<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">And here it is in Spanish - one of our members
did a quick translation.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://blog.pangea.org/2014/05/netmundial-2/">http://blog.pangea.org/2014/05/netmundial-2/</a><br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/04/2014 21:51, Anriette
Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53615429.4030305@apc.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Dear all<br>
<br>
Response from the Association for Communications on the outcome of
NETMUndial 2014.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</blockquote>
<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>