NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2014
"CONNECTING CONTINENTS FOR ENHANCED MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INTERNET GOVERNANCE"
05 SEPTEMBER 2014
ROUND TABLE FOR ORGANISERS OF WORKSHOPS
ON ENHANCING DIGITAL TRUST AND THE INTERNET
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Good morning, everyone. We will just wait another minute while people land in here, the last day of the IGF, just to get started. And while we do, I just, for those who haven't seen it if you go to the IGF website, this is the workshop for organizers of, this is the round table for organizers of workshops and enhancing digital trust in the Internet and human rights. If you go to the IGF schedule you'll see a prepared draft message that we've prepared, a few key points. If you have a moment to reflect on those while we wait for others to start, I encourage you to do that. Thanks.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Okay, good morning. It's important not to penalize the people who arrive on time by waiting too long for those who haven't. My name is Joy Liddicoat. I'm a human rights specialist at the Association for Progressive Communications.
And welcome to this round table for organizers of workshops and enhancing digital trust in the Internet, strains of IGF 2014. I thought I would begin by giving background as to how this round table came about. And then hand over to the Ambassador from Germany for a few opening remarks in relation to Human Rights Council panel next week. Provide an opportunity for questions, comments, observations about that, and then to give workshop organizers or participants a chance to share reflections on discussions about the right to privacy here at the IGF.
Then we will move to have a discussion of a proposed draft message, and some key initiatives which as I mentioned is on the IGF schedule. We might have a discussion about the modalities for this. Finally, we will end with a discussion of whether there are any points that participants would like to make to the IGF on taking stock on the way forward around this topic and these two workshop strains.
Okay. Please come and sit at the table if you are wanting to come in.
So this idea for this round table was conceived from a very pure coincidence. And the pure coincidence is that next week the Human Rights Council is meeting for the 27th regular session and it will be considering on Friday the 12th of September from 9 to 12 in the morning, they will be debating the presentation of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report on the right to privacy in the digital age. This is a report mandated by a U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner's office to consider this issue in light of concerns about surveillance and the right to privacy that had arisen in 2013.
So we thought with this meeting happening next week, a huge event at the IGF it would be useful to consider if there is some way that IGF participants might want to share their thoughts about this important fundamental human rights issue to the Council.
So this is somewhat novel, this idea. It is mandated by the mandate of the IGF which is to encourage interinstitutional messages from one U.N. mandated body to another. Of course, the IGF itself is a U.N. mandated body, as is the Human Rights Council. It is also something we need to be creative about. We are not sure how the modalities will go and we would like to share thoughts and ideas about that as well.
Welcome, particularly to the government civil society, private sector, technical community participants that I can see here. Perhaps if I can hand over now to the Ambassador, perhaps to say a few comments about the panel, why it was conceived and the concept for it. Yes? Thank you.
>> DIRK BRENGELMANN: Thank you, Joy, it's a great pleasure to be here. I am the Commissioner for International Cyber Policy at the Foreign Office at Berlin, Germany. For us the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Pele with his unrevocable commitment to the right to privacy, is a milestone. And I am looking very much forward to the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the panel next week.
I believe the report and all the discussions following it will also contribute to enhance trust in this sphere. I think trust is what is really needed. That is why the follow-on resolution in the third Committee needs to take up central conclusions of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Let me highlight a few of them. Jurisdiction over Internet infrastructure is a core question. On the Internet, people exercise the right to privacy by cross-border communication. A narrow concept permits interception of all communication. That would annihilate Internet privacy for good. The High Commissioner for Human Rights report makes, as I think important suggestions in that respect.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights' conclusions on the relevance of metadata are equally important. Depending on both amount and interlinkage, the collection of metadata may significantly interfere with the right to privacy. And I think we also need more clarity when such interference is warranted for the reasons for the public good.
This includes the policy and laws and administrative orders as well as issue of transparency, control mechanisms, and remedies. I really think the High Commissioner for Human Rights gives rich guidance and very good ideas in this respect. So I think the discussion will not stop at the third Committee. And we will ensure that it is taken back to the Human Rights Council afterwards. And there we also hope that there will be a very substantial and good discussion. Thank you.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you very much. I would like to state we also have one of the proposed panelists who will be speaking at the Human Rights Council here. Would you like to introduce yourself and make any comments?
>> My name is Yves Nissim. I'm with Orange and also with the Industry Dialogue. Just a word on the Industry Dialogue. The industry dialogue is a community of telecos and suppliers of telecommunications. We are nine. And we got together at the time of the Arab revolution when we were asked to do things we didn't want to do by governments, to stop some networks, to be send messages and all that.
We decide that had we would fight and have a leverage being together a lot more than if we were alone facing the demands. So we do construct the industry dialogue, telecommunications dialogue, worked on a set of principles based on the U.N. principles, and now we are trying to share best practices. When we saw the work of the High Commissioner, it really sounded very strong for us because it was really pointing out a few elements, a few problems we were dealing with every day. Meaning facing our position with respect to the government's positions. So as an idea we decided to write comments and proposals for the document that actually are now included inside the document.
And I guess this is the reason why I was invited to the panel to defend arguments just for the sake of transparency. These are the different points we tried to defend. The first one was in some countries we do have governments which have a direct link to our networks which is called swarm. We would like this not to happen anymore. We would like to keep our networks in our hands and respond to formal and transparent procedures to help governments in their work, but not have them have a direct link to our network and do things that we don't know what they are doing. This is the first point we wanted to defend.
The second is to, as everybody is asking now, to have a clear and transparent procedure to address demands of surveillance or telecommunication information in every single country and work from best practices from country to country.
The third one was a demand on transparency. We are committed as telecos, and you've probably seen the Vodaphone report. A few months ago we were committed to do a transparency report, but we do believe that the first issue of a transparency should come from governments. Actually, if we look at the numbers themselves, in one country we are three, four, five telecos working in a country. A measure of one teleco doesn't mean anything. A measure coming from the government is a lot more meaningful.
These are the main areas in which we are going to try to dialogue with the multi-stakeholder in place in then panel.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. I just want to check if anyone has any questions about the Human Rights Council panel itself, anything that they want to know about its modalities or procedurally, if you are unclear about how all that -- please, if there are any questions, speak up.
Okay. So we thought it might be useful then to just open up the discussion to hear from workshop organizers on enhancing digital trust and human rights decisions and perhaps those who attended these workshops, just to get your feedback, to share your comments on what have you been hearing about this topic of the right to privacy in the discussions? Has it been significant? Have there been any points people have strongly made or recommendations? And perhaps to share these with each other. So the floor is open.
>> Yes, I'm from the Danish Media Council and I'm the organizer of the Privacy Commission, which is the second one we had in a row and we had one also in Bali. This is a good continuation of what was presented in the role of businesses. It is specifically, if you look at the Commissioner's report there's a whole section on the role of businesses. And I'll just take out some of the points, main points that we had in the workshop. Of course, it addresses this whole thing of the role and responsibility of business to provide surveillance-proof technologies, if you can call that compliant with human rights framework. That means to provide something that is not wiretap ready by default. It doesn't support the development of an environment that facilitates sweeping kinds of surveillance that we have seen. So the speakers they addressed the need to reframe the conversation about privacy in both policy making but particularly in the business evolution. Privacy shouldn't be viewed as a position of innovation but as a more natural component of creating a solution and innovating and addressing also user demands for choice and control.
So the whole point was that privacy is not only a concept but a solution. And it addresses many different things, both the way that users need to be able to control their social context and their relations and repeat the close relations but also the way that businesses handle user data back stage. So it needs to take into account, we were looking at different areas, data ownership, big data, business models, user demands for convenience and user controls.
The main point was also that there is actually a need for both social and economic investment in these small alternative solutions that build on alternative business models and privacy by design, to create what I said the surveillance-proof technological environment that is a priority strengthens the enforcement of the right to privacy, not the surveillance on a blanket scale.
Also another point is that what we can see from the two workshops we have had these two years was also that there are too many interpretations for what is the prerequisite for privacy standards. That kind of clouds the outcome. There is not enough alternative and truly novel ideas of how privacy can be incorporated into digital media business development.
So one very core idea from this workshop was that there is a need for an international level playing field of privacy principles. Of course, we recognize that the human rights guide for businesses from 2011, but in regards to the right to privacy there is a very, very specific need from very detailed guidelines and an internationally agreed upon standards regarding the right to privacy because business decisions today they are core to the implementation of this right. So these were the main ideas from our workshop.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Excellent. And if you have those in any written form, please do feel free to share them with us.
Excellent. Thank you.
Including a specific recommendation, that's great.
Any other comments, feedback? Summaries?
>> My name is Alex from Privacy International, and first a few positive points. I was on, in a workshop and on a panel on mobile trust and privacy. So on that panel there's a lot of discussion about privacy, the need to look at the way mobile networks, systems work and how to ensure that the privacy of the users is protected in the form of consent about how the information is going to be used. Also explaining further to users in general what is the information that they give to the providers has been used for. So I think those were the key points.
In the other one I attended it was on the transparency. There is a few people on the panel from business who were keen to present the work that they have been doing which we welcome. But it is not enough yet at the moment. There is not enough information in these transparency reports. That's one point that came out of it.
The other point was, and it was made by GNI, is that the responsibility will come on the states as well, and not just from companies. And that needs to be the first step. I think that was said just before, it's something that came through in the High Commissioner's report as well. So I think there's a lot of reflection of what was said in the report and discussions that have been happening here.
Maybe just a broad comment. I attended the opening ceremony and patiently waited until the 20th speaker, so the last speaker before privacy was even mentioned, and not in detail. It was just privacy needs to be protected.
So in terms of the broad issues being discussed possibly by states and they should consider the high level stakeholders in these discussions, and privacy is not on their agenda as a main issue.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Sorry, I have forgotten who I should have introduced.
>> AVRI DORIA: From ABC, responding to Alex's report about the workshop that dealt with mobile, we were involved in an Internet governance forum in South Africa where information was shared that the community that is, the people who really are being victimized by fraud, fraud that is perpetrated as a result of lack of protection for privacy, particularly for pay as you go mobile users, really reaches the poorest of the poor. And a lot of this is fraud, bang fraud, insurance scam fraud. And it reaches people who are not familiar with contractual relationships, who very easily provide their identity numbers over the phone, for example, in exchange for some deal that they are promised.
And the fiscal relation, the financial services board has instructed banks to only pursue mobile related fraud if it is over $50,000. So there's this massive, you know, it's apparently millions and millions of cases per year of fraud resulting from lack of protection of privacy, particularly for pay as you go customers, but not only pay as you go customers. And there's no resource whatsoever. Banks then generally instruct their customers to close the account and open a new one. That is the standard response at the moment.
>> Just on comment on Alex's report. I'm very glad to see that mobile Internet is being addressed at the IGF. We are trying to propose such a panel in which many times mobile networks have been shut down and many attempts to take over or to shut down SMS have been made, you know, the country in which we operate. That was not accepted. So I'm glad we have had other panels dealing with the same problem. To let you know the mobile data in which, in the countries in which we operate, South Africa and the Middle East, is over 50 percent of the mobile access. I hope the next issue of the IGF will deal more on this subject.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Sounds like a recommendation for taking stock in main, and going forward in the main session.
Thank you. So we have had a number of sort of business-focused comments come up. Ricki?
>> Thank you. I'm Ricki from Denmark, and have some observations with regard to human rights during these past days not only related to privacy but human rights more generally. When I first looked over the schedule, I haven't participated for a few years. I was disappointed. It seemed like human rights weren't firmly on the agenda as I saw them a couple of years ago. But then while being here I realized that they have been there, but they haven't maybe been as directly addressed in the programme, definitely not in the Plenary Session. However, they have sort of mainstreamed into a lot of topics.
I participated in two workshops where they were very much on the spot. One was the Internet rights and principles coalition, the discussion on the charter on human rights online. And the Council of Europe guide on Internet users' rights that are both directly related to the discussion on how human rights apply in an online context. I would say the main take-out from both those sessions were that we have come a long way in terms of standard setting, of translating standards. But the really core issue now is the various challenges that groups are facing with regard to national implementation and with regard to access to remedies in particular. A strong focus on access remedy or rather lack of access and the role that both private sector and government play in this regard is across cutting theme in both of these two workshops.
Then I participated in a workshop I thought was interesting on ICANN and human rights that reflected on the recent report that has been made on how ICANN's procedures and practices have human rights implications in a number of arenas in response to a report that came out in June. And I think that report was also a really important document because it really makes the case very clear that what ICANN does has human rights implications in a number of arenas. And the current structures lack the safeguards that we would normally expect. For me that was maybe the most important workshop in terms of feeding my knowledge on okay, here is really an arena where discussions are moving and where a lot of stuff is happening right at the moment.
I mean, a lot of the discussions around ICANN are focusing on transparency and the IN transition, et cetera. It is important that people who are concerned about human rights focus on this work because I think there's a momentum right now that we need to leverage very strong in all the arenas that we have access to.
Lastly, I participated in two or three workshops that were all called something around intermediary liability or platform responsibility or online services. That addressed the role of private companies vis-a-vis human rights. And I think one main point that I took out of those was that it seems that industry since the Global Network Initiative and also with the industry dialogue have focused a lot on their role vis-a-vis human rights, upholding human rights standards in relation to requests they receive from governments. So a strong focus on situations where they are being pressured by governments, but not the same focus on how their business practices themselves affect freedom of expression and privacy when it is not related to an interception request or a request of having direct access or maybe to even shut down networks, but more the general business models and the effect they have and the lack of human rights impact assessment of these practices on a more daily procedural level, was one of the take-out that I noticed as important.
It goes for IPCs, of course, but it also goes for a variety of online platforms and services more broadly on the Internet.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. This is open to participants if they wish to propose a session at the main session of the IGF, if that's a proposal you want to make, then you can.
Alex, in response?
>> ALEX: Just in response to the last few comments, there's been a lot of focus on business and how they have been engaging in the IGF. It seems a bit disappointing that now that we are supposed to have a multi-stakeholder process, civil society and industry leading this discussion at the IGF and states haven't made a visible contribution to the discussion. Now even the ones that have been supporting, some of the U.N. resolutions that have been welcomed at the U.N. Human Rights Council haven't been reflected here at the IGF. That's possibly a suggestion to encourage states who are leading the discussions to also lead the discussions here at the IGF on related issues.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you for that concrete suggestion. Make sure we've got notes on that. Others?
>> I am Scott Busby. On that note I'll intervene. I'm from the U.S. Department of State, the Human Rights Bureau there. And of course, we continue to remain very interested and engaged in the privacy discussion. We are very committed to privacy and grateful for the High Commissioner's report. Although we do not yet have a formal position on the many issues and recommendations in that report or what the next appropriate step might be in light of the report.
That said, we are very committed to engaging with all stakeholders in the process of analyzing the report and discussing next steps. We will participate in the panel discussion at the Human Rights Council. There will be a U.S. expert on the panel, although she does not represent the U.S. government in any way, Sarah Cleveland, Professor of International Law from Columbia University will be there. She has done a lot of thinking about these issues and we're interested in hearing what she has to say.
I would say that as was the case at the General Assembly last year and at the Human Rights Council session in March, we would very much like to see a consensus outcome on whatever is done after the panel discussion. We think that's important and we are prepared to do our best to try to achieve that consensus.
To that end, we believe quite strongly that a very deliberate process of considering the report as will be done during the panel discussion and then discussing next steps would be important. So we are, we would like to avoid rushing to judgment on the report and what is the next appropriate step. We think it makes sense to have the panel discussion, to digest the results of that panel discussion; to have a discussion and negotiation in the context of the General Assembly.
Then at some point down the line to consider what might be the next appropriate step to take. I know that some NGOs have already called for creation of a Special Rapporteur on privacy, including privacy international. We do not yet have a position on that recommendation. Our only view we do have, though, is that should such a Special Rapporteur be created, we think it would be very important for the mandate of that rapporteur to be a broad one when it comes to privacy because privacy entails not only digital privacy, but includes rights to reproductive health, includes things like one's sexual preferences, one's gender identity.
We think ensuring that the mandate is broad enough to take account of those sorts of things is important. Of course, in many governments, intrusions on the right to privacy are much more, if you will, less subtle than perhaps some of the digital issues that are of concern. At present we have governments around the world who are directly intruding on people's homes, on people's family life, and we think it is important that any mandate give a Special Rapporteur the ability to look at those sorts of issues as well as issues of privacy in the digital realm.
I really am interested to hear what sort of discussions there were at this IGF about the issue. I must say, you know, as to be expected most of the workshops and panels I participated in, the issue of surveillance and U.S. practices did come up. And we continue to work hard on these issues. President Obama obviously last January laid out a reform agenda on these issues for the U.S. I think of perhaps greatest significance to the international community is the president's commitment to seek to extend U.S. privacy protections, or privacy protections that pertain to U.S. citizens to all citizens of the world. We are in the process of still discussing and deliberating on how to do that. It is not something that is easily done, but it is something that President Obama has committed to the United States to. That will be something that we will certainly bring to the discussion on privacy at the Human Rights Council and in the General Assembly. Of course, we welcome the thoughts and recommendations of all stakeholders in developing this sort of new approach to global privacy. Thank you.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thanks, Scott. Very helpful, giving some texture and nuance to the panel, Human Rights Council panel discussions. Particularly, for those who haven't been aware that there have been some discussions and suggestions about a new mandate, such as a Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, I am not sure if these have come out specifically in this IGF or not.
I just want to quickly check, is there anyone on remote participation? No? Okay.
Any other comments? Nikolai? Sure, introduce yourself.
>> Thanks a lot. Nikolai, Internet Society. So I would like to briefly report on a workshop we organized with CDT on Tuesday. The workshop was about the implications of post-Snowden, some of the post-Snowden proposals which relate more specifically to making it mandatory for companies to locate their servers in the countries they want to serve. For example, we have seen a few measures or initiatives that would seek to, if you are on Facebook and you want to provide services to citizens in country X, you would have to actually physically build servers in those countries.
So the goal of the session was to first of all assess whether those measures would be effective in reducing foreign surveillance. Secondly, to see whether there would be any other chilling effects or side effects, whether good or bad.
In a nutshell, the conclusion was that a big focus on the geographic location of data would be unlikely to make much improvements to address external surveillance, for many reasons. For example, there still are extra territorial legal means to access the data, even if the servers are located abroad.
Depending on the case, these measures might have further negative implications on user choice. There are many cases, many reasons why people might want to host data in another country, because that other country may have better privacy protections, for example, or better service. So on user choice that may have an impact.
As well, it could actually increase capacities for domestic surveillances on citizens. So basically, the conclusion was that, well, as we all know there is no simple way to address civil surveillance but the technical restrictive measure or a big focus on the geographical location of data will likely be ineffective if they are mandatory.
On the technical side it was felt it is probably more useful to limit the number of people that have access to your data rather than increase examples were given on the usefulness to explore the possibility to mainstream encryption tools, which is not to say that localization strategies cannot be powerful tools for the Internet, for example, if people want to develop Internet traffic or if companies wish to, that would not have much implication on surveillance. Thank you.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Paul?
>> My name is Paul Fehlinger, the Internet and Jurisdiction Project. We had a workshop yesterday on privacy and international jurisdictions. I want to share one insight relevant for this discussion here. Since more requests, we are with the Internet and jurisdiction project, a multi-stakeholder process dealing with the development of transnational gee, for user data in situations where users public authorities and platforms are operators are located in different jurisdictions and today more requests for those three actions are sent directly to operators and platforms in other countries because the current modes of Internet cooperation struggle to scale up to the digital realities of the Internet.
So something I would like to share is the insight that we should stress the need for transparent and predictable due process procedures for access to user data, especially in situations where those requests are sent across borders.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. Eduardo?
>> Good morning to everybody. I'm Eduardo Bertoni, Director for the Studies of Freedom of Expression in Palermo University in Argentina. Let me share with you some comments and also maybe information.
There are just three points. First one, we cohosted like we did last year a workshop on the digital safety for journalists with UNESCO and Article 19. It was a very interesting workshop, but something that came up during the workshop was the importance to expand the idea of digital safety, not only to physical safety but also to legal safety for journalists. That means the problem of different laws in different countries that intersect with the problem of jurisdiction. The problem is the defamation online that doesn't have the same provisions in other countries. If you are a blogger in one country you can have problems in another country.
This is something that was, I think that UNESCO took very seriously, the idea to expand digital safety to legal safety is one of the ideas that particularly we at my center are working during the past year on. It was welcome by some people in the room.
Second comment, I attended many workshops or round tables related to human rights and the Internet. Particularly I was a panelist in one related to the Internet charter developed by the dynamic coalition. My comment is that it is amazing to see how many people are interested in this these workshops. Many of the rooms were plenty of people. It is not the case today, but there were in many of the workshops many people. Some people couldn't sit down.
My only comment just for the IGF is that sometimes these workshops are overlapping with other workshops that are talking about human rights or talking about other collateral things that are important for us that are interested in human rights and the Internet.
So this is something, a suggestion for the organisation in the future. I know how IGF works. Sometimes it is a little bit messy to attend all the workshops that we want. But since human rights is already installed in the agenda of the IGF, I would like to see a little bit more organisation on the workshops that are related to human rights.
Finally, though I think that is really, really important to work at the level of the U.N. on this issue, this report related to the -- or this panel related to the Human Rights Council and the report of the High Commissioner is really important. I also think it is important to work in the will regional level. A piece of information we at the center are coordinating an effort of some organisations like APC, for example, and others, organisations to introduce the topic of human rights and the Internet in the agenda of the inter-American system on human rights. It is, to be fair, it is through the Special Rapporteur of freedom of expression has done an excellent job. She just published a report on freedom of expression and the Internet, but we think that the inter-American system might expand the agenda and not only think on Internet when they are thinking in freedom of expression.
So we are doing some activities to try to push the inter-American system to expand that agenda. Thank you.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thanks, Eduardo.
Any other reports and reflections on workshops before we move to the next section?
I had one from a workshop that I participated in which was organized by ICC basis in APC. This was a Workshop 139, evaluating multi-stakeholder mechanisms to address governance issues. And it was interesting I think in this session that a key theme coming through was in the area of Internet governance we are in a process of evolution and a dynamic process that is not static. And likewise other mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council are also in processes of evolution. These discussions about the Internet and human rights are also new to them. Member States and participants are also needing to look at what is going on in spaces such as the IGF for guidance and input.
I think that was an interesting thing to come through. And particularly picking up on Ricki's point earlier, even in ICANN which is an institution that really we didn't talk about directly at the IGF in previous years, now there is very direct discussion of ICANN and human rights. And particularly, for example, how should ICANN take account of U.N. Human Rights Council resolutions and how do they inform the government advisory Committee to ICANN in its work. I think there are some interesting new issues emerging that also came through there.
So it seems -- sorry, Lee, you want to comment?
>> Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe. It is really a short remark to say that it's great to have these sort of --
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Could you speak closer to the microphone?
>> It is great we are taking stock of the human rights workshops over the few days. I remember when the MAG was planning the IGF and wasn't even sure that the subject of, the theme of human rights would be a subtheme of the agenda. It wasn't very on the table from the start. It's quite surprising now that we have how many workshops related to human rights actually being done? Something like half I would say, more or less.
So there's something strange in that it's not on the table necessarily as a main theme and yet there is so much discussion here. As usual, over the years on these issues. It's quite revealing. Thank you.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thanks. Avri?
>> AVRI DORIA: Yes, I was going to make some remarks in regard to that and respond to Ricki's points as well. Overall we have seen progress in how human rights has been addressed. So I've only been on the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the last two years, but APC, my organisation has been involved from the beginning. And there was a period when human rights was an absolute unmentionable term in the IGF. That really only changed in 2010 at the Vilnius IGF when APC and I think human rights watch and a few other NGOs organized a pre-event on human rights. And we had Frank La Rue speak at the pre-event.
The shift is interesting in the thinking of the IGF fits into the established intergovernmental system. The shift came after the Human Rights Council resolution in 2012. It became easy to talk about human rights. But it is still a struggle. What happened last year, we actually had a main session on surveillance, the U.S. government among others were subjected to public interrogation and attack. It was a very open, very transparent, very vibrant session.
We also had a main session on human rights. I think what has happened this year is that other issues took precedence to some extent such as the NETmundial and questions about where the Internet Governance ecosystem is going. It was difficult to convince the MAG to sell human rights and digital trust as subthemes. They are subthemes, though. They are there in the programme paper. Even though they are not main sessions on them, they exist. That means that when workshop applicants apply for workshops, they can link their workshop to the subthemes. I think that the MAG needs to reflect on the demand. I think there is such strong demand for workshops on this.
What is partly problematic, the MAG is not an easy structure. Those governments that traditionally supported Internet rights issues in the Human Rights Council and in other spaces, also at the national level, or they are active in the freedom online coalition do not in my view coordinate sufficiently with their colleagues who represent their governments in the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't.
But it really does need to be much more deliberate because the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group is not in its nature a rights-friendly body. It is a bit ad hoc. Then civil society has a fairly weak presence there and also come to the IGF with many different priorities. Business also come with priorities. So it is not as if we are hostile to human rights. It is just not necessarily an issue that there is sufficient convergence around without one actually working quite hard.
I think it would be useful for this group as it is made up by workshop organizers on these themes to make a recommendation into the taking stock session that a round table discussion of this nature should be institutionalized in the IGF. That it's not up to every single year's MAG to decide. I don't think it needs to be a main session necessarily. Main sessions in the IGF for those who attend them are not the most satisfying in many cases, but I think it's extremely important that it becomes an established part of the IGF agenda to deal with human rights broadly as issues. I think digital trust, I find the combination actually a really useful combination because it also appeals to different stakeholders. Digital trust appeals to both business and civil society stakeholders. And governments, of course, have to deal with that.
So there are also some concrete ideas that I can make but maybe I'll come to that later. Some suggestions on how the IGF can deal with human rights more effectively. But I also wanted to report that the IGF has succeeded. I think it is important that we recognize that success. The work of the Internet rights and principles coalition and the discussions, the increasing number of discussions in workshops at the IGF contributed to the fact that the NETmundial statement has a very strong set of principles that are embedded in human rights. Not everyone is satisfied with them to the same degree, but they do substantially affirm that Internet Governance should be under pinned by respect for human rights.
That would not have happened as easily as it did if it was not for the IGF. And for the work of the Internet rights and principles coalition. Similarly we launched of the African declaration on rights and freedoms, this was primarily from civil society but not only. We are in conversations with governments in Africa and intergovernmental bodies about this declaration. It will take years, but again that would not have emerged if it was not for conversations and networking and partnership.
I think change in thinking, change in analysis that emerged from the IGF.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thanks, Avri. It seems to me we've got two strings of discussion here. One, I think we've got some ideas and thoughts about reflections on the discussions around the right to privacy. Then there's that IGF would be appropriate for input on the Human Rights Council, we have a great cluster there. There's another cluster that is based around what workshop organizers and participants might want to suggest to reflect back to the main session on taking stock on the way forward, including some sort of concrete suggestions around the IGF programme on human rights, how the MAG might appropriate and so on. So I'm just going to suggest that perhaps we separate these two for the next part of this session and focus on the first one. Initially, it was the idea of a possible draft message or input to the Human Rights Council and if my friend at the back of the room can please put the ether pad link up on the main screen so people can see it. We developed a simple set of messages that are actually up on the IGF website on the Lint to this page. Sorry, just get that note pad up.
That's okay. He's got the link. And if you can click on that, please, and go to the document.
It's the, if the person operating the screen can do that, please?
This is a simple set of messages as a discussion starter, noting that essentially participants at this forum met to reflect on IGF workshops related to enhancing digital trust and the Internet and human rights. And were aware of the session that is happening next week. That out of approximately 47 out of 87 workshops so far as our own analysis shows either directly or indirectly relate to human rights or privacy and surveillance, among others.
And that we therefore reflected on whether or not a message could go to the Council in some form. Then you'll see there, if you can just scroll down, please? Can somebody please help the person at the back of the room to scroll down the page? Thank you, Deborah.
There were just three or four bullet points and these are purely to start the discussion. I think based on this input so far we probably are amenable to these. The first is to say that the right to privacy was a significant theme at the IGF. And some people have already noted it came through quite strongly in a number of different workshops.
Thanks to those working at the back to get our visibility. If you scroll down to the first bullet point, please.
So the first one there, so that the right to privacy was a significant thematic issue. The words in brackets there are to capture that some work is needed to finesse that. Secondly, can you scroll up a little? I need to see the second bullet point.
Secondly, we agree with the High Commissioner's report, and this is a direct quote which was the background material, that effectively addressing the challenges related to the right to privacy in the context of modern communication technology, will require an ongoing concerted multi-stakeholder engagement. It seemed to us that would be a relatively noncontroversial statement in the context of coming from an IGF which is itself multi-stakeholder.
Thirdly, that we not only agree with the statement, but that the IGF itself embodies such multi-stakeholder engagement through our participation in the IGF, which is a United Nations mandated multi-stakeholder forum.
So simply to note that point. Thirdly, to therefore agree that the Human Rights Council's response to current challenges -- again, this is a quote from the High Commissioner's report -- should include a dialogue involving all interested stakeholders, including, Member States, scientific and community, business sector, academic and technology experts. A quote from the High Commissioner's report.
And then two additional points. One, urging the High Commissioner of the Human Rights Council and Member States to engage with the IGF which is a space for dialogue involving all stakeholders which could inform their work. This is particularly a point relevant to the comments made by some of the participants this morning that the Human Rights Council resolutions have themselves enabled and focused the IGF on human rights, but that also the IGF discussions could be a resource for the Council in its consideration on a number of topics.
Finally, as suggested, a suggestion that the High Commissioner of human rights participate in IGF 2015 by will be in Brazil, next year. These are some messages that are entirely up for debate. They are simply designed to generate discussion and comment. So I open the floor. Eduardo?
>> EDUARDO BERTONI: Thank you, Joy. Sorry to insist on the same point but I would like to see that this group urge nip other regional mechanisms to participate in the IGF 2015.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Good point, thank you.
>> Not the rapporteurs or the African Commission on Human Rights, these kind of monitoring bodies.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thanks. Avri.
>> AVRI DORIA: I think it would be good if we can say as a community or forum that is concerned with the wellbeing and ongoing development of the Internet that we recognize or believe that for the Internet to fulfill its potential it needs to, human rights needs to be respected on the Internet.
So this is a little bit the mirror image of what the Human Rights Council decided when they recognised that for human rights to be promoted, respected and enjoyed, they need to apply online as offline. We need to say that for the Internet, to bring the benefit that it can to the world, it needs to be governed in a way that is respectful of human rights.
Sorry, I'm not in drafting mode. I have flu.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: That's okay. What you suggest is rather than going to drafting mode, we pull out the key points and get ideas and responses. Then we can work on it. So I'm capturing those points. But please, others?
Yes, just introduce yourself.
>> I am Ramana Sorn from Cambodia. I have some comments and I am not sure if it is related to this forum or not. If not, please ignore it, but it is what I learn from a few days ago that the I attended the IGF meeting which is the first time for me ton attend this. Then yesterday I attend, before the yesterday I attend many workshop that talk about human rights, about Internet rights, human rights that we should be respecting. And also I would like to let you know that in Cambodia we can say that the in terms of the journalists or the right to the Internet, we can say that we are the freest in the region. People, the journalists are free to express their ideas through the media as well as through the Internet, websites or Facebook.
However, there is some limitation. And yesterday I attended also a very interesting workshop about empowering the youth to digital citizen. There are many young people from different countries, most Developing Countries, they talk about freedom of expression, about how they use Facebook to talk about that they are free to use Facebook. But I see the upset of the youth from Developing Countries because yesterday they talk freely. They have no barrier to freedom of expression or any regulation or policy of their country that impacts the freedom of expression of the youth.
But in Developing Countries, you can see that many young people go to block a Facebook user, they were arrested. If they have seen anti-government or if they say something that is claimed that you blame or you destroy the reputation of other people.
So I think for the next IGF meeting my proposal is that we should bring more young people from Developing Countries so that we can hear from that country what is the freedom of expression, or freedom of expression through the Internet to the agenda of the IGF meeting.
Thank you very much.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. I think that's a good point for us to bring feedback to the taking stock, going forward main session, yes.
>> Thank you, Joy. I think it's a very good idea actually to bring such a message to the Human Rights Council. It's extremely timely. Two points of input. The first, when we refer to the discussions around privacy here, it is important that we reflect the broadness of issues. So a lot of the focus at the Council level has been on HRT, to bring out the range of issues that has been discussed also in relation to private sector, that's one point.
The other point is that since now we have the attention of the Human Rights Council on these issues, I think it's also important to stress that the right to privacy is closely related to other human rights and a prerequisite for those. So that we bring in freedom of expression, freedom of Assembly, association, et cetera, at least reference it in one of the initial paragraphs as the High Commissioner does, but also to bring that in here, that we broaden a bit the attention towards the other.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you, Ricki. One way to do that might be to refer to the will range, the wide range of human rights related workshops and topics that have taken place here, which would reinforce that point. I think that would do that.
I saw somebody -- sorry.
>> I am representing India here.
Yesterday I attended a workshop on accountability in Internet Governance. There were accountability challenges in Internet Governance. I think since the topic of this workshop is on enhancing digital trust and human rights. I want to highlight these issues will be more challenges and relevant incoming years. More and more societies will be online because the countries across the globe are talking about more connectivity, penetrations, technology, decentralization, the information decentralization, access, being online, so on and so forth. So I think these issues will be more relevant and challenging incoming years. Along with this, the question of accountability of the stakeholders, be that at the international level or national level. What are the accountability measures that go along with these issues. That will go along with it and it is relevant to discuss these issues.
Secondly, perhaps in the next IGF whether there is a possibility to engage the national governments with the Human Rights Council, the Member States, because in countries like India we have the national human rights commission but I have never been able to see whether the U.N. HRC has been talking about digital rights and freedom because ultimately this has to relate to the millions of people in India who are online, because issues that we are facing in the last six months, one year, two years we have been facing on and off issues of being online, people being arrested and all. I think these issues are coming up in a big way. How do we engage the national bodies also who hold important, Net citizens and all. How do we engage them, it is relevant to bring them on board and discuss. Maybe the Human Rights Council, the Member States, I think India is also a member of that. Discuss these issues in consonance with this whole linkage being existing. So how do we engage those? Thank you very much.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: One response to that. We are of course nationality institutions do participate, those accredited do participate in the Human Rights Council. Certainly there are a number of national institutions who are here, the Korean Human Rights Council is here at this IGF. So I think it's a useful idea to include reference to national institutions in the Human Rights Council message. Because they also have an opportunity to respond to that. I might talk to you more about that, Ricki.
We also want to spend a little bit of time looking at the tack stock and the way forward main session. So I want to get sort of a sense from the room around the comfort level with the nature of the messages, the sense of the additions because my proposal would be that with your permission that what I would do is work with those interested to just re-craft this draft message to repost it to the IGF website. And then encourage, use it as a basis and encourage Member States participating in the Human Rights Council panel discussion to use it as input and perhaps refer to it and highlight it during the Council's session itself.
Yes, go ahead.
>> Louise Bennett, BCS U.K.
Several people have touched on this, but I think it's important that you make clear your definition of privacy. Because privacy is really about keeping things you want to yourself. And in several workshops that I have been to, people have said in many cases either governments or business more particularly thinks privacy is keeping things between you and them. And that is not what most of us think of as privacy. I think that distinction ought to be made.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thanks. That is helpful. Any other final comments before we go to the next? Nikolai?
>> Nikolai Tankovich from the Centre for Technology Society. I just want to touch on a point that was mentioned earlier about the role of the private sector. I was wondering whether there could be some consensus to include the fact that in order for human rights to be practically respected in the online framework, we need the cooperation of the private sector. More specifically of online platforms or what are also known as intermediaries.
This is something that relates to the work done by Jiracki, the guiding principle on human rights. But I want to emphasize there is nothing specifically applied to the online sector. There are some guidelines on implementation of the principles to the ICT sector, for example at the European Union level. I think it would be a good suggestion to work on something related to the implementation of the principles in the ICT sector at the U.N. level. I am putting that proposal forward. Perhaps we could include it in the statement.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Okay. Any other comments?
>> YVES NISSIM: I think that's an interesting point. I'm not very familiar with that, but isn't there at the U.N. the human -- the U.N. Business and Human Rights Forum already, called the ready framework? That is attract that might be existing.
Another thing, I guess we need to decide how -- the current text is all about cooperation at a rather high level which will actually gather wide consensus. We have to decide to which level of detail we want to dive into that message.
I think that's an important point. I think this U.N. Forum on Business and Human Rights will actually be in December in Geneva. That's something I can share information about.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Okay. Any other comments? No? Hearing none, I think if you can be with us, we can work on that message separately and just move on then to the other attempt to summarize and capture your points that would go to the taking stock and way forward main session on how to improve the discussion around human rights. There have been some significant points made there about scheduling, about perhaps establishing some kind of permanent discussion on human rights so that this is not something that is under reconsideration at each MAG. I think there was also actually an idea that came to me is whether the MAG might want to invite somebody from the High Commissioner of human rights office to participate in the discussion around human rights, whether as observer or some other way to foster some inter-U.N. institutional cooperation.
And there were a couple of other thoughts, I think, about sharing best practices. I think this also came up from something that Nikolai said. Any other key points that people want us to emphasize and report back to that session?
>> Thank you, Joy. Following on from what I said before about this growth thing and discussion on human rights and privacy in particular, we also know there's a lot of U.N. text coming through. There's a flurry of discussion like Ricki said, important discussion, reports of Frank La Rue and others in the report this year. It's quite impressive. It's coming to maturity in many respects. Things have to be done. Those reports will go to the U.N. General Assembly. A decision will be made. A resolution perhaps will be put forward, et cetera, which will be brought back to who? To U.N. agencies? To governments, et cetera? That will take its course normally as it does, just like the business human rights work is now unfolding.
I know, for example, the U.N. HCR is approaching the Council of Work on Human Rights; not a sector-specific level yet with questions regarding the Internet.
So there is sort of a conflation of things. You also mentioned things like the ICANN work. There's also the ECJ ruling, which is extremely important step for questions of data retention and privacy. So there is a conflation, there is this body of work which is coming together which may not be fully responded to by normal traditional tracts of those who deal with things like privacy, data protection authorities which respond to complaints, U.N. agencies that take up that work in intergovernmental fashion.
I ask the question: Who is the community here for human rights? I mean, there is obviously a community of people where some of us are here, or even privacy advocates. There are civil society organisations but isn't it time to create a community of people -- I'm not saying a coalition, but isn't it time to get these people together? Not necessarily -- also the established organisations, but just to avoid just being on certain traditional tracks. You create a community to feed, a community which pushes things inter-sessionally, in the steps you are talking about. Otherwise it scatters and there is no concentration of efforts. There are too many people around the table and throughout the IGF all calling for similar things and all concerned about the same things, even with regard to surveillance. Which is one thing to refer back to the states, to the DPAs only, to the states only, but is there more to be done which the community.
The IGF is, to conclude, the IGF for me is about the strength of coming together, one has limited resources and capacity individually, but by coming together you create greater consolidation of effort and additional impact.
What does that mean for this area of work? What can the community do coming together? Now not only in the IGF but inter-sessionally to do things and come prepared in a much more concerted fashion. Of course with different point of views but a greater voice to maintain momentum. There is already momentum at this level of the U.N. Why can't the community do the same thing? Thank you.
>> YVES NISSIM: So fully agree with Ali. Well, actually, one of the novelties this year at the IGF are the best practice forums which are an attempt to sort of move beyond the talk shop perception of the IGF and sort of try to gather good and bad practices on very specific topics. This year we have topics like children online, spam, et cetera. Really the objective of those forums is to also maintain the work in between the IGFs and to again gather good practices from international organisations, private sector governments in addressing key issues. This year there is no human rights related best practice forum. I know there is willingness to hear from people during the taking stock session if there are recommendations for new best practice forums to fill into the Brazil IGF next year. Maybe something that this group could consider is whether to propose the creation of such group which would create that sense of community around the topic. I think, I guess it will not be useful to have a forum which is about human rights in general, but a specific issue, whether it is trust and privacy, whether it is more related to freedom of expression and content take-down. But again I fully agree with Lee and one of the ways to create that sense of community and ongoing work could be through recommendation for a new best practice forum on related issues.
>> Good morning. Luca Belli, Council of Europe. I think it is very interesting to explore the opportunity of new best practice forum, but it is also essential to further develop and further recognize what already exists at the IGF we already have dynamic coalitions that since years are issue-specific groups that allow different stakeholders to cooperate, coordinate, and envisage Inter-Sessional works. So there are already a lot of examples of this kind of cooperation that goes beyond dialogue and achieves concrete outcomes, the IRP coalition, the net neutrality coalition. There are a lot of examples. Full recognition of the importance of the dynamic coalitions and the full development of their potential should be the way forward. Thank you.
>> SCOTT BUSBY: Let me call attention to the Freedom Online Coalition. I think the intention is to accomplish some of the things that Lee has described to serve as a group of like-minded stakeholders to come together and talk about advancing human rights generally online. So I would urge those of you particularly interested in issues of human rights and how to better ensure that human rights are respected online to get engaged in the coalitions' activities. Obviously it's a group of like-minded governments that drive a fair amount of the coalition's work. There are lots of civil society organisations and other stakeholders engaged, too. I think particularly with the creation of three new Working Groups on some of the issues we are discussing, those Working Groups are open to participation by nongovernmental representatives. I urge participants here to consider getting engaged in those Working Groups.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thanks, Scott. I think somebody else had some things.
>> AVRI DORIA: Yes, I think we should bold what has been said. We should recommend to the IGF that there is a regular session on human rights at the IGF and that invitations are issued by the IGF Secretariat to the Human Rights Council and the office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights Council to participate in the, as intergovernmental organisations done and in the IGF itself. We already said that. I'm just capturing that. Then I think we should suggest that the IGF sends regular messages to other bodies that relate to human rights and the Internet and digital trust. Freedom online being one. So that the IGF strengthens its interaction not just with the Human Rights Council but other bodies, freedom online and regional bodies. We can generalize that.
Then I think it's useful to say, to recognize that the NETmundial principles do make significant progress towards recognizing the centrality of human rights to Internet Governance. And that we invite all or propose that the IGF process -- in other words, regional and national IGFs as well, explore how these principles can be implemented. And then I support the idea of good practices. I think we can propose specifically using the theme of protection of privacy in the digital age, propose that between this IGF and the Brazil IGF in 2015 the process is embarked on to try and capture definitional clarity as well as good practices on the protection of privacy in the digital age.
And linked to this is actually -- maybe I should have said this first, an Inter-Sessional process focused on human rights and privacy in the digital age. That will come up with these best practices. But I think we need to stress that this Inter-Sessional process needs to include developing country participation and make use of regional and nationality IGFs to ensure that there is inclusion from them. I think there was a very practical recommendation about avoiding overlapping workshops. But I think everyone kind of feels that way. I'm not sure how effective it will be to put that in our message.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: I want to check, is anyone on remote participation? Yes, go ahead.
>> I keep hearing everybody referring to privacy or privacy as if it were simple. I deal with a clear definition and that is not true. It is much more controversial than that. And it requires a real look at what it is, what it is for, what its implications are and it seems to me that if the next IGF a good round table on what privacy rights really are and what they imply are in terms of freedom and in terms of restrictions on freedom needs to be done. I think we need to stop talking about it as if we understand exactly what it is.
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: Thank you. That's a good point and also made by someone else earlier that maybe these different understandings, and yes, we should try to capture that point. So thank you very much.
We only have a minute or so left. I just want to make sure there isn't anybody sitting with something that they really wanted to say or that hasn't been covered that they want to ensure is added.
Keep in mind that if you have anything written in terms of your suggestions, send them to Valeria or send them to me. We will make sure they are documented for the main session.
Any final remarks?
(There is no response.)
>> JOY LIDDICOAT: No? Thank you very much. Thanks for going with the innovation and this idea that we might develop a message in this way. Thank you very much to the Ambassador in particular and good luck for next week. We will be with you. Some of us will be there physically and others online and following closely. Thank you very much.
(The session concluded.)
This is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.