Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition Meeting

Dynamic Coalition Meeting Notes

Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition meeting

(14.30, Room 5, 5th December 2008)

These notes should be read in conjunction with the Rights and Internet Governance workshop report  here

Introduction – Facilitator (Max Senges)

·         The internet can be thought of along the axes of Social commons, Service commons, Infrastructure commons

·         The dynamic coalitions are based on multi-stakeholder collaboration; how can we get better cooperation with private sector?

·         How can the IBR work with other coalitions?  Eg working with the Privacy Coalition to translate the terms of service you sign up to online – what do they mean and how are they related to rights?  One way to bring rights forward is to come up with a human readable, modular solution.

·         The IBR coalition has been growing and has developed a new logo and website.

 

Meeting agenda

1) Report on needs and challenges of DCs (feedback from session on Mainstreaming Rights)

2) Discussants and practical solutions

3) Discussion

4) Next steps

 

1) Feedback from “Mainstreaming Human Rights in the work of the IGF” workshop (Max Senges)

  • It’s important to remember that IBR is a dynamic platform to share and collaborate.
  • A representative from the child protection DC highlighted that stronger dialogue is needed in terms of framing rights and interpreting them in internet age.
  • It’s important to work with private sector and government sectors
  • Making rights a key theme of 2009 IGF is an important goal.
  • A key issue is how to make the DCs actually dynamic.  Most are working voluntarily à difficult to maintain energy that we need.

 

2) Discussants

 

Wolfgang Benedek

  • Wide range of issues are relevant.
  • The common denominator is maybe human dignity, right to self determination.
  • When we look at how this is presented, different stakeholders don’t necessarily see it as a rights based approach.  Eg, in the Diplo book, rights presented as separate rather than cross cutting issue
  • Problem of trying to involve governments…mainly CSOs here.
  • Some IGOs, but not broad representation…UNESCO and CoE here, but why not the special raporteur for FoE?
  • Business sees this gap and is responding to it…hope that it will respond more forcefully in the future.
  • Google’s standards are too low…they should state that they are enabling, empowering, contributing to a rights based approach.  This would help other businesses understand.
  • The problem is that rights are often seen as a blame game…a negative approach that makes people uneasy.
  • New guidelines are being developed by different stakeholders eg CoE.
  • Problem of enforcement…IP rights, trade etc have stronger enforcement mechanisms, but this lack of enforcement mechanisms can be countered through decentralised forms…community acting as watchdogs and making positive contributions.
  • IBR DC should act as a platform for debate, but should go beyond that eg establish research groups, networks including teaching, small and large projects in cooperation with business…always trying to maintain multi-stakeholder approach.
  • Could also have political agenda à making people aware of  rights approach…trying to build consensus around issues at different levels (regional and global).
  • Can do it around issues of interest.
  • This shouldn’t necessarily lead to recommendations to IGF, but it could….substantiated insights to contribute to the IGF.

 

Facilitator - Idea of research is very interesting…Global Partners is talking to Max about developing project proposals and all are welcome to collaborate.

Ownership of suggestions is key…we need dedication about pushing ideas through. For example, can Wolfang own and push forward the research aspect of the coalition?

 

Wolfgang Kleinwachter

  • This is a DC, not a workshop.  IGF isn’t a negotiation body, but a DC can produce outcomes.  If we are talking about a bill of rights, it’s practical.  It could be an instrument at the end of the process.
  • We have an internationally recognised bill of rights which was a huge achievemnt, but not all are happy. As we move forward, we have to be careful we don’t undermine what’s already been achieved.
  • We have to base all of this on the UDHR – IBR activities have to be embedded in the universal declaration.
  • Article 19 already embeds rights to FoE, but we could work on its interpretation, including the element of the right to share….sharing is of practical value in end to end communications.
  • Other human rights elements brought into discussions….
  • Internet of Things discussion….should it be a right that the RFID chip is silenced when it goes to a person…and the right to forget – should there be an expiration debate on what we put online?
  • Access – does it need to be a universal right?
  • There is a split between ESCR and ICCPR – need to link them back together and see how they relate to each other.
  • Proposal – if we produce something in the IBR DC we should approach the Human Rights Council of the UN….there’s no debate about internet censorship there.  We can make them more aware of what’s going on in the internet world.

 

Facilitator– we can talk about this with the IGF secretariat – how they can support us.

Marco Pancini – European Public Policy Council – Google.

  • The laws we are applying everyday as internet users were written for another era…I’m not just talking about UDHR, but day to day laws that are making our life very difficult.
  • What is the role of industry players, governments?
  • Google is using Global Network Initiative as a platform to play an active role – to propose FoE and privacy as problems that need to be on the agenda
  • GNI = Google, Microsoft and Yahoo effort to create a framework and lobbying platform to put FoE and privacy in the agenda of all governments, and making these alive in all of the services we provide.
  • [Max - An internal effort to review practices..a self regulating effort.
  • They say they want to work with govs and CS…IGF could be an interesting way to help them so that]
  • [Ronnie – wasn’t just the companies – civil society is involved; it is primarily a Western initiative]
  • I was present at the founding of IGF in Italy with Rodota as a chair…I am committed as we as internet users, players etc need to fit into these discussions about values and rights alongside governments.

 

Thomas Schneider – Swiss government

  • Challenges for governments.
  • Governments have a long tradition in dealing with human rights in the analogue world à clear structures on what the rights and duties are, what the rules are at national, regional and global level.
  • Eg UDHR, European Convention on Human rights (important as connected to courts).  Council of Europe is working to guarantee maximum rights with minimum restrictions; security is a precondition for rights and freedoms, and not the other way round.
  • Measures are there to ensure that you can actually exercise your rights and freedoms, but this depends on factors such as government, and the structure of the media system.
  • Traditional role of govs has been challenged by the virtual world, and they’re still trying to work out how to respond.
  • New challenges have been presented for everyone.
  • Decision making processes of govs are often too slow…national laws aren’t enough to tackle global issues.  Have to see what we can do – harmonisation isn’t always possible.
  • How can we get a rights system into the internet?  All actors have to be involved; there is a key role for all actors.  Technical decisions have political, economic and social impacts.  This is often only realised 20 yrs later.
  • When you include all these actors you don’t come to binding decisions…govs have to get used to rough consensus rather than binding decisions.
  • Mush partnershipsà legitimacy problems…who guarantees that companies are enforcing principles that they announce on their website?
  • Govs often try to regain control in a traditional way, and citizens expect same rights t be protected online and offline.
  • Don’t need new rights…always trying to make laws technologically neutral…don’t need to change them every time a new technology is developed.  Basic principles that apply online and offline.
  • Dangerous to try and elaborate an internet bill of rights à might come to an agreement below what we already have.  Was a special time when UDHR was agreed.
  • Useful to look at rights there are and transpose them onto the internet so that everyone understands them, even if they don’t know UDHR exists.
  • CoE is trying to develop practical guidelines, encouraging everyone takes responsibility for fostering HRs on the internet.

 

Facilitator – there’s room for a bill of rights document to be created within the coalition, but it’s more of a process at the moment.

We’re thinking of changing the name to “rights and principles” as we’re a broad platform for discussion.

 

Chengetai Masango – IGF Secretariat

·         DCs were one outcome of first IGF – they weren’t planned, they just emerged.  The secretariat thought it was an excellent example of how the IGF can produce synergies.

·         We’re concerned about how to make the DCs more active…throughout the year, a continual process.

·         Nitin says DCs are like minded coalitions going towards a shared goal.

·         We’re very supportive of the DCs…try to give them publicity and provide them rooms.

·         If people are having problems connecting with governments or UN bodies, they can come to us and we’ll try to connect them.

·         The IBR process is very important.  When people discuss the issues, they become sensitised to them, so it’s important to include people who agree and disagree in the discussion.

·         The Council of Europe seems to have a different approach, looking at the current conventions and trying to adapt them to the internet age.  It’s all good as long as there’s discussion and people meet.

·         There seem to be competing views on the balance between privacy and security…but there doesn’t need to be competition between them. We can have agreement that both are important.

 

Facilitator Question: is there a way to make it easier for governments and the private sector to participate in the coalitions?

 

Chengetai: It’s difficult….if people make statements in their private capacity it can cause problems as people think they are representing the bodies they work for.  In the MAG there are guidelines for this – people participate in their individual capacity, and are protected by Chatham House rules.

 

Stefano Rodota

·         It’s important to see that the core business of the IGF is the UDHR.

·         The merger of different DCs could be a good step because it can reinforce the trend of producing a critical mass and point of view.  We can use this critical mass to improve the process, and to push into specific directions.

·         We need to have an official place for this issue of right in the next IGF in Cairo, not just disseminated into different workshops.

·         Google suggested having a privacy council at the UN level…we need to formalise new perspectives in the official institutions of the UN.

·         Multi-stakeholdersim embodies a paradox: the private sector is leading on internet rights whilst the public sector creates big brother states.

·         We have to stimulate a different approach. Can private companies be the only sovereign bodies in the protection of rights and freedoms?

·         We must not undermine UDHR, but there’s a problem – we have to resist rewriting it, but we cannot leave all decisions as a matter of interpretation. Eg when the European charter was under discussion, there were similar objections that we threatened to undermine the UDHR and the European Convention.  But now, even if the charter isn’t binding, it’s changing interpretations of rights by institutions.  Reinterpretation is therefore important.

·         Some new issues can’t fit into old framework e.g. internet as a commons.

·         I would like not to use the IBR to go back to discussions about different generations of rights…we need to remember the indivisibility of rights.

 

Thomas Schneider– Supports the idea that we should have one day dedicated to rights and principles at the IGF.

Supports name change as it’s important to incorporate everyone, including critics…they might be persuaded along the way.

Including the private sector is important.

 

Comment from audience – I disagree with including “principles” in the name of the coalition as it will give the private sector the excuse of focusing on principles and undermining rights.

Vint Cerf said we had to keep the internet unregulated, but that would be chaotic.

“Bill of rights” and “principles” are different.

What is the goal of the BoR if you put principles in?

 

Comment from audience: I don’t like conversations about values…about interpreting rights

 

Comment from audience: Much legislation is anti-human rights…this process in the coalition will make us question legislation which is inappropriate to the internet age; it will force countries to re-visit out dated laws.

 

Comment from audience: To be strategic, should we call for a main session to define or discuss the norms and principles of internet governance, as referenced in the WGIG definition of internet governance?  I think we would be more likely to secure a main session that way.  We can then argue that human rights should underpin these norms and principles, whilst including as broad a range of people as possible in the discussion.

 

Comment from audience: I have been scared away by the coalition name “Internet bill of rights” in the past…but we’d be delighted to be involved in the group if it’s talking about advocating human rights.

 

Comment from audience: Let’s take dignity as a principle…it’s not a right.  How can we apply that…how to turn dignity into a right without clashing with free expression?  There are moral and ethical values that we need to build into the discussion.  “Rights based principles” are fine as it means we’re talking about a regulatory framework that gives maximum freedom with minimum restrictions on rights.

 

Comment from audience: Principles like dignity can be enforced.  Principles can have an enormous binding role when society needs flexible principles in order to be adapted to the dynamic of societies.

 

Comment from audience: This IBR process grew out of WSIS.  I don’t want discussion of principles to result in slippage from the rights bedrock.  The flipside of developing rights-based principles is responsibilities – the responsibilities of users.

 

Comment from audience: I am interested in this workshop.  After the “mainstreaming rights” workshop in the morning, this is the most dynamic.

I think that the role of government is an instrumental role – a facilitator for the discussion to take place.  Italy hosted 2 discussions on internet rights.  This effort to better coordinate the coalition is great – we salute the enthusiasm.

The Italian government would be pleased to host a mid-term review of these issues in July.

 

Facilitator – it would be interesting to reach out to the other DCs and coordinate with them on this.

 

Comment from audience: how can we ensure that this work feeds into other efforts such as the GNI.

 

Facilitator: we’ll explore this…how we can contribute to the watchdog facility, reaching millions of users.

 

Comment from audience: Moving forward, there is agreement that we should base or discussions on the existing rights agreements.  This is a huge achievement.

We are developing a new understanding of existing rights.  If these were based on concrete cases, it would be an interesting development.  The DCs could help other institutions that are struggling with these issues…e.g. we could go to the court and ask for decisions, resulting in the emergence of case law relating to the internet.

 

Thomas – The Swiss government is interested in joining the coalition.

 

Facilitator – we are also talking to Argentine government.

 

Comment from audience: We are starting a process of going forwards…

We should look at the WSIS declarations to see what has already been agreed upon….we can do work in gathering the texts together that are important.

We should look at what’s already been decided and what is coming through.

For example, the Council of Europe work (187) on the information society is an idea of a charter with basis in governments and the private sector.

UNESCO is also preparing something, and the OECD.

I suggest that comments from the “mainstreaming workshop” are used as well…we can question those people on how they see their roles.

 

UNESCO – we are very interested in this discussion…We are in charge of WSIS Action line 10 on the ethical dimension of the information society. We should start thinking about how to collaborate for the next IGF, and how to create a HR approach.

You’re welcome to join our activities and vice versa…it’s the right time.