[governance] GNI

[Ralf Bendrath]

Kleinwächter schrieb:
> Does somebody know this project called "Global Network Initiative"?
> What is behind this? Is it linked to IGF/ICANN issues?
> 
> http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/index.php

This is a "classical" voluntary CSR mechanism and also seems to be (viewed
as) a self-regulatory alternative to the more law-based approach of having
a Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA) or something similar.

EDRi decided not to become involved in GNI, for similar reasons as
Reporters without borders had to not endorse it, see below. As far as I've
heard, even some of the GNI members like EFF still have reservations.

Officially, this is not linked to IGF/ICANN. But a number of the people
who were involved in this will be in Hyderabad, I guess.

Best, Ralf

<http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29117>

Why Reporters Without Borders is not endorsing the Global Principles on
Freedom of Expression and Privacy for ICT companies operating in
Internet-restricting countries

Reporters Without Borders welcomes the adoption of the Global Principles
on Freedom of Expression and Privacy as a first step towards ICT
companies’ recognition of the importance of free expression while
operating in Internet-restricting countries. The international press
freedom organization recognizes the important work done by the
participants of this multi-stakeholder initiative that gathers companies,
academics, investors and NGOs. Nevertheless, after participating in the
discussions for almost two years, Reporters Without Borders decided last
September to withdraw from the discussions and to not endorse those
principles.

The organization believes these principles are one step in the right
direction, but they do not go far enough to provide a sufficient
protection to freedom of expression on the Internet.

"Under these principles, another Shi Tao case is still possible" stated
Reporters Without Borders referring to the jailed Chinese reporter whose
verdict revealed that Yahoo ! gave some personal identifying information
to the Chinese authorities. "We believe that, as of today, the best option
to prevent IT companies from being forced to collaborate with the
Web-censors in repressive countries remains to provide a legal framework
for companies willing to resist governments’ requests that violate the
international free speech standards, as the Global Online Freedom Act,
introduced by Representative Chris Smith does for American IT firms",
commented the press freedom organization. "We will follow the
implementation of the principles and are willing to continue to take part
in this interesting collaboration and exchange of ideas, but in a
different capacity. We stand ready to be, as a third party, of any
assistance to the Initiative should our expertise or input be needed. We
have been monitoring the free flow of online information for years and we
will continue to denounce the obstacle to online free speech", added
Reporters Without Borders.

Reporters Without Borders is concerned by several loopholes and weak
language on the central points that may threaten the very implementation
of these principles and justify the status quo. It also regrets the fact
that some sensitive issues related to the monitoring process remain yet to
be addressed.

Here is an overview of the organization’s main concerns:

-  1 - Local law remains the reference even if it violates international
human rights standards. Thus, participating companies will comply with
repressive regimes who have at their disposal an arsenal of legal
provisions aimed at silencing dissidents.

-  2 - The extent to which companies are expected to challenge
governments’ requests remains unclear. Requests in writing are sought but
not mandatory.

-  3 - Companies could still enter into business relationships (joint
ventures, mergers) with local partners that do not follow the principles,
then bypass the restrictions imposed by the principles and blame the local
entity (such as Alibaba for Yahoo!) in case of violations of freedom of
expression or collaboration for the arrest of dissidents.

-  4 - Disclosure to users and transparency regarding the type of personal
information retained by ITC companies’ remains unsatisfactory.. Users have
no assurances that companies will try to minimize data collection, nor do
they know how long this data will be saved.

-  5 - The assessors’ independence and impartiality as well as the extent
to which companies’ will provide them with the necessary information to
monitor developments remains uncertain.

Reporters Without Borders has supported the Global Online Freedom Act
(GOFA) since its birth. Introduced by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) in
February 2006, it would protect American IT companies from being forced to
collaborate with repressive regimes. The Act would prevent repressive
governments - those that punish dissidents and human rights activists who
exercise their right to online free expression - from accessing personal
data through US companies.

The bill would ban companies from locating the servers containing this
data and from providing information that identifies users, except in cases
in which the law is being legitimately applied, to be decided by the US
justice department. The US companies would also have to act transparently
and transmit information about the type of censorship they apply to an
interagency-staffed Office of Global Internet Freedom, which would have
the job of defining US government policy for the promotion of the free
flow of online information and monitoring violations. A feasibility study
of technologies and equipment’s export control would also be made. The
bill also promotes the idea of a voluntary code of conduct to be
established for companies working in countries with repressive regimes.
GOFA was approved by the House’s Foreign Affairs Committee in October 2007
and is now awaiting a floor vote. In July 2008, MEP Jules Maaten,
initiated the European Global Online Freedom Act (EU GOFA), which was
drafted out of the American GOFA, and whose goal is to protect European
ICT firms doing business with répressive regimes.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance