Concept paper on IGF 2013 Indonesia Bali from Nepal’s Perspective

Nepal’s Position on IGF 2013 Indonesia Bali

Introduction:
Asia is a growing economy, where radical changes are happening in terms of technology and resources. Internet and its dynamic have changed its usual form from a networking channel to a daily commodity where every individual hold rights of privacy and individuality. Whether it’s about hacking or child exploitation or pornography, internet security today is the most vulnerable issue which demands a proper mechanism and regulation. Due to absence of standardization in policies and mechanism the externalities are materializing to a new level where it’s establishing itself as threat to everyone in one or the other form. However, the issue of security is high on alert where especially developing and underdeveloped countries are suffering the consequence due to the laps of standard security policy.

According to Jeremy Malcolm, “Multi-stakeholder governance is a fresh approach to the development of public policy, bringing together governments, the private sector and civil society in partnership. The movement towards this new governance paradigm has been most marked in areas involving global networks of stakeholders, too intricate to be represented by governments alone. Nowhere is this better illustrated than on the Internet, where it is an inherent characteristic of the network that laws, and the conduct, to which those laws are directed, will cross national borders.”

Thus, the concept of Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a dynamic approach which gives opportunities to multi stake holders in overcoming the various aspects of net neutrality and digital divide. It also helps in further accessing to establish a uniform mechanism addressing the needs of all the stakeholders from developed countries to developing and underdeveloped countries. Especially the vacuum between the developed and developing /underdeveloped countries needs a certain platform which would address their problems and issues. It would further help in highlighting the corporate or social responsibility prioritizing the rights of information access by completely abolishing discrimination. I strongly believe that IGF is an effective tool which needs to be reviewed as a weapon against irregularities and externalities where the developed nation should endorse it for future growth and prospects.

Advantages of IGF

•         A board platform to address issues and problems
•         A standard policy and mechanism to address the problems of world over
•        Control over digital divide and net neutrality
•        No bias system
•     Equal opportunity of business and exposure
•     Bilateral relationship
•     Effectiveness in growth and monitoring of internet
•     Issue like pornography, cyber crimes, hacking and exploitation can be easily overcome
•     Better security policies

Disadvantages of IGF

• Hard to control and monitor due to number of countries
• Hard for developing and underdeveloped to keep up with developed countries in terms of technology and manpower
• Standard policies means competition which would be hard for underdeveloped and developing countries

Nepal’s status:
Internet governance affects various critical issues such as open access, freedom of expression, innovation and new applications, commerce, development, and security which cannot be underlined.

As of mid-June 2013, there were 6.84 million internet users in Nepal. The market is lead by big two organization Ncell and Nepal Telecom which covers 97 percent of the customers. The country’s internet penetration rate had reached 25.82 percent of the total population of 26.49 million as of mid-June 2013. The penetration rate was 19 percent a year ago. Bandwidth use has soared with the rising popularity of social networking sites, email and internet video. Facebook, YouTube and Google are the top three websites visited by Nepali internet users.

Digital Development has set new goals, regarding affordability and accessibility of broadband for countries in order to accelerate the progress of the Millennium Development Goals. These goals will materialize if there is fair play in the market place. Around 90 percent of the country’s data customers are mobile GPRS users. The remaining 10 percent are the users of 3G service, ADSL, optical fibre, cable modem, EDVO, CDMA 1X, dial up and WiMax services. 

Nepal’s telecom companies and internet service providers (ISPs) paid Rs 3.76 billion to international carriers in bandwidth fees to access the internet in the last fiscal year where as its licensees paid Rs 2.58 billion as bandwidth charges during the previous fiscal 2011-12.

Challenges and Prospects:

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is the only global forum where all Internet stakeholders are openly invited with no reservation to discuss operational, technical, commercial, and administrative aspects of managing Internet growth. It is a right of every individual country to search and look for options and to make their voices heard in regards to their problems and best practice that can further help improve the internet. Nepal being a part of the global Internet network needs to have its position clear in the IGF

• Importance of use and access: Internet has established itself as a daily commodity where the standardization in use and access of internet is a major hurdle for Nepal. Nepali customers can choose from an array of services ranging from wireless GPRS and high speed lease line service to 3G mobile data service. Though the use and access has phenomenally gone but still the prices are very high in comparison to normal standard

The number of data subscribers has increased to 6.4 million as of mid-April from 4.6 million a year ago (as of mid-April 2012). According to the NTA, a majority of the internet subscribers are cell phone users who use GPRS — a mobile data service
 

• Online money and e-transaction are getting popular with globalization the lack of payment gateway seems as one of the major hindrance for developing  countries like Nepal 

• Reach and diversity: The reach and penetration of internet has definitely gone up by 25.82 percent of the total population of 26.49 million as of mid-June 2013. The penetration rate last year was 19 percent
  
• Privacy and Security:  According to the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB), this year 19 major cases of cyber crime were filed in the fiscal year 2012/13 compared to nine the previous year. The cases filed were mostly related to social networking site, cyber frauds, cyber threats, illegal data access and website hacking (two each), fake lottery, phishing, email fraud, email threat and ATM fraud.   Cases related to Facebook accounted for the largest number of cases with 10 reported incidents. With increased Internet use, particularly for the purpose of e-commerce — business agreement, paying and receiving money through Internet — some people have lodged complaint at the Central Investigation Bureau after their on-line transactions were hacked by phishing

• Censorship: In protagonist approach the leading organization in internet like Internet Society (ISOC), ICANN and the U.S. government have branded internet and internet freedom with standardization and committed efforts. The Multistakeholder Model of the IGF is a live testimonial of that but with the increasing censorship and restriction between centralized hierarchical, internet governance has adopted a more regulated and censored approach that is  contradictory to rights of privacy. The national governments of any nation can provide legitimate and rights-respecting modes of ordering society within their jurisdiction, but expanding and covering outside is a question of debate in any matter or situation where is a threats to Internet freedom and privacy

• Policy and openness: Nepal lacks policy and crisis management in terms of internet dynamics. The current electronic transaction act 2008 is in midst of upgrade but it has loopholes in terms of practice  and standardization

 

• Upgrading to IPV6: IPV6 is yet another issue of concern for the regulatory body in regards to its management and operation. The global shift of IPV6 from IPV4 is not a question of choice but a necessity of  time where Nepal needs affective human resource and policy  to handle the technology 

• Lack of National and regional backbone infrastructure: Nepal is on the verge of technology explosion, there are loads of opportunities as well prospects aspiring but with the lack of proper vision and coordination, it makes no sense. With the rise in technologies, such as those based on wireless, and regional licensing of multiple players, investment in and development of national and regional backbone capacity is becoming a major policy issue 

• High International interconnection costs: For many ISPs in developing countries, the cost of buying international circuits and transit services for end-to-end connectivity in the Internet remains a major issue. In essence the nature of the cost of transit depends on the volume and flow of traffic within a network and within a country. The total cost to ISPs is influenced by many factors including local and regional connectivity, the availability of local content as well as the cost of international circuits

• The Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA) national regulator of Nepal has been aiming to roll out fiber-optic networks along the Mid-Hill Highway to connect the country from the east to west.  Using monies supplied by Nepal’s Rural Telecommunication Development Fund which is thought to be worth NPR7 billion (USD80.9 million) the plan seems to be taking its shape. However, efforts to connect around 75 administrative districts have so far stalled due to what have been termed ‘procedural’ delays. 

• Cyber attack and warfare:  The game of cyber control has been an issue for super power countries where it has claimed that cyberattacks are mainly state-sponsored, initiated predominantly by countries like China, Iran, and Russia. Cyber espionage is yet another fight for survivable but the current US government PRISM does not justifies the use of censorship and surveillance. Cyber attack and warfare is not a question of just standardization issue but more of a policy that needs more concerned attention.

Suggestion and recommendation:

1.   Internet should be allowed universal access with a neutral approach in regards to censorship free  Internet that would preserve the rights and guarantee its use
2.   Cyber security needs a global public-private partnership, which entails the standardization approach from every side and corner. There is no credible alternative to the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance, if a multi-stakeholder model is abandoned, the World Wide Web would cease to exist.
3. ICANN being the epicenter of internet should become more transparent, structured, accountable, and represent a multi-stakeholder framework if it wants to survive as a private regulator.
4. An environment of global trust needs to be adopted by the super power countries in accordance to use  and standardization of internet
5.  Developed countries / Super power need to address the issues and voices of developing and underdeveloped countries as the challenges of internet starts from here
6. Internet works with global dynamics it cannot be re-modeled into limited stakeholdership, it needs to  maintain its originality with all its values and dynamics  where every internet user have their right to speak for their interest, privacy and security
7. Google privacy issue is a question to all as after the news of US surveillance, it is radically impossible to understand and to safeguard privacy of an individual online. With an interconnection of services like Google(maps, contacts, gmail etc) you are completely vulnerable to your rights of privacy   

The IGF is a multi-stakeholder forum, providing an inclusive and transparent environment which floors a platform to discuss Internet policy. Internet governance is not just a responsibility of policy makers and regulator, it’s the ideal thought of multistakeholder model that collaborates and cooperates with every individual and his right for using and security his rights. Moreover, it is an opportunity to see and to feel the world of internet that is full of practices that needs proper vision and direction.

Writer’s information

My wikipedia: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shreedeep_Rayamajhi_(activist)
My CV:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/shreedeeprayamajhi

Blog : http://www.internetgovernancediplomacy.blogspot.com

Website: http://www.RayZnews.com

CIMA: http://www.cima.ned.org/docs/CIMA-Blogging.pdf
World Bank Blog: http://www.blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/provocative-voices-profiles-blogging