Working Draft
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
Second Annual Meeting
Rio de Janeiro 12-15 November 2007
Conference Room Paper
Submitted to the Open Consultations, Geneva, 3 September 2007
Prepared by the IGF Secretariat
Contents
Section
Page
Introduction
3
General Aspects
4
Institutional Aspects
6
The Five Broad Themes
7
Critical Internet Resources
7
Access
8
Diversity
9
Openness
10
Security
11
Annex: List of Submissions
13
Page 2
CRP/03.09.07
I.
Introduction
1.
The inaugural meeting of the IGF was held in Athens, on 30 October 2 November
2006. As a follow-up to that meeting the Secretariat issued a call for contributions on the
IGF Web site on 11 December 2006 with the aim to take stock of the Athens meeting,
assess what worked well and what worked less well and make suggestions with regard to
the preparation of the meeting in Rio de Janeiro. An online form was also posted to
facilitate the process. To stimulate the discussion, the Secretariat set up an online forum
on the IGF Web site. 813 users joined the forum and seven active discussion threads were
developed on the four broad themes of the Athens meeting as well as on how to improve
remote participation.
2.
As a first step for preparing the Rio de Janeiro meeting, a stock taking session took
place on 13 February 2007. A synthesis paper was produced as in input into the February
meeting. The paper addressed both the things that worked well and those that worked less
well in the inaugural meeting of the IGF.
3.
The preparatory process for the second meeting of the IGF was conducted in an
open, inclusive and transparent manner. A first round of public consultations, open to all
stakeholders, was held in Geneva on 16-17 February. From these consultations emerged a
draft programme and schedule for the second meeting of the IGF. The consultations
allowed all stakeholders, including individual participants with proven expertise and
competence, to take part on an equal footing.
4.
As with the first year, there was a general view that he IGF needed to maintain an
overall development orientation. Capacity building was the most frequently addressed
issue in the public consultations and was addressed in several of the contributions. It was
presented not only in terms of the growing consensus for its priority in enabling
meaningful participation but also as a specific policy issue. When looking at capacity
building, it was pointed out that access to education, culture and knowledge was a
recognized human right. The necessity of fostering the ability of all stakeholders from all
countries to participate in the process of Internet governance was also pointed out. It was
suggested that explicit action should be taken to explore the offering of relevant Internet
Governance educational resources online.
5.
The second IGF meeting to be held in Rio de Janeiro will include the four
themes from the first meeting in Athens Greece as well as one additional theme.
Specifically, these are:
- Critical Internet resources;
- Access - Internet connectivity: Policy and cost, dealing with the availability and
affordability of the Internet including issues such as interconnection costs,
interoperability and open standards;
- Diversity Promoting multilingualism, including IDN, and local content;
- Openness - Freedom of expression, free flow of information, ideas and knowledge;
- Security - Creating trust and confidence through collaboration, particularly by
protecting users from spam, phishing and viruses while protecting privacy.
Page 3
CRP/03.09.07
6.
The programme for the second IGF meeting will also include a session on emerging
issues.
7.
On 20 August the mandate of the Advisory Group was renewed. The UN Secretary-
General's Special Adviser for Internet Governance Nitin Desai, and Hadil da Rocha
Vianna, Director for Scientific and Technological Affairs in Brazil's Ministry of External
Relations, representing the Host Country, were appointed as co-chairs of the Advisory
Group. The 47 Advisory Group members serve in their personal capacity. They have
been chosen from governments, the private sector and civil society, including the
academic and technical communities, representing all regions.
8.
This background paper is conceived as an input into the discussion of the second
IGF meeting. It is organized in terms of the five broad key themes of the Rio de Janeiro
meeting. It summarizes the 28 submissions that were received from 12 different
contributors prior to the consultations of 3 September. It also draws on earlier
contributions and papers and will be completed following the consultations. This paper
does not necessarily cover every argument in every submission; all the submissions can
be found, in full, on the IGF Secretariat Web site:
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions.htm.
II.
General aspects
9.
There was a general recognition that the first IGF meeting in Athens, Greece, had
been an effective beginning that should be built upon. One commentator1 commented that
the emergence of shared best practices and the dynamic coalitions provided testimony to
its success.
10.
Issues surrounding the nature of Internet governance were raised by several of the
contributions to the IGF consultation process. These contributions focused on several
themes, in particular the general organizational setting of existing Internet governance
mechanisms, the processes they invoke as well as the management and tasks of Internet
governance organizations.
11.
Several of the comments received during the course of the year discussed the ways
in which Internet governance mechanisms could only be understood in a broader set of
issues and international and national policy frameworks. For example, one2 contribution
pointed out that Internet Governance, for its members, incorporated the principles and
frameworks which are designed to ensure development of the Internet and the
Information Society. Thus, Internet governance issues embrace The European
Convention on Human Rights and other Council of Europe instruments, like the
Cybercrime Convention, which provide a framework for examining State responsibilities
and guiding State policies.
12.
One Intergovernmental Organization3 expressed the view that Internet governance
must be governed in all respects by human rights, particularly the freedom of expression.
1
Nippon Keidanren
2
Council of Europe (CoE)
3
CoE
Page 4
CRP/03.09.07
13.
The role of the IGF was debated in several of the submissions. Some4 emphasized
that the IGF mandate was clearly set out in the WSIS Principles and Tunis Agenda. A
government contribution5 emphasized the importance of focusing "on the public policy
issues related to Internet governance in accordance with the mandates of IGF as tasked by
the Tunis Phase of World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)"6 with a special
focus on the issue of critical Internet resources.
14.
One contribution7 called the IGF "the only truly global and democratic forum for
multi-stakeholder participation in Internet Governance, and that it should, therefore, be
strengthened and made more effective in a manner that it is able to fulfil all parts of the
Tunis mandate."8 The comment also stated that the IGF should not be diluted by fears that
it could be a method for a governments' takeover of the Internet.
15.
There was some concern expressed in the consultations about the balance of
interests in a multi-stakeholder environment. Some argued that the IGF could be in
danger of being captured by dominant political and business interests9. To prevent that,
they argued that the IGF should focus on the development issues surrounding the Internet
as a public infrastructure with a strong public goods perspective. One contribution10 stated
that there had been little discussion about the definition of a development agenda.
Identifying the development agenda with capacity building was inadequate as this just
helped to reinforce the status quo.
16.
One contribution11 wrote about discussions in Africa that emphasised the
importance of localizing Internet governance. The localization would enable not only the
expression of local concerns, but would help in bringing these perspectives to
international attention. There was also a strong concern for ensuring the multi-
stakeholder nature of the communities at the local level, as well as at the regional and
international levels.
4
e.g. China, IT for change
5
The People's Republic of China
6
Comments on the Draft Programme Outline for the Second Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) By the People's
Republic of China, 27 Aug. 2007
7
IT for change
8
Four Critical Issues for the IGF from a Southern Perspective, IT for Change, page
9
IT for Change
10 IT for Change
11 ISOC
Page 5
CRP/03.09.07
III.
Institutional aspects
17.
Several structural recommendations for the IGF were made in one contribution12.
The first of these involved including a thorough self assessment and self examination of
the IGF, conducted in an open and transparent manner, as a regular exercise at IGF
meeting. It further recommended that the IGF develop a process for making
recommendations. The contribution stated that this was mandated not only by the Tunis
Agenda but was integral to the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
recommendation for an IGF. It emphasized that it was important to consider the WGIG
report in reviewing the IGF function because the WGIG report, unlike the Tunis Agenda
was the product of consensual multi-stakeholder authorship. It recommended that the IGF
work towards a multi-stakeholder `standing IGF committee' (or working group) along the
lines of the WGIG, which would give regular, non-binding recommendations on different
Internet Governance issues. This body could follow the WGIG model of providing a
consensus-based recommendations report, and of placing other strong points and
proposals that do not get complete consensus into a background paper.13
18.
Several contributions from the business sector14 commented that the reason for the
IGF's success to date was because it did not attempt to make decisions, but rather allowed
for open discussion by all stakeholders in an open atmosphere. One contribution15 pointed
to the "value of the IGF is its open and informative nature, allowing a variety of views to
be expressed, and the full range of experience and expertise to be shared so that all can
continue to learn more about how to use, grow and expand, and protect the key
communications and information resource that the Internet has become. As such, the first
recommendation we would make is that the organizers ensure that the IGF remain
consistent with its mandate for facilitating a dialogue and not engaging in the negotiation
of formal documents."
19.
An individual contribution16 contained an extended analysis of the theoretical basis
for collective decision making in the context of the reform of Internet Governance. His
contribution also produced a report card of the IGF's first year and recommendations for
ways in which the IGF could be improved. Specifically, his recommendations, based on
his analysis of the "specific roles of policy setting and coordination that are inherent in
the IGF's function as a governance network, as well as being mandated by the Tunis
Agenda"17, included the following points:
-
The plenary should be reorganized to be less of an annual event and more of a
process that would coordinate intersessional and regional events. Additionally,
greater online and remote participation, including discussion and deliberation
should be possible, with assistance provided to enable a greater number of
participants from developing countries
-
There should be "institutional checks and balances to ensure the structure of a
dynamic coalition" and "formal mechanism by which reports or recommendations
by the dynamic coalitions could be received by the IGF's plenary body as an input
12 IT for change
13 ibid
14 e.g., Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), Nippon Keidanren
15 ITAA
16 Jeremy Malcolm
17 Recommendations for the Internet Governance Forum , Jeremy Malcolm, 10 august 2007, page 39
Page 6
CRP/03.09.07
to its policy-setting role."18
-
A call for a new, democratically or consensually appointed multi-stakeholder
body. This new body would be responsible for many of the activities currently
done by the Advisory Group and the Secretariat, including the preparation of the
agenda, programme and synthesis papers. It would also be responsible for
creating background briefing reports that would be used by the plenary and would
produce responses to the substantive issues, based on its assessment of the
consensus within the plenary. This group would also be responsible for choosing
the Secretariat and any necessary Advisory Groups. The multi-stakeholder body
itself could be selected by a form of nominating committee process that would
select "a balanced group of individuals appointed as representatives of their
stakeholder groups, who are to deliberate on its operational programme together,
but to exercise a power of veto of its formal recommendations within the
stakeholder groups."19
20.
One contribution20 recommended that if changes were to be made to the Advisory
group, that they be made ensuring geographical balance and diversity, for example in
gender. It also stated that any appointed advisers to the either of the co-chairs be
announced, and that their responsibilities be clearly defined in a transparent manner. The
contribution also stated that as no single advisor could fully represent the concerns of a
stakeholder group, it was important that members of the Advisory Group understood that
they needed to reflect the views of a wide segment of the community from which they
were selected.. The contribution also recommended that any changes in the composition
of the Advisory Group be open to discussion and consultation.
21.
A survey taken within the membership of an Internet community stakeholder21
"expressed a range of ideas to help localize Internet Governance discussions so that
national stakeholders have the opportunity to share their ideas at IGF meetings, and to
encourage IGF leaders to structure discussions at the national level (bottom- top
process)".
IV.
The five broad themes of the inaugural IGF meeting
A.
Critical Internet Resources
22.
A government contribution22 made some concrete proposals:
-
The inclusion of capacity training in the details of the management of critical
Internet resources should be part of the IGF agenda. This could be done by the
relevant stakeholders currently responsible for the mechanisms and structures
involved in the status quo of the current administration of critical resources.
-
That all stakeholders, especially governments, use the platform of the IGF to
discuss the participation in the public policy issues of the governance of
critical Internet resources. These discussions should reflect "fully the
principles of multilateralism, democracy and transparency of Internet
18 ibid page 43
19 ibid page 45
20 ITAA
21 Internet Society
22 The People's Republic of China
Page 7
CRP/03.09.07
governance."23
-
There should be a discussion on the distribution of Internet addresses "within
the IGF framework on how to ensure the equitable access by all countries to
IPv6 address resources and how to promote balanced development of future
Internet in all countries particularly developing countries during the transition
from IPv4 to Ipv6."24
-
There should be discussions concerning the issue of "equitable addition,
deletions and adjustment of gTLDs."25
23.
Several of the contributions26 supported a broad concept of critical resources, At the
same time, all of the contributions that wrote of Critical Internet Resource issues
underscored the importance of names and numbers.
24.
One contribution27 stated that the governance of critical Internet resources had
significant public policy implications. When private organizations, for example the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), were responsible for
these resources, especially the resources that concerned state public policy concerns,
these organizations became agents of the state and should be subject to state regulation
and oversight. They also wrote that ICANN, which is currently only answerable to the
United States, should be answerable to the international community at large.
25.
One contribution28 recommended that "the political assumptions and objectives of
exiting structures and processes" in governance of critical Internet resources be
examined. An examination needed to be undertaken of the political assumptions and
objectives of exiting structures and processes of such governance, including an
examination of who the beneficiaries are from the status quo. The very nature of issues
involved in the governance of critical Internet resources needed to be discussed. Such a
discussion needed to examine the nature of technical issues versus public policy, the
nature of their overlap/ interface, as well as their appropriate institutional mechanisms.
26.
Another contribution29 commented that the current private sector arrangements for
Internet operations and management were working well and should not be changed. They
also commented that since ICANN was still under a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the United States, a way to achieve greater neutrality and to promote global
management of the Internet should be discussed. The contribution emphasized that IGF
should not have any oversight role.
B.
Access
27.
Many speakers during the preparatory process pointed out that the IGF that, despite
the rapid spread of the Internet, five billion people remained without access to this
23 Comments on the Draft Programme Outline for the Second Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) By the People's
Republic of China, 27 Aug. 2007
24 ibid
25 ibid
26 e.g., ICC/BASIS
27 Council of Europe
28 IT for Change
29 Nippon Keidanren
Page 8
CRP/03.09.07
important tool for economic growth and social development. They recalled that access
could, therefore, be the single most important issue to most people, in particular in
developing countries.
28.
One contribution30 wrote that achieving the public service value of the Internet
required universal and affordable access to ICT infrastructure for all. In their view this
required a stable legal and regulatory structure that made it safe for businesses to invest.
They also called on states to provide public access points to provide a "minimum set of
communication and information facilities, in accordance with the principle of universal
community service".31
29.
Another contribution32 indicated that building out the infrastructure was
indispensable for bridging the digital divide especially in rural areas. They also
recommended that any build out of infrastructure be accompanied by education on ways
of using the Internet
30.
One stakeholder contribution33 put emphasis on the importance of the 'Access to
Access theme' with the context of access to knowledge. They wrote that without capacity
building in the fundamental skills necessary to use the technology the Internet brings,
"considerable portions of the population [that] would never have access."34
31.
There was one report35 from an Internet Governance session held at a meeting held
in Abuja, Nigeria in May 2007. Speakers at this meeting spoke of the importance of
encouraging regulatory reform at the local level in order to enable "a more conducive and
lower cost access environment."36
32.
A contribution from the business community37 wrote of the importance of the public
sector recommendations from the WTO in establishing the correct regulatory and
political environment for the deployment and public adoption of a broadband
infrastructure. Elements of this policy included telecommunications liberalization as well
as pro-competitive regulations for basic telecommunications. They also discussed the
importance of ensuring efficient and effective use of radio spectrum which could involve
removal of government restrictions on the services that can be used on certain
frequencies and the elimination of artificial spectrum scarcity. In the case of rural, remote
and other under accessed services, this contribution supports government policy to
provide such access, including some subsidizations for rural or lower income customers,
if these are pursued in a transparent and competition neutral manner and through the use
of general tax revenues or tax incentives.
C.
Diversity
30 Council of Europe
31 Building a Free and Safe Internet; Council of Europe Submission to the Internet Governance, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 12 to 15
November 2007, page 13
32 Nippon Keidanren
33 Internet Society
34 Findings from the Internet Society's Internet governance session at the INET meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, 4 May 2007
35 ibid
36 ibid
37 ICC/BASIS
Page 9
CRP/03.09.07
33.
While it was generally applauded that by now almost one billion people use the
Internet, it was also pointed out that many of these people could not read or write in
English, and they used languages that do not use the Latin alphabet. It was generally
recognized that people everywhere should be able to use the Internet in their own
language. A multilingual Internet would foster an inclusive, democratic, legitimate,
respectful, and locally empowering Information Society.
34.
One of the contributions38 discussed the importance of promoting and protecting
locally developed content, including content that is not commercially viable, as a means
of increasing the diversity on the Internet. They also discussed the importance of
language communities in developing multilingual content, including content in
indigenous and minority languages.
35.
Several contributions discussed the importance of Internationalized Domain Names
(IDN) as essential for continued Internet development. One39 indicated that "a
multilingual environment will increase local interest in Internet content and increase the
possibilities for all language groups to share and access information in their own
languages".
36.
Another of the contributions40 suggested that stakeholders should share technology
and know how to help the elderly and people with disabilities to use the network without
the stress they normally experience in dealing with the Internet.
37.
One contribution41 stated that the introduction of IDN could become mired in many
problems that could adversely affect business and consumers alike. A major concern
involved the confusion that might occur across language, or script, boundaries. These
confusions could affect consumer trust of trademarks and make protecting the intellectual
property rights prohibitively expensive for business. Concerns also extended to the
fraudulent use that could be done in the case of confusion used for phishing attacks.
Another major concern for the business community was the need to maintain a single
domain name space across various language and script boundaries.
D.
Openness
38.
Throughout the preparatory process, many speakers and contributors highlighted
the importance of openness as one of the key founding principles and characteristics of
the Internet. The open nature of the Internet was seen as part of its uniqueness, and its
importance as a tool to advance human development. It was emphasized that the Internet
provided for a robust and unencumbered exchange of information, and welcomed
millions of individuals as users from all corners of the world. Internet users traded ideas
and information and built on both, thus increasing the wealth of knowledge for everyone,
today and in the future. The openness of the Internet was also seen as a key feature to
ensure its stability and security.
38 Council of Europe
39 ibid
40 Nipon Keidanren
41 ICC/BASIS
Page 10
CRP/03.09.07
39.
Many have pointed out that the Internet makes it possible for more people than ever
before to communicate and therefore to express themselves. Access to knowledge and
empowering people with information and knowledge that is available on the Internet was
seen as a critical objective of an inclusive Information Society and to continued economic
and social development.
40.
Several contributions42 stressed the importance that the Internet be underpinned by
the democratic values of openness and accessibility.
41.
One stakeholder43 commented that while government regulations should be created
against content that infringed on trademarks or privacy, there should be cooperation
between governments and self-regulation on harmful content such as obscenity. Self-
regulation in Japan, for instance, had been effective in finding an effective balance
between the protection of copyright and privacy, and freedom of opinion and expression.44
E.
Security
42.
Many contributors and speakers throughout the preparatory process emphasized
that Internet security was a key element of building confidence and trust among users of
ICTs. They argued that the Internet had the potential to enable users to access and
generate a wealth of information and opportunity. Achieving the Internet's full potential
to support commercial and social relationships required an environment that promoted
and ensured users' trust and confidence and provided a stable and secure platform for
commerce.
43.
One of the submissions45 explained that because users were entitled to security, they
would ultimately hold the state responsible for a security failure in the Internet. There
were concerns46 that security issues in the Internet would erode the confidence that users
needed in order to do business, for example buy goods, on the Internet. This was tied into
a notion of trust in the Internet, though the notions of trust were broader then just security
and extended to the idea that the Internet was a space of freedom that people could use
with confidence.
44.
A contribution from the business community47 wrote that the main role for
government was to raise awareness and promote a culture of Internet security that
balanced the responsibilities of users and businesses. Business remained committed to
fighting cybercrime.
45.
Several of the contributions discussed the issues of web security, especially in
regards to children's safety.
46.
A contribution48 also included a recommendation for the applicability of various
42 e.g., The Council of Europe
43 Nippon Keidanren
44 Proposals to Synthesis Paper, Nippon Keidanren
45 The Council of Europe
46 CoE and ICC/BASIS
47 ICC/BASIS
48 CoE
Page 11
CRP/03.09.07
international conventions such as:
-
on cybercrime,
-
on prevention of terrorism,
-
on protection of individuals and automatic processing of personal data,
-
on action against trafficking in human beings,
-
on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
47.
One contribution49 wrote that education for responsible use of the network was a
major challenge. Several contributions included the concern that people should be
educated in using the Internet safely and with respect for others. There was also a concern
that education should extend to other issues on Internet security such as the activities of
Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs).
48.
One contribution50 wrote that national and regional efforts may not be enough to
deal with problems such as email virus distribution or cybercrime. The cross border
nature of cybercrime made dealing with it especially difficult, making this an issue that
requires international cooperation on best practices and international response
mechanisms like the Forum of Incident and Security Teams.
49.
A contribution from a university51 recommended a solution for protecting children
on the Internet from pornography and predators. The solution would involve zoning
Internet ports so that all pornography would be kept off the port normally used for web
traffic, but would rather be moved a port specifically designated for adult traffic. The
proposal explained that based on the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, zoning of the
Internet was justifiable in the defence and protection of children.
50.
Another contribution52 proposed that ICANN accept responsibility for controlling
online illegal content and for protecting children from Internet pornography. Their
proposal built on the responsibility that ICANN has for the domain name system (DNS),
and the fact that ICANN has already taken broader responsibility for creating and
administering policy beyond its technical and operational role. Specifically the proposal
includes using the existing structure of contracts, MOUs and policies to help countries in
carrying out their regulation of pornography.
51.
One contribution53 stated that direct action by governments in the interception and
monitoring of Internet content may compromise the overall security and confidence of
users in the Internet. It recommended a policy of self regulation with voluntary labelling
as an alternative to legislation. In case where legislation was absolutely necessary, the
contribution recommended that the legislation be clear, precise and narrowly focused to
those abuse areas requiring such legislation, as unnecessary legislation had what was
termed a chilling effect on the Internet as a tool for business and for promoting economic
development. Additionally, such legislations should not place undue burdens or costs on
business and should limit the liability put on Internet service providers.
49 CoE
50 Nippon Keidanren
51 Brigham Young University
52 Cheryl Preston and Brent A. Little
53 ICC/BASIS
Page 12
CRP/03.09.07
[to be completed after the consultations of 3 September 2007]
Page 13
CRP/03.09.07
Annex
List of Submissions
1. People's Republic of China; Comments on the Draft Programme Outline for the
Second Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
2. Council of Europe - Building a Free and Safe Internet
3. International Chamber of Commerce/Business Action to Support the Information
Society (BASIS)
-
General - Further updated ICC matrix of issues related to the Internet and
organizations dealing with them May 2006.This matrix is the updated version
of the 13 September 2004 ICC matrix on these issues
-
Openness
-
ICC policy statement The impact of Internet content regulation,
November 2002
-
ICC policy statement on Regulating the Delivery of Audiovisual
Content over the Internet
-
Security
-
ICC Framework for consultation and drafting of Information
Compliance obligations
-
ICC toolkits
-
Assurance for executives
-
Privacy toolkit
-
Securing your business
-
'Spam' and unsolicited commercial electronic messages ICC policy
statement, December 2004
-
Access
-
Telecoms Liberalization Guide
-
Policy statement on Broadband Deployment
-
Storage of Traffic data for law enforcement purposes
-
ICC policy recommendations on global IT sourcing
-
Policy Statement on Open Source Software
-
Diversity
-
Issues paper on Internationalized Domain Names
-
Policy Statement on Open Source Software
4. Internet Society (ISOC) - Internet governance priorities: findings from the ISOC
INET meeting in Abuja, Nigeria
Page 14
CRP/03.09.07
5. Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) - Input for the IGF in
Rio 2007
6. IT for Change - Four Critical Issues for the IGF, Rio, from a Southern Perspective
7. Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) - Substantial Contribution to the
Internet Governance Forum
8. Cheryl Preston, Professor of Law, and Brent A. Little, Brigham Young University
- ICANN can: Contracts and Porn Sites
9. Christopher R. Reed, M.P.PCandidate, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy,
University of Michigan; Cheryl Preston, Edwin M. Thomas Professor of Law,
Brigham Young University; Scott R. Rasmussen, J.D. Candidate, Brigham Young
University - Children and Internet Pornography: The Nature of the Problem and
the Technologies for a Solution
10. Jeremy Malcolm - Recommandations for the Internet Governance Forum
11. Joanna Kulesza, PhD student at the faculty of Law and Administration, University
of Lodz, Poland - New Technologies and the Need for a Uniform Legal System
12. Longe, O.B., University of Ibadan, Nigeria; Chiemeke, S.C., University of
Benign, Nigeria; Longe, F.A., Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria -
Intermediary mediated Cybercrime: Internet Access Points and the Facilitation of
Cybercrimes in Nigeria
Page 15
CRP/03.09.07
Document Outline