1.
................................................................................................ 4
1.1.
....................................................................... 5
1.2.
........................................................................................................................... 7
2.
....................................................................................... 9
2.1.
........................................................................... 9
2.2.
.................................................................................. 11
2.3.
..................................................................... 12
2.4.
............................................................................................................... 15
2.5.
.......................................................................................... 17
2.6.
............................................................. 17
2.7.
............................................................. 19
2.8.
........................................................................................................ 23
3.
..................................................................................... 25
3.1.
........................................ 25
3.2.
.............................................................................. 28
3.3.
................................................................................................. 29
4.
.......................................................................................... 31
ANNEXES.
............................................................................................................................................ 33
ANNEX I. List of Platforms
............................................................................................................... 33
Annex II. List of stakeholders that responded to the survey
.................................................... 34
Annex III. Survey template form
................................................................................................... 36
Annex IV. Analysis of platforms ..................................................................................................... 38
Annex V. List of participants of Workshop on Building Internet Observatories during
IGF2015 ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 1: Expected costs and benefit of collaboration ........................................................ 6
Table 2: Overview of the surveyed stakeholders ............................................................... 9
Table 4: Overview of the initiatives’ objectives ............................................................... 11
Table 4: Overview of the initiatives´ timespan and resources .......................................... 11
Table 5: Thematic coverage of surveyed initiatives ......................................................... 13
Table 6: Overview of the geographical coverage ............................................................. 14
Table 7: Overview of the target group ............................................................................ 15
Table 8: Type of content provided by platforms .............................................................. 17
Table 9: Overview of functionalities provided by initiatives ............................................ 17
Table 10: Comparison of taxonomies of surveyed platforms vs. GIPO .............................. 22
Table 11: Comparison of taxonomies of Internet Governance ......................................... 23
Figure 1: Relation with other WPs .................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: The concept of a federation ............................................................................... 5
2

Figure 3: Methodological approach to GIPO Federation Roadmap ..................................... 8
Figure 4: Geographical coverage of the Internet Governance topics ................................ 15
Figure 5: GIPO taxonomy vs. tags ................................................................................... 20
Figure 6: Initial taxonomy proposal for the GIPO Observatory Tool ................................. 21
Figure 7: GIP Digital Watch visual curation approach ...................................................... 24
Figure 8: Netmundial Solutions Map visual curation approach ........................................ 24
Figure 9: Possible “information layer” approach to the federation .................................. 27
3

1.
The Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO) has been initiated in January 2015 with the goal to apply advanced technologies (data mining, semantic analysis and data visualisation) to data that is already available in order to overcome the problem of complexity and fragmentation of information on Internet Governance. The idea is that by providing better and clearer access to information, it will be easier for stakeholders to participate in Internet Governance debates, in particular for those that are currently put off by the complexity of information.
The GIPO Observatory Tool does not aim to centralize all this information by replacing the existing spaces. Instead, it is meant to be complementary and federated to them. As GIPO is designed as an automated service to both final users and other observatories, the GIPO´s
Towards Federation Roadmap (WP 6) is aimed at analysis of the possible scenarios of collaboration between GIPO and other initiatives.
In this context, the present report has two main objectives:
1) To produce a roadmap for the development of a sustainable basis for a federation of online observatory networks and transferring the initiative into a self-sustainable structure with a longer-term perspective, by:
Identifying relevant on-line resources (data repositories, observatories);
Providing a framework to enable cooperation among such platforms.
2) To increase the sustainability and effectiveness of the Project by:
- Reducing the risk of information fragmentation and duplication;
- Avoiding waste of effort into parallel redundant efforts.
D6.1
Federation
Roadmap I
List of online platforms providing information relevant to GIPO and first specification of best practices and guidelines to facilitate the interoperation between them.
M12
D6.2
Federation
Roadmap II
Reference specification for the implementation of a federation of online observatories and a plan to setup partnerships and networks among online platforms.
M24
The present Federation Roadmap has been planned as a 2-stage process:
Nevertheless, in practice rather than a discrete succession of two reports, we consider that the approach will evolve gradually together with the project´s progress and needs. The Federation
Roadmap is indeed interconnected with other project work packages (see Figure 1).
4

Figure 1: Relation with other WPs
In particular, the identification of relevant stakeholders is based on the initial identification of data sources for GIPO enriched by stakeholders´ feedback during the engagement process.
These additional identified initiatives are fed back to GIPO as new target data sources.
Similarly, GIPO technological framework and its capabilities gives the general outline for federation roadmap. But stakeholders´ feedback and individual requirements identified during
Towards Federation Roadmap process shape the technological development of GIPO
Observatory Tool.
According to Merriam-Webster, federation is “an organization that is made by loosely joining together smaller organizations”.
Federation should be considered in this context as any form of collaboration that stands in between a single, strongly structured organisation and a set of independent initiatives.
Unfortunately, this definition covers such a wide range of possibilities to make it almost meaningless.
Figure 2: The concept of a federation
Federa on
Hyerarchical integra on in single organisa onal structure
Fully independent ini a ves
5

The objective of this task is to define, based on the analysis of the existing initiatives, what could be the concrete features of this collaboration (federation) and how we can decide and implement them (roadmap).
Federation has a specific meaning in the context of the Internet Governance Observatories.
They are initiatives dedicated to the common goal of making complex policy issues more easily understandable for stakeholders. These initiatives gather existing information from multiple sources and organise it in a way that is easier to browse and access to. As such, we can expect a specific set of costs and benefits, drivers and barriers of collaboration.
Table 1: Expected costs and benefit of collaboration
Costs Benefits
Financial Transaction costs to set up and maintain collaboration
Organisational Risks of lowered visibility
Mission Diversion from the core topic (if not exactly the same for all)
Sharing costs and resources
Increased visibility of the initiative through federation
Better service to final users
Increased visibility of the topic overall
Both costs and benefits should be carefully considered. Even if collaboration helps reducing costs in the medium term, the set up transaction costs could make collaboration unsustainable.
Visibility is a clear bottleneck: information oriented initiatives inevitably tend to aspire to become “the” one-stop-shop for information, and collaboration can risk reducing the visibility.
However, the long-standing experience in the climate change area shows that it’s not a realistic expectation.
1
Finally, from the point of view of the strategic objectives, collaboration can be expected to produce a more coherent and a clear perspective from users. However, if the topic or the approach is different among the initiatives, it could also reduce the level of the achievement of the objective and divert the attention of the users from the desired topic/approach. The key lever here is to demonstrate that a federative approach increases the overall “pie” more than it reduces the share of the pie: the pie being in this case the level of attention from stakeholders. All initiatives will benefit from an increased visibility of the Internet Governance topic.
An inspiring example of collaboration between initiatives dedicated to information provision on policy issues comes from the field of the climate change. The Climate Knowledge Brokers group
2
is an “emerging alliance of leading global, regional and national knowledge brokers specialising in climate and development information.” It is born out of the collaboration of 21 leading web initiatives in the field of climate change information, organised via a Linkedin
1
As indicated in (Free Press Unlimited & Ecorys, 2014), “In the beginning, several climate change groups raced to create THE one-stop-shop on climate change only to find that they weren’t filling a niche and were too broad to be meaningful.”
2 http://www.climateknowledgebrokers.net/
6

discussion group and coordinated via a steering group. It provides visibility to the initiatives of its members, and focuses on 4 main objectives that could be considered as guiding principles for GIPO too:

Really understanding user needs

Pointing users to the right platform

Connecting up platforms

Avoiding reinventing the wheel
The technological landscape provides a fundamental input in the design of the federative approach. From the technological point of view, in the last years we have witnessed a change in the architecture of web applications, which can be summarized as “from portal to web services”. The availability of unlimited amount of information reduces the time and attention which can be devoted to look for and find information, and in particular to visit a specific website. It is today impossible to centralize the content and services in one website and expect users to visit it. Content and services are increasingly accessed via either a search engine or personalized space, and mixed and “mashed-up” with other data and services. This is already visible in the commercial sector: even advertising-based services such as newspapers and social network platforms, enable users to access their content through the platform of choice, via open API, “widgets” and feeds. While these players should have the highest resistance to giving up the retention capacity of users, as revenue comes mainly from advertising displayed on their own websites, they realize that they have little choice but to reach out and make their content available outside their website in order not to become irrelevant.
These technological solutions are not simply “tools” to implement the federative approach, but actually shape it by enabling new forms of “loosely connected” collaboration. Content and services can be syndicated across websites, without loosing control over the content and visibility of the website, thereby reducing the costs and increasing the benefits of collaboration. We can safely assume that any forms of federation will include API, widgets or data feeds.
-
-
-
-
-
This analysis is a result of a structured on-going effort to build and sustain cooperation among all observatory networks, which consists of number of elements:
Identification of the 33 relevant stakeholders (see Annex for the detailed list of stakeholders)
Facilitation of one-to-one collaborative meetings with chosen initiatives (Skype or in person)
Engagement of relevant stakeholders into GIPO monthly webinars and live workshops
(4 webinars and 2 workshops took place between April – Dec 2015 attracting approx.
180 - 200 participants)
Distribution of Towards Federation Roadmap survey among identified stakeholders
GIPO engagement into Network of Mappers (a closed online discussion group of main
Internet Governance observatories and mapping initiatives)
7

- Participation in the Roundtable on building synergies among observatories (during
IGF2015)
The methodological approach to the final analysis of Towards Federation Roadmap is mainly based on the survey performed among relevant stakeholders, supported by further desk research for maximal accuracy. Based on the findings of the survey and ongoing stakeholders´ input the possible collaboration scenarios and recommendation of next steps have been developed by the project team.
The survey analysis has followed the steps as depicted in the figure below.
Figure 3: Methodological approach to GIPO Federation Roadmap
1.
Identification of relevant platforms & list validation
The list of 33 relevant stakeholders has been created on the basis of preliminary research as well as stakeholders´ input and validated with European Commission (see
Annex for the list of relevant stakeholders)
It is a collection of Web-based applications acting as producers or consumers of knowledge relevant to the GIPO context, which should be made available through online repositories. They not only focus on internet governance, but also about specific related themes (e.g. privacy, net neutrality, copyright)
2.
Pilot validation of template form with 2-3 observatories
The word template for the survey form / interview has been created and submitted for
EC validation. Next, the pilot survey has been performed with Brazilian Internet
Observatory and DiploFoundation in order to fine-tune the questions and assess the quality of data provided.
On this basis, the final word template has been created as well as an online survey form.
3.
Dissemination of the survey form
All 33 stakeholders from the initial list have received a personal email with the invitation to participate in the survey, together with the survey form.
8

In order to facilitate the participation in the survey and disseminate it widely, an online survey form has been created using Google Forms ( https://docs.google.com/a/openevidence.com/forms/d/1Mghk7lS-sGp2hVTrq5a0GwoSheKTdOys49B8L71JmbE/edit ) and posted on GIPO website ( http://www.giponet.org/en/content/survey-towardsgipo-federation-roadmap-how-can-gipo-be-useful-you ) and the survey has been promoted using Twitter.
4.
First analysis using the template
19 initiatives have responded to the survey with 18 responses relevant to the project
(see Annex for the list of responders)
5.
Interview with manager where additional information was needed
Additional Skype calls /face-to-face meeting has been performed where the survey response was unsatisfactory or additional explanations was needed.
6.
Validation of first results during IGF 2015 Roundtable of observatories.
The initial findings have been validated during IGF 2015 roundtable at Workshop on
Building Internet Observatories with 13 participating stakeholders (see Annex for the list of stakeholders participating in the workshop).
7.
Final analysis of the results and design of collaboration scenarios.
2.
In this section we provide a descriptive analysis of the platforms that are currently active in the domain of Internet Governance.
Understanding of the overall landscape of stakeholders´, their specificity, needs and limitations is crucial in order to design the federation roadmap of future collaboration.
Out of 33 initiatives targeted, 18 filled in the survey (55%).
Table 2: Overview of the surveyed stakeholders
Name of the initiative
Internet & Jurisdiction
Observatory
Internet Policy Observatory
Pakistan
MAPPING Policy Observatory
Insafe / Better Internet for Kids
Organizational setting / financing institution
/facilitator
NGO
NGO
Supranational organisation
Supranational organisation
Facilitator´s details
European
Commission
European
Commission
Policy
Observatory
Database, repository and website
Mapping initiative
Others
Network of centers
9

NetMundial Solution Map
GIP Digital Watch
The Brazilian Internet
Observatory
IGF Platform for Italy
NGO /
PRIVATE
National
Authority
National
Authority
National
Authority
Independent
ICANN
Swiss government
Brazilian government
Italian government
Volunteers Friends of the IGF
ResearchICTafrica.net
Observatório do Marco Civil da
Internet - Brazilian Civil Rights
Framework for the Internet
Observatory
APO Policy Online
Independent
Independent
Think Tank
Individual
Mapping Global Media Policy
Academia
Academia
International
Association for
Media and
Communication
Research
(IAMCR)
The global Network of Internet &
Society Centers (NoC)
Academia
Network of centers
The Global Internet Governance
Academic Network (GigaNet)
Internet Monitor
Cybersecurity Capacity Portal
Korea Internet Transparency
Report
Academia
Academia
Academia
Industry Google
Network of scholars
Research
Project
Research
Project/
Report website
5 Total 8 3 2
The first issue is to better understand what kind of platform we are referring to. The initiatives, while dealing with similar issues, can be categorized in the following types:
Observatories - providing information, insights and analysis (such as Internet
Jurisdiction Observatory or Internet Observatory Pakistan),
Mapping efforts - aimed at presenting and categorizing the overall ecosystem of IG or its part (e.g. The Netmundial Solution Map or Mapping Global Media Policy),
Repositories of knowledge – structured, online database of information (such as
Australian Policy Online),
Networks of centres – membership based network of institutions organized around
Internet Governance topics (e.g. Insafe or Global Network of Internet and Society
Research Center (NoC) and networks of scholars (Giganet),
As well as research reports – online study reports researching and analysing the status of specific Internet Governance area (Korea Internet Transparency Report)
Surveyed stakeholders represent broad range of organizations:
NGOs (3), academia (6), industry (1), volunteers / independent initiatives (3), national
(3) and supranational organizations (2).
10

Moreover, the purpose of the initiative varies. Most of the surveyed initiatives go beyond providing access to information, very often focusing on fostering multi-stakeholders’ collaboration and providing evidence-based policy support. 14 initiatives (78% of responders) mention provision of access to information as one of the main objectives, followed by evidence-based policy support (13 initiatives).
Table 3: Overview of the initiatives’ objectives
Purpose of the initiative:
Fostering dialogue / collaboration / multistakeholders process
Digital watch / trend analysis / evidence-based policy support
Crowdsourcing of knowledge
To provide access to information
Number of the initiatives:
8 13 8 14
Furthermore, almost 45% of them focus on fostering dialogue and multi-stakeholders process.
Equal number of initiative has crowdsourcing of knowledge as one of the main objectives. This is similar to the GIPO initiative goals, where the main goal is not only to overcome the fragmentation of information and make it more easily accessible, but to engage everybody in collaborative process.
One important aspect is to assess whether we are dealing with many, small scale new projects or large and established ones.
The landscape of the Internet Governance repositories is young and, therefore, in a fast evolution. Most of the initiatives (77% out of 17) are new (founded after 2012) and relatively small: 50% have only 1-2 people assigned to the project with people often working on a voluntary basis or assigned part-time to the project from a home institution and only 4 have more than 5 people. Most initiatives use a mix of internal effort and crowdsourcing of knowledge of external experts.
In general, larger initiatives are older, such as The Global Internet Governance Academic
Network (GigaNet), Insafe / Better Internet for Kids, Internet & Jurisdiction Observatory.
However, there are large, new initiatives such as GIP Digital Watch and small but long-standing initiatives such as the Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan.
Table 4: Overview of the initiatives´ timespan and resources
Name of the initiative
Internet & Jurisdiction Observatory
Friends of the IGF
Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan
MAPPING Policy Observatory
APO Policy Online
Insafe / Better Internet for Kids
GIP Digital Watch
The Brazilian Internet Observatory
NetMundial Solution Map
Timeline for the project
2012 - ongoing
2013 - ongoing
2012 - ongoing
2014 - ongoing
2002 - ongoing
2004 - ongoing
2014 - ongoing
2010 - ongoing
2014 - ongoing
staff (1-2)
Human resources used:
staff
(3-5) staff
(>5) external experts
11

ResearchICTafrica.net
Korea Internet Transparency Report
Observatório do Marco Civil da Internet
Mapping Global Media Policy
2012 - ongoing
2014 - ongoing
2015 - 2016 +
2010 - ongoing
The global Network of Internet & Society
Centers (NoC) 2012 - ongoing
The Global Internet Governance Academic
Network (GigaNet)
Cybersecurity Capacity Portal
2006 - ongoing
Dec 2014 - ongoing
IGF Platform for Italy Dec 2015 - ongoing
Internet Monitor n/a
A typical team would consist of a combination of full-time and part-time staff members, consultants, and subcontractors, covering both content and technical expertise, with the primary functions such as: developer/admin, content manager/content editor, project management (in smaller organizations held by 1-2 people). Secondary team consists of researchers and network of contributing experts (e.g. policy experts, cyber security experts, law experts, development experts and economics experts).
Internet governance is a complex topic that goes beyond Internet infrastructural aspects, touching upon a broad range of the policy areas. It encompasses the variety of topics such as governing principles, legal, economic, developmental, sociocultural issues.
3
Therefore, many specific initiatives tend to specialize in the chosen areas of the Internet Governance or IG is a part of another policy area.
Why is this important for GIPO Tool? The analysis of the thematic areas of other observatories will allow identifying the critical areas, where special focus on the proper coverage of sources should be put. On the one hand, observatories with a strict specialisation are for GIPO a very useful source of information. On the other hand, the variety of sources needs to be safeguarded for balanced information. In addition, there might be areas with a scarcity of information.
While addressing thematic coverage of the platforms, the analysis refers to the initial suggestion of the division of the Internet Governance topics into so called ´GIPO Aspects¨ by
GIPO technological development team (see also section 2.7). GIPO Aspects help structure
themes, and encompass a number of interrelated themes. This initial division is not final; nevertheless it has been used for the purpose of this report only in order to enable comparison of different initiatives. GIPO Aspects divide Internet Governance issues into 5 groups covering all IG topics:
1) Governance Principles (open and inclusive, accessible, diversity)
2) Technical structure and resources (infrastructure, architecture, standards, trends)
3) Security and trust (cybersecurity, surveillance, digital trust)
4) Social issues (human rights, citizen-state relationship, dissemination and use)
5) Economy and trade (growth and development, intellectual property, innovation).
3
Jovan Kurbalija, "An Introduction to Internet Governance", 5 ed, DiploFoundation (2012).
12

Table 5 shows coverage has been self-defined by the respondents of the survey and later assigned to specific aspects by the GIPO research team.
Whereas GIPO Observatory Tool is meant to provide information on all aspects of Internet
Governance, the analysis of the surveyed platforms shows that their topical scope is varied:

All surveyed initiatives have in their scope Internet Governance, but 30% of them have a broader thematic coverage (see Table 5).

Out of 12 initiatives that cover only IG topics, 50% has a strict thematic specialisation.
For example, Internet & Jurisdiction project focuses on handling the challenge of the digital coexistence of diverse national laws in shared cross-border online spaces and how to prevent a fragmentation of cyberspace.
4
Also Observatório do Marco Civil da
Internet concentrates strictly on judicial aspects of Internet Governance for Security issues.

A single out example is the Friend of the IGF initiative that focuses strictly on presenting multimedia material from the IGF Forum, an event where all the issues of the Internet Governance are touched upon. Though IGF is not an aspect of internet governance itself and a non-virtual platform on its own, we choose t categorise it as a sort of specialisation for the purpose of this analysis

Only 5 initiatives cover all aspects of Internet Governance as referred to in the definition used in this report
Table 5: Thematic coverage of surveyed initiatives
Thematic coverage:
Internet & Jurisdiction
Observatory
Friends of the IGF
Internet Policy
Observatory Pakistan
Broader than
Internet
Governance
Internet
Governance
Governance
Principles
GIPO ASPECTS
Technical structure and resources
Security and trust
Social issues
Economy and trade
MAPPING Policy
Observatory
APO Policy Online
Insafe / Better Internet for Kids
GIP Digital Watch
The Brazilian Internet
Observatory
The NetMundial
Solution Map
ResearchICTafrica.net
Mapping Global Media
Policy
The global Network of
Internet & Society
Centers (NoC)
Privacy,
Intellectual
Policy Rights and Startups
Various policy areas
ICT Policy
Media Policy
Internet and
Social Change
Jurisdiction
IGF
Internet for kids
Overall
Overall
Overall
4
http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/about/
13

The Global Internet
Governance Academic
Network (GigaNet)
Observatório do Marco
Civil da Internet
Korea Internet
Transparency Report
Overall
Jurisdiction
Censorship
Data on
Internet and online media
Cyber security
Internet Monitor
Cybersecurity Capacity
Portal
IGF Platform for Italy 5 Overall
6 18 11 9 17 13 8
Results show that Security and Trust issues as prevailing aspect, covered by all the initiatives, economic and trade related issues are only showcased in half of the platforms surveyed.
Technical structure and resources are only covered by 9 initiatives, which is not odd while taking into consideration that the GIPO Tool operates in the policy oriented landscape.
Though initiatives come from variety of countries, the majority of them focus on global coverage of Internet Governance topics (e.g. GIP Digital Watch) and if the coverage is local, the initiatives use a local language to deliver information. This is especially significant with regard to the issue of multilingualism. The information on Internet Governance comes from variety of sources, in many languages, and finding a way to present and deliver for further use the documents in different local language is one of the major challenges of GIPO and other initiatives.
Table 6: Overview of the geographical coverage
Name of the initiative
Internet & Jurisdiction Observatory
Friends of the IGF
Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan
MAPPING Policy Observatory
Australian Policy Online
Insafe / Better Internet for Kids
GIP Digital Watch
The Brazilian Internet Observatory
The NetMundial Solution Map
ResearchICTafrica.net
Korea Internet Transparency Report
Observatório do Marco Civil da Internet
Mapping Global Media Policy
NoC
GigaNet
Internet Monitor
Cybersecurity Capacity Portal
IGF Platform for Italy
5
The IGF Platform for Italy is in the initiation phase
Country of origin
France
Transnational
Pakistan
Romania
Australia
Belgium
Switzerland
Brazil
USA
South Africa
South Korea
Brazil
Transnational
Transnational
Transnational
USA
England
Italy
Geographical coverage
Global
Global
Local
Europe
Australia & New Zealand
Europe
Global
Local
Global
Africa
Local
Local
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Local
14

Some initiatives concentrate only on specific region (e.g. ResearchICTAfrica.net covering Africa related issues or Mapping Policy Observatory that focuses on EU region) or specific country
(e.g. The Brazilian Internet Observatory).
Figure 4: Geographical coverage of the Internet Governance topics
GIPO Observatory Tool is planned to have a global coverage of topics with the variety of sources in local languages.
The analysis of the target group of other initiatives is important from the perspective of the collaboration scenarios as it might imply a requirement for specific information or a communication style tailored to the end user needs.
In terms of an Internet Governance landscape, the results of the survey showed that vast majority of the platforms target more than one type of audience and they are, therefore, interested in providing a varied content.
Whereas Digital Watch of Geneva Internet Platform is an exception in its very focused specialisation to provide information to diplomats and international organisations, most of the initiatives declare at least 3 types of targeted audience with policy makers, academia, civil society / NGOs and international organisations as the centric focus.
In several cases, general public has been declared as a separate target group (for example the
NetMundial Solution Map), which can be treated as separate group (while meant as all the others) or encompass all the groups.
Table 7: Overview of the target group
Name of the initiative
/ Target group network of centers
Internet &
Jurisdiction
Observatory
Friends of the
IGF industry government / policy makers
X X academia
X
X civil society /
NGOs international organizations
X
X
X
X media diplomats general public
X X
15

Internet Policy
Observatory
Pakistan
MAPPING
Policy
Observatory
APO Policy
Online
Insafe / Better
Internet for Kids
GIP Digital
Watch
The Brazilian
Internet
Observatory
The NetMundial
Solution Map
ResearchICTafri ca.net
Korea Internet
Transparency
Report
Observatório do
Marco Civil da
Internet
Mapping Global
Media Policy
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NoC
GigaNet
Internet Monitor
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Cybersecurity
Capacity Portal
IGF Platform for
Italy
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GIPO Observatory Tool on the other hand, does not have a privileged target group and derive content from variety of sources. While some of the platforms do not specify their target group claiming that they are open to any type of users, which would also imply other observatories,
GIPO Observatory Tool is the only observatory platform that strategically focuses on other observatories as one of the main target group. This focus derives from the core concept of
GIPO Tool, which is meant as an automated service tool for others. It also implies that the needs of other observatories are a focal point for GIPO Tool. Nevertheless, GIPO is meant as a tool that can be used by any target group of the platforms that are cooperating with GIPO.
Overall GIPO targeted audience can be divided in 3 groups:
1) Other observatories and initiatives – GIPO Observatory Tool can be used as an automatic information provider for further curation and usage by other observatories and mapping initiatives.
2) Internet governance actors / main events (i.e. IGF Forum) - GIPO can be used as a content classification and management tool for documents and communication created pre-, during and post events /conferences.
3) Policy-makers, organizations, general public interested in IG topics - GIPO provides an easy-to-use system for obtaining up-to-date, high quality information that is further shaped and rated in terms of relevance by users.
X
16

Platforms cover a variety of content, with grey literature (documents, reports) and web links as prevailing content.
Table 8: Type of content provided by platforms
Type of content
Number of initiatives
Multimedia
7
Grey
15
Tools
4
Web links, social media
12
This is consistent with GIPO Tool content provision. GIPO Tool will provide content analysed through automated process: web syndication (RSS/Atom feeds), web pages ( well-structured
HTML), social media platforms (Twitter, G+) in the form of documents, spread sheets, videos, tweets, links etc.
Platforms offer services beyond online access to a searchable and browse-able archive (17 initiatives), such as:
email newsletter (7)
events calendars (9)
seminars & training sessions (6)
research reports and analytical overviews (9)
Table 9
:
Overview of functionalities provided by initiatives
These functionalities are not part of the GIPO Tool, but are part of the GIPO project and website and can be further integrated.
GIPO website provides newsletter, events calendar, webinar materials and social media updates / blog posts. In additional GIPO stakeholders´ engagement team works closely with other observatories on conceptual developments for further cooperation.
Interoperability is the main concept behind Federation Roadmap as GIPO is an automated tool .
Two systems need to be able to “communicate” with each other to benefit form maximal cross-usability. But interoperability is a broader concept.
“While the term was initially defined for information technology or systems engineering services to allow for information exchange, a broader definition takes into account social, political, and organizational factors that impact system-to-system performance.
The task of
17

building coherent services for users when the individual components are technically different and manage by different organizations”.
6
There are different kinds or levels of interoperability that could be achieved. One is the syntactic interoperability and other is the semantic interoperability . The fact that several observatories adhere to the XML-RSS standard to share some of their contents provides syntactic interoperability, but this does not involve a semantic interoperability. One observatory might offer only an RSS feed for events, while other observatory might offer an
RSS for publications.
The potential for syntactic interoperability is judged upon analysis of two main elements:
1) The existence of public access to files/feeds in any XML-based format (i.e. RSS feed in machine readable format XML-RSS). A standard XML file format of published data ensures compatibility with many different machines/programs and RSS feeds enable publishers to data automatically.
2) The existence of access to API, open or on request – an application programming interface (API) that allows software to interact with each other. It provides developers with programmatic access to a proprietary software application. In other words, API is a sets of requirements that govern how one application can communicate and interact with another and it allows developers to access certain internal functions of a program.
7
GIPO content can be automatically consumed by other IT systems (web content managers, email marketing platforms, desktop & mobile apps, etc.). GIPO Observatory Tool will provide both machine-readable content in the form of advanced RSS feed (January 2016) as well as
Open API (June 2016).
This way, already from January 2016, other repositories and observatories will be able to use news feed provided by GIPO to their advantage. However, in order to ensure interoperability between a platform and GIPO Observatory Tool (so that GIPO Tool can also receive information from the platform), an initiative should provide information in a machine readable format and/or RSS feed. API is considered as more advanced tool requiring programming intervention and additional resources.
The platforms subjected to the survey use variety of content management systems, such as
WordPress, SilversStripe, Joomla!, Drupal or Liferay. All of them can be extended with an API and can also export content via RSS feed.
Moreover, over half of the surveyed initiatives share some kind of (unspecified) contents (via
RSS feed), meaning that other observatories might import that information and reuse it in some way.
But it´s not enough. From the pure technical point of view observatories should provide not only classic web interfaces (for humans) but an open and public API access that allows systems to interoperate. However, as the IG repositories are small and underfinanced, they do not tend to invest in open APIs. Out of all the surveyed initiatives, only bigger general platform
Australian Policy Online provides API available on request. In addition, Mapping Media Policy
Online plans to release API in the future.
6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability
7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_API
18

“…Beyond the ability of two or more computer systems to exchange information, semantic interoperability is the ability to automatically interpret the information exchanged meaningfully and accurately in order to produce useful results as defined by the end users of both systems. To achieve semantic interoperability, both sides must refer to a common information exchange reference model.”
8
Semantic interoperability can only be achieved if every observatory agrees in a common set of metadata to share, either via XML-RSS, a common API, or any other technical method that should be commonly known and agreed.
Promoting by GIPO project the development of a single common taxonomy of the Internet
Government concepts created through collaborative effort of all observatories is a much needed step towards the semantic interoperability of different IG observatories.
The word “taxonomy” is confusing because it has become somewhat generic. Taxonomy has been associated by many initiatives with a classification scheme. Although the purpose of a taxonomy is to classify and organize, and so this synonymous use of the word is understandable, classification in information science is a vast subject that goes well beyond how a taxonomy classifies things.
During the design of GIPO’s Observatory Tool the development team started focusing on
“controlled vocabularies” (CV). And a taxonomy is a type of CV, consisting of preferred terms connected in a hierarchy. GIPO team developed the first version of GIPO’s custom taxonomy for Internet Governance (GIPO’s IG Taxonomy) by making a comparison of the classification scheme and/or taxonomies used by other IG observatories (GIPO Aspects mentioned before).
This first version was reviewed by the members of our Advisory Group, as well as by some other experts in the field from other observatories.
But GIPO’s IG Taxonomy should not be confused with the classification scheme used by
GIPO’s Observatory Tool (controlled vocabularies). We might consider controlled vocabularies as the generic type of “classification” system. Synonym rings, authority files, taxonomies, and thesauri are all types of controlled vocabularies.
Besides setting up main categories, GIPO do not use a hierarchical classification system but a faceted one. In the broad sense of the word “taxonomy”, as previously noted, we can see a
“faceted classification” as a dynamic taxonomy, in contrast to a hierarchical taxonomy that has a fixed arrangement of containers. The faceted system uses semantic categories (tags), either general or subject-specific, that are combined as needed to create the classification entry.
9
And GIPO’s IG controlled vocabulary, that is a taxonomy, is just one of the multiple facets in
GIPO's overall classification scheme. Other facets are “tags”, “world region”, “type”, and
“source date”.
8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability
9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_classification
19

Figure 5: GIPO taxonomy vs. tags
Source: Presentation of technical development of the online platform for the smart 2014/0026, Luis
Meijueiro (CTIC), GIPO webinar, April 2015
That means that GIPO classification system is more flexible, not limited to already defined concepts and can be adjusted over time through a set of controlled vocabulary.
10
That also means that defining a conceptual framework for the automatic classification and tagging of
Internet Governance related content in the GIPO technical platform is one of the main challenges of the Project.
A common set of metadata to share means that initiatives shall agree on a common dictionary of vocabulary
11
underlying the Internet Governance taxonomy. In other words, initiatives should align / agree on a common set of keywords, official words and phrases that will always be used in the tool for the concepts or things they represent, upon which the information will be sourced to or from GIPO Observatory Tool. These keywords function as a “tag”, a type of label or metadata tag which makes it easier to find and organize information with a specific content, and assign it to specific theme within taxonomy (classification) used.
The common set of vocabulary for all the initiatives has still not been developed and requires joined effort of all of them. The process has been kick-started by the GIPO team and theGovLab in November 2015 during IGF2015, but requires further ownership. For now, each platform would have to align its set of controlled vocabulary on a one-to-one basis with GIPO keywords settled by the development team.
The general classification of the Internet Governance topics, although of a great significance from conceptual and theoretical perspective, is not of a crucial importance for the semantic interoperability of the platforms. Nevertheless, as GIPO is aimed at avoiding fragmentation of the information and creating synergies between existing platforms, it would be advisable to focus on using one of the existing classification of Internet Governance topics.
As mentioned before, GIPO technological team initially proposed to classify information of the
Internet Governance issues into five categories (called aspects): Governance Principles,
Technical Structure and Resources, Security and Trust, Social Issues & Economy and trade. It is
10
Controlled vocabulary = vocabulary with a defined and enforced procedure for its update.
11
Vocabulary = list of predefined values for a metadata element
20

worth noting that GIPO main classification is a unique classification adopted for the needs of the GIPO Project and is not required to be followed by other platforms.
Figure 6: Initial taxonomy proposal for the GIPO Observatory Tool
Source: Presentation of technical development of the online platform for the smart 2014/0026, Luis
Meijueiro (CTIC), GIPO webinar, April 2015
Further analysis of surveyed platforms shows, that not all of them follow any type of classification, with some relying only on broad tagging system (e.g. MAPPING Policy
Observatory, Australian Policy Online).
Table 10 depicts comparison of the classification of the taxonomies used by some of the platforms (platforms that declared their taxonomies). Regarding platforms focusing on overall
Internet Governance landscape, such as GIP Digital Watch, the NetMundial Solution Map or
Friends of The IGF, each one of them follows different classification.
21

Table 10: Comparison of taxonomies of surveyed platforms vs. GIPO
GIP Digital Watch has the most elaborated, historically grounded (developed over the course of 20 years by DiploFoundation)
12
and hierarchical taxonomy with 7 main categories and 40 issues.
13
The Friends of the IGF are an interesting example – its main 13 categories are based on the historical subthemes of the IGF Forum, while the rest of the content classified via keywords. Finally, the NetMundial Solution Map serves as the example of simple main categorization with focus on tagging issues.
Further analysis (Table 11) shows what´s the detailed division of main categories vs. GIPO´s
Aspects.
12
http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/introduction-internet-governance
13
http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/Internet_Governance_Classification_ver_07102004.pdf
22

Table 11: Comparison of taxonomies of Internet Governance
The main initial categories of GIPO were the closest to the structure of the NetMundial
Solution Map and not too far away from classification of the Digital Watch of Geneva Internet
Platform. The main difference between GIPO and the Netmundial Solution Map lies in adoption of different naming and assigning of issues / keywords. But Netmundial Solution Map is the new initiative with a dictionary of vocabularies as a process in creation. On the other hand, the Digital Watch adopts more detailed main classification, with Human Rights and Legal as additional categories. But in return, it does not depict Internet Governance Principles as a separate category, which might be of a value.
As a result of the analysis and in order to promote synergies, we recommend for GIPO´s IG
Taxonomy: a) to follow the GIP Digital Watch taxonomy of DiploFoundation with additional general category of Internet Governance added b) to purely adopt Geneva Internet Platform for maximum consistency
Content curation can be carried out either manually or automatically or by combination of both. In the first case, it's done by specially designated human curators. In the second case, it's done using collaborative filtering, semantic analysis or social rating.
14
14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_curation
23

GIPO Observatory Tool is an automated tool and relies solely on automated, algorithmic curation of data. But algorithms, no matter how inexpensive and impartial are not sufficient to explain the content. Therefore, sourcing content curated by experts from other platforms back to GIPO Tool would enhance accuracy and attractiveness of the information provided.
Contrary to GIPO, most of the platforms provide some sort of human data curation to select, edit, and explain data, though not all (Internet Monitor dashboards uses automated data curation to provide content).
A good example would be the Cybersecurity Capacity Portal of Global Cyber Security Capacity
Centre (GCSCC) or Mapping Global Media Policy where all the data is humanly curated right now. Digital Watch of GIP works with the wide network of the external data curators that are responsible for data gathering for a specific issue and for giving critical input to the data provided. Both GIP and Netmundial map have a strong emphasis on visual simplification of
Internet Governance issues, as illustrated in the figures below.
Figure 7: GIP Digital Watch visual curation approach
Figure 8: Netmundial Solutions Map visual curation approach
24

According to surveyed platforms, “keeping track of developments around the world requires a good network of contributors.” But a lot of their time is spent on searching for the right sources of information rather than analyzing them. This is where GIPO Tool can help.
3.
In this section we build on the mapping above in order to spell out the key elements of the federation roadmap. We start off by presenting the context, in terms of incentives and barriers mentioned by the platforms, and we then elaborate on the concrete elements that could compose the federative approach. We then build on these elements to present high-level scenarios of federation to be fully developed for the roadmap.
As previously mentioned, many of the initiatives are young and small. Therefore, the availability of resources for further development is a major challenge. Stakeholders signal that lack of human and financial resources can hamper the process of connecting to GIPO platform in the short-term perspective. “Financial sustainability is a big issue in such a dynamic
25

information environment where more resources are constantly required to maintain and improve the service offering.
”
Another major challenge that initiatives are facing is relevancy of information . “… In a world of abundant information providing ways for people to find the relevant research and resources they need is still a major challenge.
”
Interestingly enough, factors mentioned by initiatives as possible barriers to their work, are in fact the main incentives and drivers for their GIPO Tool usage in the long run.
One of the main objectives of GIPO Tool is aiming to solve is provision of relevant information in an automated way. The Observatory Tool automatically discard the undesired non-relevant content and collect only the interesting one. It assigns scores to the allowed content in order to prioritize and list it ordered in the Analysis interface. It also enriches the contents’ metadata by automatically assigning some appropriate tags to every item of content.
Initiatives name “...lack of available research and tools to properly study / compare policy initiatives in different countries” as one of their problems . By using GIPO Tool, platforms would be able to use their financial and human resources more efficiently: shifting focus from investment in technology and content search to content curation and analysis.
As mentioned before in Section 2.7, another issue too be considered while analysing possible scenarios of collaboration between GIPO and other initiatives is taxonomy/ semantics . Finding the proper semantics scheme to make the Observatory interoperable with other initiatives is mentioned as critical issue, but at the same time elaborated theoretical framework and deriving taxonomy may render the tool not easily accessible to a broader potential public.
Finally, multilingualism is mentioned as a problematic aspect. There is a need of increasing number of languages available for users beyond English or mother tongue and use of only main languages would certainly be a limitation for a project aimed at providing a resource to a global audience. In addition, a need for a fast and proper translation from local language to
English (such as Portuguese or Arabic) is highlighted in view of limited resources.
Box 1: GIPO’s approach to multilingualism
GIPO team is currently testing an approach that might be useful, and that has the potential to be adopted as a “good practice” for other observatories (if tests are successful).
The language of the interface is multilingual, something that is provided by the CMS used
(in this case Drupal). GIPO Tool only need humans to translate the interface texts, labels, menus, etc. to any language desired.
The contents gathered from sources will remain in their original language. GIPO Tool will not include any human nor machine-drive automatic translation. As the Tool links to the original content in their source, any user can use translation tools (i.e. Google) to get a first approach of the content translated to their own native language.
What GIPO Tool will do is try to translate the terms (entities) that could provide the semantical interoperability and are the foundation of GIPO’s classification system. To do this GIPO Tool performs language substitution by using the “Wikidata labels” approach.
This is only for the translation of the metadata (tags/keywords and terms of the taxonomies, that are associated to every content item). As these metadata are generated by the tool in
English, all these entities (aspects, regions, tags, etc.) are the only ones that the tool will try to translate to at least all the rest of official languages of the United Nations as requested by
26

the EC (Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, Spanish). If any given entity does not have a corresponding label in Wikidata for any of the languages mentioned we will not translate it, but any user can update Wikidata/Wikipedia and add the missing translation for the term.
And what is “Wikidata labels”? As you may know, Wikidata is the free knowledge base that anyone can edit. The Wikidata repository consists mainly of items, each outlined by a label, a description and likely one or more aliases. In Wikidata, items are used to represent all the things in human knowledge, including topics, concepts, and objects. For items and properties, the labels, descriptions and aliases are all multilingual, meaning they can be displayed to users, and can be entered by users, in every language supported by the software
(more than 300).
In Wikidata the label is the most common name that the item would be known by. Note that although an item will have multiple labels in different languages, there aren't labels for all items in all languages yet. But users can improve the content in Wikidata and make more knowledge accessible to everyone. Labels, aliases, and descriptions in multiple languages can be easily added to items and properties.
Therefore, in GIPO Tool it is planed to avoid the need for intelligent translation algorithms in order to translate the metadata (or any other text) in the tool: it is enough to look up
(using the MediaWiki API) the label for the specific items in the language desired and display them in place.
One should not forget that one of the main challenges for GIPO Observatory Tool is building awareness of the tool worldwide, among smaller and not well-connected communities.
A commonly used option in federative forms of organisation is the specialisation of each of the component. Each member focusses on its unique excellences and provides this service to the other partners. For instance, in the case of GIPO, the focus features could be semantic analysis and enrichment, and treatment of multilingual issues. Similarly, in the case of the Geneva
Internet Platform, the distinctive service to the other platforms could be the taxonomy of
Internet Governance, a topic on which they have carried out extensive research.
This specialisation, therefore, does not have to be thematic: it could also concern the services provided.
Let us consider the typical "layered" architecture of information management, with data collection at the lower level, data analysis above it, data presentation as the top layer. We could envisage a federated architecture where all stakeholders, and the involved observatories, become data providers to GIPO (at the bottom layer). GIPO then provides semantic analysis and enrichment of these data. The results are presented both on the GIPO website and to third parties reusing GIPO services. Other observatories could then provide an additional layer related to human analysis (curation) of the results, and to the final presentation to the users. This is expected to be complementary with the great emphasis put by many initiatives on the appealing, visual presentation of the results through human
curation (see section 2.8).
Figure 9: Possible “information layer” approach to the federation
27

Presenta on layer
Analysis layer
All observatories
Human analysis and cura on: other observatories
Automated text analysis and enrichment: GIPO
Data layer Input in GIPO from all sources and observatories
The idea, in other words, is to turn GIPO into a platform, rather than "yet another observatory". A platform that is in line with the architectural concepts stated by the World
Wide Web Consortium
15
, the UK Power of Information Taskforce,
16
and Tim O’Reilly
17
, in a way that leverages Coates "network effects of services"
18
:
Every new service can build on top of every other existing service - the web becomes a true platform
Every service and piece of data that’s added to the web makes every other service potentially more powerful
This specialisation and collaboration is not meant to be in any way precluding from providing all kind of services. All existing observatories can easily continue to cover all the three layers, but would benefit from the increased quality of services of others. In particular, all observatories would continue providing services to the final users. However, the emphasis on the “platform approach” would facilitate the work of niche third parties in reaching out to specific audiences, helping to pursue one of the main objectives of GIPO – the greater involvement of communities currently disenfranchised from the policy debate.
This "platform" approach can then be implemented at different levels of integration with different services.
We have asked repositories on the possible collaboration areas with GIPO. All initiatives expressed the interest in a possible collaboration with GIPO on an organisational and / or on a technological level (partial or full integration of GIPO Observatory Tool). In other words, there is always an opportunity to find a common ground for cooperation.
The possible types of collaborative activities mentioned could be grouped into four areas:
15 http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
16
POIT. (2009). Power of Information Taskforce Report. Retrieved from http://poit.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/poit/
17 http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
18 http://www.plasticbag.org/files/native/assets/fallback/index.html
28

1) Integration of services / re-syndication of content:
(mentioned by 17 platforms)
- Re-syndication of content with linking to the full version at observatory site (to keep traffic to the site)
- Link exchanges (using GIPO feed or sharing RSS feed with GIPO)
- Producing accessible, easy to consult policy relevant materials (toolkits, fact sheets), based on database content and visualization.
2) Common conceptual cooperation , i.e.:
(mentioned by 4 platforms)
Working on a development of the standard for the archive (common dictionary of vocabularies)
Common research projects on Internet Governance issues, fostering specific/thematic research activities (Working on developing community of content curators
Designing educational projects (also for EU funding) based on platforms, to promote awareness and knowledge of the Internet Governance
Producing accessible, easy to consult policy relevant materials (toolkits, fact sheets), based on database content and visualization.
3) Common events / trainings and courses , i.e.:
(mentioned by 3 platforms)
Awareness sessions and training on new challenges in Internet Governance with GIPO
Co-organizing events together, including multi-stakeholder dialogues
Designing educational projects (also for EU funding) based on platforms, to promote awareness and knowledge of the Internet Governance
Participation in seminars and webinars
4) Cross-communication / common promotional activities, i.e.:
(mentioned by 9 platforms)
Cross-presentation of logos on websites
Cross- dissemination of information on organized events, webinars and publications.
As a result of the input and ongoing discussions with the initiatives, we identified 4 main conceptual scenarios of the possible collaboration with the GIPO Observatory Tool that encompass a combination of the activities grouped in Section 3.2. As the situation of each initiative is different (different level of financing, scope of operation and stage of development, area of specialisation and know-how), the relation of GIPO with platforms would be shaped on one-to-one basis and will follow one of the scenarios:
1) Full technical interoperability and integration of services
This is an ideal scenario of collaboration with GIPO. An initiative can use GIPO Observatory tool to source information and produce curated content that can be automatically fed
29

back into GIPO. This way a platform can focus limited resources on bringing additional value through policy analysis, curating content or research.
This solution is especially useful for small, recently started initiatives that have limited resources and still did not invest much in the technology or initiatives that are still in the development stage.
A platform can integrate GIPO Observatory Tool content directly into the platform by embedding it into their webpage without redesign or they can integrate them into their own system and present content in their specific way.
The first solution could function as a sort of "Latest News from GIPO" widget where it could take the form of a "Recent articles"" listing or a Twitter widget that simply shows whatever the last 5 Tweets were when the visitor loads the page. If someone wants to see more Tweets (or articles), they click a link and go to the original source."
19
Similarly, the GIPO Observatory Tool could source content from the platforms and present it in the structured way for reuse.
This scenario requires safeguarding the technological interoperability by initiatives through providing RSS feed in XML format or/and open API as discussed before as well as semantic interoperability (controlled vocabulary). The API could even be designed as read/write, thereby allowing trusted third parties to feed back the improved and humanly curated data in order to improve GIPO’s classification system.
Moreover, this scenario of collaboration might include all areas of activities (see Section
2) Partial integration / collaboration (using GIPO feed or sharing RSS feed with GIPO, organising events together, cross communication of activities etc...)
3.2) of which a creation of common dictionary of controlled vocabularies is one of the most crucial and important aspects. Fostering collaboration and dialogue among platforms, enhancing awareness of Internet Governance topics, common events, seminars and communication are all part of collaborative process.
The concept of partial integration /collaboration may encompass many aspects, but the main idea behind the name is that the conversation on a technical level goes only one way.
For example, with partial integration on the technological level one has to do when an initiative is using the GIPO Observatory Tool feed, but is not sharing its RSS feed. In other words, there is no interoperability of services but platforms are using GIPO opportunities to their advantage.
In this scenario we envisage that platforms cooperate with GIPO more consistently on nontechnological level (common conceptual cooperation, common events and training and cross-communication)
3) No integration of services but collaboration on conceptual/communication level .
In this scenario platforms, that have no ability or take a decision not to use GIPO automated tool, focuses on collaboration with GIPO on other aspects than re- syndication of content, such as common conceptual cooperation or common promotional activities.
19
As suggested by The Netmundial Solution Map
30

4) Rework of GIPO Observatory Tool content to provide new services and applications
This is a very unique scenario where initiative/platform/stakeholder sources GIPO content through GIPO RSS feed or Open API and reworks it in order to provide totally new services and/or online applications. In this case there is mostly no integration of services.
These scenarios are not exclusive. The process of creation of the GIPO initiative has been following a flexible and collaborative approach focusing on maximizing areas for collaboration and the GIPO Observatory Tool usefulness. This implies that every new initiative can bring new variation of collaboration that was not anticipated before. By adopting this approach, the GIPO aims to draw from the experiences and best practices of other platforms but at the same time facilitate and educate them on possible synergies. In this context its role becomes centric , where the GIPO acts as a hub of collaborative processes. But in order to do that, the GIPO cannot do it alone and needs a support of the Internet Governance ecosystem.
4.
The present document aims to set the foundations of the federation roadmap, in order to deliver the full roadmap for collaboration in its second version at the end of year 2. This document therefore provides a full description of the landscape and the analysis of the possible options for collaboration, but does not actually determines the shape of collaboration as these decisions have to be taken by the EC, the consortiums and the other observatories. It provides, however, a structured process for determining the key choices to be taken in the course of the next 12 months in order to reach the final stage of the roadmap.
As a next step Federation Roadmap II will be provided by the end of 2016, which will reference specification for the implementation of a federation of online observatories and a plan to setup partnerships and networks among online platforms.
• Technological perspective: reference framework for the seamless interoperation of heterogeneous implementations, interacting in a highly distributed and dynamic context.
- recommendation of collaboration model with GIPO
- the set of guidelines for the existing and new initiatives on how to safeguard interoperability with GIPO
• Organizational perspective : set-up and evolution of federations of online observatories.
- governance, quality of data, legal and contractual aspects
In order to deliver a successful roadmap, a set of principles have to be followed in the course of 2016.

Clarify the value proposition for all. For collaboration to happen, the right incentives need to be in place. One of the key variable will be to demonstrate that collaboration benefits not only in terms of cost reduction, but also in terms of greater impact. In particular, the common objective of all these initiative is to generate greater awareness about Internet Governance issues. If collaboration is able to foster greater
31

awareness and participation, for instance by increasing the visits to the websites of the collaborating observatories, this would facilitate deeper integration.

Lower the barriers. In view of the highly dynamic landscape, collaboration should be made as easy as possible. We should not expect formal agreements to be signed among all participating initiatives (although it might become necessary in the future).
As we have seen, new initiative emerge, other disappears. There should be a possibility for easy, low-barrier and informal collaboration with any relevant initiative.

Grow organically. We should not expect the need for large-scale agreements with the majority of initiatives for a federation to take place. Instead, the roadmap should include the possibility for incremental, organic growth with any interested initiative.
Most probably, in the initial phase this should take the shape of bilateral agreements with a limited number of established initiatives, such as Netmundial and GIP. Lightweight collaboration should take place alongside deeper integration, in a sort of
“variable geometry” approach.

Deepen and widen the work on common vocabularies. There is an urgent need to share taxonomies and vocabularies in order to reach a minimum level of
interoperability between initiatives. The current initial work (see section 2.7) should be
further developed with a limited set of key initiatives, and new initiatives should be involved.

Maintain the effort on awareness-raising. It is particularly important to reach out to small communities and initiatives, as the tool can be the most useful for them.
In concrete, the recommended concrete next steps to be taken in the course of 2016 are:
Reach an agreement on a common taxonomy and vocabulary with at least 2 other observatories. The current choice by GIPO to use the DiploFoundation taxonomy facilitates this task;
Define functional and technical specification of the possible GIPO widget to be embedded in third party website, and decide on its implementation;
Define whether GIPO API will allow “writing” from third parties, as well as “reading”
(which is already planned);
Maintain the current “light” collaboration approach, based on inviting other initiatives to present at GIPO webinar. This proved instrumental to building trust as a basis of collaboration.
Continue GIPO Tool awareness building with the support of European Commission and the IG communities by participation in common events and workshops
Identify concrete implementation of the federation roadmap alongside each of the options presented in section ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.
In conclusion, our analysis shows that GIPO has a unique role to play in the context of Internet
Governance observatories. GIPO is “federated by design”: it is the only tool providing a fully fledged open API to enable collaboration with other initiatives; and it includes a dedicated effort precisely to reach this federation. While GIPO should not be expected to be the “central hub” of the system, as this could be seen as alternative to other initiatives and discourage collaboration, it should become the “broker” and “main sponsor” of a federated approach throughout these initiatives, for instance by favouring the adoption of best practices throughout the system.
Work carried out in 2015 has established the credibility of GIPO in building bridges between initiatives, for instance through their continuous involvement in the webinars. 2016 should be the year when this positive collaboration climate is turned into joint action.
32

The survey has been distributed to the following list of platforms:
1 Friends of the IGF (FoIGF) Community Initiative
2
MAPPING (Mapping Alternatives for Privacy,
Property and Internet Governance)
3 Mapping Global Media Policy
4 NetGovMap
5 The NETmundial Solutions Map
6 Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre
7 InternetGov
8 Internet Jurisdiction Project
9 Internet Monitor Project
10 Internet Policy Observatory
11 Network of Centers
12 Brazilian Internet Observatory
13 Mapping Media Freedom
14 IGP (Internet Governance Project)
Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
15 (WGEC) Issue Mapping
16 Digital Watch
17 European Audiovisual Observatory
18 Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan
19 Brazilian Marco Civil Observatory
20 Safernet
21 Open Net Korea
22 The Centre for Internet and Society
33

23 Internet Society
Global Internet Governance Academic Network
24 (GigaNet)
Asian and Pacific Training Centre for Information and Communication Technology for
25 Development (APCICT)
Civil Society Information Society Advisory
26 Council (CSISAC)
Internet Governance in the Middle East and North
27 Africa Region (IGMENA)
Asociación para el Progreso de las
28 Comunicaciones (APC)
29 European Media Platform
30 Insafe
31 Australian Policy Online
32 INHOPE
33 CyberGreen
34

Internet & Jurisdiction
1 Observatory
@IJurisd iction Paul Fehlinger
2 Friends of the IGF
Internet Policy Observatory
3 Pakistan
@foigf Susan Chalmers
@interne tpolicyp Arzak Khan
MAPPING Policy
4 Observatory
5 APO Policy Online
n/a Bogdan Manolea
@ozpoli cyonline
@amand aslawren ce
Amanda
Lawrence
6
7 GIP Digital Watch
8
Insafe / Better Internet for
Kids
The Brazilian Internet
Observatory
9 Research ICT Africa www.saferinternet.org / www.betterinternetforkid
s.eu
@Insafe network Hans Martens
@Genev aGIP Tereza Horejsova
@OIBbr
Diego R.
Canabarro /
Nathalia Sautchuk
@RIAne twork Enrico Calandro
10
Internet Culture Policy and
Law
Korea Internet
11 Transparency Report
@KRITr eport
Tracy Mitrano
Ms. Jiwon Sohn
Observatório do Marco
Civil da Internet - Brazilian
Civil Rights Framework for
12 the Internet Observatory
@omcibr Omar Kaminski
13
Mapping Global Media
Policy
The NETmundial Solutions
14 Map
Arne Hintz (
Cardiff
University, UK)
Gerard Gogging (
University of
Sydney,
Australia) Claudia
Padovani
(University of
Padova, Italy)
@netmu ndialmap Stefaan Verhulst
The global Network of
15 Internet & Society Centers
@Netwo rk_Cente Lorenzo Canova
35

(NoC)
The Global Internet
Governance Academic
16 Network (GigaNet)
17 Internet Monitor
Cybersecurity Capacity
18 Portal
20 IGF Platform for Italy rs
not yet available, under developing
@gigane tr
@thenet monitor
Professor
Marianne
Franklin, current
GigaNet Chair
Rebekah Heacock
Jones
@Capaci tyCentre
Carolin Weisser,
Portal Content
Manager
@AgidG ov Concettina Cassa
Online form is available here:
36

Name of initiative
Link
Organizational setting / financing institution
Managing institution
Contact Person
Email
Twitter
Type:
(eg. observatory, mapping effort, website)
Purpose / Mission:
Thematic coverage:
Target group
(e.g. Is it aimed journalists, diplomats, global or local etc…)
Type of content/ type of data/ sources etc.
Timeline for project (when it started, until when will it last)
People resources used (how many people works on it, what type of experts (technical, policy etc.))
Technological choices adopted (technology used)
Potential for interoperability/ Availability of API or similar services
Services provided (newsletter, events, calendar, access to specific resources etc…)
Taxonomy used (categories and subcategories to structure information)
Lesson learnt / key challenges
Main achievements / key advantages
Possible scenario of collaboration with GIPO
(e.g. 1) Full technical interoperability and integration of services
(using GIPO automated tool to source information and produce curated content that can be automatically fed back into GIPO),
2) Partial integration / collaboration (using GIPO feed or sharing RSS feed with GIPO, organising events together, cross communication of activities etc...),
37

3) No integration / no collaboration. Specify the reasons and possible implementation options
Incentives and barriers to collaboration
See Excel file enclosed.
Kasia Jakimowicz - Global Internet Policy Observatory
1. Diego R. Canabarro - Brazilian Internet Observatory
2. Paul Fehlinger - Internet & Jurisdiction Project
3. Tereza Horejsova - Geneva Internet Platform Digital Watch
38

4. Omar Kaminski (represented by Carlos Affonso de Souza) - Brazilian Marco Civil
Observatory
5. Stefaan Verhulst - The NETmundial Solutions Map
6. Arne Hintz - Mapping Global Media Policy
7. Giancarlo Frosio - World Intermediary Liability Map
8. Valentina Pavel - Mapping Policy Observatory
9. Kelli Kim - Open Net Korea
10. Rob Faris - The Internet Monitor
11. Adela Goberna - Yough@IGF Observatory
[no website provided]
12. Carolin Weisser (Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre/University of Oxford) -
Cybersecurity Capacity Portal
13. Agustina Callegari - The Ombudsman Office of the City of Buenos Aires
[no website provided]
39