
Agree	87	24.93%
Neither agree or disagree	51	14.61%
Disagree	52	14.90%
Strongly disagree	86	24.64%
No opinion	23	6.59%

Q29. WGIG proposed model 2 57. There is no need for a specific oversight organization. 58. It may be necessary to enhance the role of ICANN�s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in order to meet the concerns of some Governments on specific issues. 59. The forum, as proposed in section V.A.1 above, with full and equal participation of all stakeholders, could, in addition to the various functions set out therein, provide coordination functions for participating stakeholders and produce analysis and recommendations on some issues. 60. This forum would provide a coordination function for participating stakeholders by creating a space in which all issues involving the existing Internet governance organizations could be openly discussed. These discussions will be enabled by the transparency of the participating organizations and participation should include a commitment to transparency. 61. The forum would also interact with or create specific issue initiatives to produce analyses or recommendations on different Internet-related issues. The initiatives should include all the stakeholders involved in the issue and would make recommendations to the forum and to the stakeholders. [Do you agree with this model?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	36	10.32%
Agree	105	30.09%
Neither agree or disagree	75	21.49%
Disagree	68	19.48%
Strongly disagree	37	10.60%
No opinion	28	8.02%

Q30. WGIG proposed model 3 62. For policy issues involving national interests, given that no single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance, an International Internet Council (IIC) could fulfil the corresponding functions, especially in relation to ICANN/IANA competencies. 63. In addition, its functions might include international public policy issues relating to Internet resource management and international public policy issues that do not fall within the scope of other existing intergovernmental organizations. 64. For those issues, the governmental component of the IIC will take a leading role, with the private sector and civil society providing advice. 65. Equally, the IIC could perform a fostering role for certain developmental issues on the broader Internet agenda. 66. The new body could make the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) redundant. 67. This internationalization should be accompanied by an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. [Do you agree with this model?]
Answer	Count	Percentage
Strongly agree	26	7.45%
Agree	67	19.20%
Neither agree or disagree	93	26.65%