<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear all<br>
<br>
Response from the Association for Communications on the outcome of
NETMUndial 2014.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224/">http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224/</a><br>
<br>
By (APC)<br>
Johannesburg, <span class="date-display-single">April 2014</span>
<p><span class="caps">NET</span>mundial was a remarkable and
historic event. To give it its due and build on it going forward,
it is necessary to acknowledge its achievements as well as its
flaws.</p>
<p><strong>Affirming the “publicness” of the internet: Gains and
gaps</strong> <br>
The <a
href="http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf"><span
class="caps">NET</span>mundial Multistakeholder Statement</a>
represents substantial progress towards public interest-driven
internet governance. It recognises the internet as a common
resource that should be managed in the public interest. “Public
good”, or <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/global-governance-global-common-public-resource">Neelie
Kroes’ term</a>, “global, common, public resource”, would have
been preferable, but this is nevertheless a powerful step towards
protecting the “publicness” of the internet.</p>
<p>Linked to this is affirmation of the value of openness and
interoperability, of “permissionless innovation”, and the need to
support public access to the internet (one of <span class="caps">APC</span>’s
priorities). It is disappointing, however, that protection for
intermediaries from liability was mentioned not as a precondition
of protecting rights such as free expression and association, but
as linked to “economic growth, innovation, creativity and free
flow of information”. There can be little doubt that this text
expresses the interest of the entertainment industry. <span
class="caps">APC</span> believes this framing opens the door to
requiring internet intermediaries to enforce intellectual property
rights in ways that interfere with rights to free expression and
access to knowledge.</p>
<p>Consensus was not reached on network neutrality, or the principle
of free flow of information, and non-discriminatory flow of data
packets across the network. This was ironic, as this principle was
enshrined in the Brazilian <a
href="http://www.senado.gov.br/atividade/materia/detalhes.asp?p_cod_mate=116682">Marco
Civil da Internet</a> (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet),
enacted by President Dilma Rousseff during the opening of <span
class="caps">NETM</span>undial. While not discounting the
commercial interests at stake in avoiding inclusion of network
neutrality as a principle, its discussion is also complicated by
different definitions of what the concept means, and of how it
applies in various contexts. We applaud that the <span
class="caps">NET</span>mundial Statement roadmap identifies net
neutrality as an area for further discussion and look forward to
the Internet Governance Forum (<span class="caps">IGF</span>)
taking this up in the near future.</p>
<p>We would have liked to see more reference to development, social
justice, the integration of the concerns of people from the
developing world, and the role the internet can play to support a
more just and sustainable world. Quoting from <a
href="https://bestbits.net/nnenna-netmundial/">Nnenna Nwakanma’s
inspiring opening speech</a> : “The Internet is fast becoming
the dominant means for wealth creation. The ‘Right to Development’
needs to include social justice. It is not enough to do a
superficial ‘capacity building’ for a few persons. We are looking
at a mechanism that allows for the highest number of persons to be
included, the largest number of voices to be heard, the widest
extent of talents to access innovation, and the deepest creativity
of the human minds to flourish. For these, we need to start
considering the Internet as public commons.” </p>
<p><strong>Human rights apply offline and online!</strong> <br>
<span class="caps">NET</span>mundial identified fundamental human
rights as key principles for internet governance and states that
governments have specific accountability for upholding and
protecting individual human rights on the internet. We applaud
this, but believe that the roadmap section of the document needed
to consider internet-specific aspects of human rights protection
in greater detail ‒ in particular, rights which are needed to
ensure free expression and association on the internet such as the
right to anonymity and the right to use encryption. </p>
<p><strong>Deepening democracy in multi-stakeholder internet
governance</strong><br>
A further breakthrough in the document is recognition that
internet governance needs to be democratic as well as
multi-stakeholder, and that the former is not necessarily
synonymous with the latter. It identified the need for mechanisms
that ensure accountability, review and redress in internet
governance, as well as for gender balance in discussions and
decision making.</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">NET</span>mundial Multistakeholder
Statement builds positively on the <a
href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html">Tunis
Agenda</a> in its recognition that stakeholder groups do not
always have fixed roles, but that these “respective roles and
responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a
flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.”
This paves the way for constructive discussion of the specific
roles of stakeholders in different parts of the internet
governance ecosystem, with reference to the issue and process
under discussion. In other words, rather than talk about whether
governments should have a role or not, we can focus on what this
role is and where and when it is most needed.</p>
<p><strong>Mass surveillance: The elephant that left the room</strong><br>
Most disappointing is that mass surveillance was not condemned
more strongly in the final version of the Statement, with some of
the governmental participants insisting at the last minute that
the phrase “mass surveillance is fundamentally inconsistent with
the right to privacy and the principle of proportionality” be
removed from the document.</p>
<p>Considering that the event emerged from outrage following Edward
Snowden’s revelations, and that mass surveillance was cited as a
major concern in inputs received on the draft documents, this
issue can best be described as the elephant which started out
inside the room, but which was then lifted and carried out ‒ by
suitably powerful forces ‒ before the event’s conclusion.</p>
<p>The document does state that “mass and arbitrary surveillance
undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet
governance ecosystem” and cooperation – forced or voluntary –
between states and business is addressed by the requirement that
the “collection and processing of personal data by state and
non-state actors should be conducted in accordance with
international human rights law,” but this does not address the
protection of individual rights that are violated on an
extraterritorial basis.</p>
<p>Also included is a renewed call upon states from the 2013 <a
href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.45/Rev.1">UN
General Assembly Resolution</a> for the review of “their
procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance
of communications, their interception and collection of personal
data, including mass surveillance, interception and
collection,.with a view to upholding the right to privacy by
ensuring the full and effective implementation of all their
obligations under international human rights law.” This provides
an opening for follow-up action which rights activists should
pursue with vigour.</p>
<p><strong><span class="caps">IANA</span> accountability</strong><br>
We are encouraged that the issue of Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (<span class="caps">IANA</span>) accountability will be
an integral part of the discussions on the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (<span
class="caps">NTIA</span>) transition. We look forward to the
continuation of the process once the terms of the accountability
process are published. We rely on the unfolding of a neutral
process to review the accountable transition of <span
class="caps">IANA</span> stewardship with the full participation
of all global stakeholders and with due consideration given to the
importance of structural separation between policy and operational
levels.</p>
<p><strong>What was avoided?</strong><br>
The most striking absence at <span class="caps">NET</span>mundial,
in spite of several submissions raising this as a concern, is a
call to put a stop to the increasing militarisation of the
internet. Clearly this is an issue that should be taken up through
the <span class="caps">IGF</span> process.</p>
<p><strong><span class="caps">NET</span>mundial as a process: Leaps,
lessons and let-downs</strong><br>
We want to express our appreciation for the hard work that the
organising team put into the <span class="caps">NET</span>mundial
process, in particular <span class="caps">CGI</span>.br and the
event chairperson, Virgilio A. F. Almeida, Secretary for
Information Technology Policy of the Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation of Brazil.</p>
<p><span class="caps">NET</span>mundial represents great leaps
forward for multi-stakeholder decision making, building on
inclusive, multi-stakeholder habits developed during eight
editions of the <span class="caps">IGF</span>, and providing
useful lessons for the future. More time and better planning was
needed to integrate inputs – received through an excellent online
platform – into the final outcome documents. It would also have
been good to use the face-to-face event for more discussion rather
than for open-microphone sessions in which most of what had been
said online already was repeated. Drafting of the outcome document
could also have been done in a more systematic manner, ensuring
that people with the necessary area knowledge were available to
the chairs of the two drafting groups (Principles and Roadmap).</p>
<p>The let-down was that at the end, when the pre-final text was
being presented to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee, the
process suddenly felt quite familiar, as, at the last minute, a
few governments insisted on changes to the text, demanding either
deletions or modifications to statements that they were not
comfortable with. We understand that government representatives
are constrained by instructions from their capitals or by existing
agreements; but if we are to deepen democracy in global internet
governance, we do need to find ways to move beyond these
constraints when finalising such a non-binding document, as they
serve to limit more balanced stakeholder input and influence.</p>
<p>If powerful governments, whose views often coincide with those of
some parts of internet industry, can still exercise a veto – even
if informally – at the last minute, we have quite a way to go
towards fully inclusive and democratic internet governance.
Intergovernmental processes are often criticised for producing
lower common denominator consensus agreements. Democratic,
multi-stakeholder decision-making processes must strive to avoid
this.</p>
<p><strong>What next?</strong><br>
There is much to celebrate. A group of very diverse stakeholders
worked together to produce a document which has the potential to
create a more robust and human rights- and public
interest-oriented approach to internet policy and management. The
Government of Brazil showed grace, leadership and deep commitment
to inclusive processes by being willing to concede on a range of
issues, most particularly network neutrality.</p>
<p>The question now is: What next? How do we follow through to
implement the good in the <span class="caps">NET</span>mundial
document and how do we strengthen the existing <span class="caps">IGF</span>
to play a role in this? Surveillance is the obvious place to
start, with governments heeding the call to review all collection,
processing and surveillance of personal data to ensure that these
processes comply with human rights standards, such as the ones
stated in the <a href="https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/">Necessary
and Proportionate principles</a>. Promoting awareness of the
issues behind the network neutrality debate are also a ripe area
for focus, as they provide a valuable entry point into a number of
basic challenges in dealing with conflict of interest around
private enterprise and promoting the publicness of the internet.</p>
<p>And of course we cannot rest until, as the declaration states, we
have “universal, equal opportunity, affordable and high quality
Internet access”, so that we can all participate more equally in
the debate.</p>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>