[governance] Sharing the APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement

William Drake william.drake at uzh.ch
Wed Aug 1 02:12:54 EDT 2012


Wot, no complaints about the DNS root zone?  There are other issues?  

On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

> Shared elsewhere by a colleague, kindly find attached documents or simply the statement below as well as the endorser and issuer info. --Fouad
> 
> APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement
> From: john liu - forum-asia.org
> Date: 31 July 2012
> 
> Please find attached a joint statement released today by Southeast Asian
> civil society delegates to the recently-concluded APrIGF in Tokyo. The
> statement includes our positions on issues of concern relating to the
> Internet that we have highlighted during the APrIGF, as well as
> recommendations to the MSG on improvements to the APrIGF process.
> 
> We hope that this statement will help in your work, and that some of the
> points will be reflected in the report to the Global IGF in Baku, as well
> as in discussions for the next APrIGF.
> 
> Please feel free to get back to us should you have any questions. All
> signatories of this statement are copied on this email.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Best wishes,
> John Liu
> Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
> 
> -----
> 
> Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to
> 
> 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF)
> 
> 
> 31 July 2012
> 
> * *
> 
> *Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights
> Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes
> in the Region*
> 
> * *
> 
> We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who
> attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet
> Governance Forum (APrIGF) <http://2012.rigf.asia/> on 18-20 July 2012 in
> Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to
> highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum.
> 
> 
> We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights
> concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of
> expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil
> society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two panel
> discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and
> Information”<http://2012.rigf.asia/session-c4-internet-for-asia-space-for-free-expression-information/>
>  and “Civil Society in Internet
> Governance/Policymaking”<http://2012.rigf.asia/session-b5-civil-society-in-internet-governance-policy-making/>
> during
> the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other
> sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights
> concerns in relation to the Internet:
> 
> 
> *Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression*
> 
> 
> The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many
> governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to
> the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a
> non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the
> measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards.
> 
> 
> In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet
> as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of
> attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by
> state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in
> widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of
> reprisals from the government or its agents.
> 
> 
> We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit
> freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with
> international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3)
> of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which
> allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds, by
> passing the “three-part, cumulative
> test”<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf>
> following
> the principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least
> restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to
> freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by
> an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of
> governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all
> circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of national
> security or public order.
> 
> 
> *New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online*
> 
> 
> We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in
> Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the
> Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and legitimate
> national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend
> media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also
> being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or
> sharing legitimate social or political critique.
> 
> 
> We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet
> must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without interference and to
> freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated in Article 18 of
> the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to lawful derogation as outlined in UN
> General Comment No. 34<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf>.
> We stress that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments,
> particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must involve
> extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We further urge
> all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise defamation both online
> and offline.
> 
> 
> Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of the
> judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast Asia.
> Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume innocence until
> defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or not defamation is
> criminal.  Certain legislation, including those laws that criminalize
> online speech and expression, are worth noting here as examples of
> legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring of their
> enactment or enforcement:
> 
> 
> ·         Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act
> 
> ·         Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the
> 2010 Penal Code
> 
> ·         Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011
> Computing Professionals Bill
> 
> ·         Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic
> Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography
> 
> ·         The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act
> 
> ·         Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the
> Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act
> 
> ·         Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000
> State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet
> Management
> 
> 
> *Intermediary liability*
> 
> 
> We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments on
> internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate and
> censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are increasingly
> being held legally and criminally liable for online content, including
> content posted by other users.
> 
> 
> We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be
> determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to
> intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on
> the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
> expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online content.
> 
> 
> *Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments*
> 
> 
> Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting on
> behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor sensitive
> information posted over the Internet through personal websites and social
> media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular opinions and
> subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some cases, such threats
> have been carried out off-line in the form of discriminatory treatment,
> physical attacks and even state prosecution of these targets. In addition,
> critical and independent websites are frequently being targeted for hacking
> and DDoS attacks.
> 
> 
> We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation to
> promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its
> citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression from
> violations by non-state actors online.
> 
> 
> *Improving the APrIGF Process*
> 
> 
> While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, and
> value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around these
> crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of improvement:
> 
>    - Participation by governments across Asia was minimal despite the
>    multi-stakeholder framework that this forum purports to promote. This has
>    inevitably limited the dialogues between the different stakeholders on
>    Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region.
> 
>    - Similarly, there was also inadequate civil society participation at
>    the APrIGF 2012. One of the reasons to this is that there is a perception
>    that the APrIGF is a largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts to
>    advance human rights in cyberspace.
>    - Multi-stakeholder discussions on and approaches to emerging human
>    rights issues concerning the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF
>    2012.
>    - Finally, there was a marked absence or lack of critical assessment of
>    the progress with regard to the implementation of recommendations made at
>    the previous APrIGF. This has contributed to the perception of the APrIGF’s
>    ineffectiveness.
> 
> 
> *Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group*
> 
> 
> In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the 2012
> APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF
> Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event:
> 
> ●      To facilitate more robust dialogue and more engagement of those
> participants who are not speaking on panels, we recommend *a more
> participatory process for sessions*, with fewer time spent on panel
> presentations, and more time dedicated to questions and comments from those
> in the audience.
> 
> ●      In the interest of more a diverse dialogue, we recommend that
> efforts be made to enlarge and broaden the spectrum of attendees at the
> event. Special effort should be made to *encourage government and civil
> society participation*, especially in view of the rare opportunity to
> discuss such issues within the host country. Additionally, *the
> affordability of the host city and the need for financial assistance *should
> be taken into account as a factor that may make civil society participation
> more or less likely.
> 
> ●      To encourage broader participation in session dialogues and bolster
> engagement of civil society, we recommend that strong efforts be made
> to*facilitate
> inbound remote participation via video conferencing*. In addition to the
> valuable service of live web-casting, remote participants should be
> empowered to ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be
> facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF
> website.
> 
> ●      To ensure that all issues are well-represented within the
> conversations at the APrIGF, we recommend that *at least one plenary
> session be dedicated to social issues in internet governance*, such as
> online freedom of expression, access to information and digital divide.
> 
> ●      To ensure that progress is made on issues discussed at the APrIGF
> from one year to another, we recommend that *one plenary session be
> dedicated to looking back at the issues raised and recommendations made at
> the previous APrIGF*, and critically assessing progress made on those
> issues.
> 
> 
> *Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments*
> 
> * *
> 
> In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our
> respective governments in Southeast Asia:
> 
>    - ASEAN governments must ensure that *the ASEAN Human Rights
> Declaration* explicitly
>    and unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom
>    of information in accordance with international human rights laws and
>    standards.
>    - ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to *pronounce their
>    commitment to uphold Internet freedom*.
> 
> 
>    - All regional governments should *involve civil society meaningfully
>    and inclusively in Internet policymaking*, especially in drafting laws
>    and policies that potentially impact human rights, including in
>    regional-policy arena that involve the issues related to ICT and internet
>    governance, such as:
>       - Regional economic integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic
>       Community (AEC).  <http://www.aseansec.org/18757.htm>The AEC’s areas
>       of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as: “enhanced
>       infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and “development of
>       electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”.  Currently, the AEC encourages
>       only business sector participation and not civil society.
>       - The ASEAN CIO Forum <http://www.aseancioforum.com/Home.aspx> under the
>       ASEAN ICT Master Plan
> 2015<http://www.aseansec.org/documents/ASEAN%20ICT%20Masterplan%202015.pdf>
> also
>       opens participation only to business sectors.  The forum focuses on
>       CIO16 <http://www.aseancioforum.com/AboutUs/CIO16.aspx> and its
>       objective is to “Taking leadership in collaboration and
> transformation for
>       a competitive, highly productive and envisage a
> concrete/positive ASEAN ICT
>       community.” The master plan aims to minimize digital divide and
> make ICT in
>       the region be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and
>       integrated for the people by 2015.
>    - All regional governments should attend and engage in regional IGFs to
>    dialogue with other stakeholders, including civil society, on regional
>    issues concerning the Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Signed by:
> 
> 
> Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL
> 
> Coordinator
> 
> Thai Netizen Network <https://thainetizen.org/>
> 
> Bangkok, Thailand
> 
> E-mail: arthit at gmail.com
> 
> Tel:             +66 87 504 2221
> 
> Pirongrong RAMASOOTA
> 
> Thai Media Policy Center <http://thai-mpc.org/> Bangkok, Thailand
> 
> E-mail: pirongrong.r at gmail.com
> 
> Tel:             +66 89 770 8911
> 
> Triana DYAH
> 
> Head, Information & Documentation Division
> 
> The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy
> (ELSAM)<http://www.elsam.or.id/new/index.php>
> 
> Jakarta, Indonesia
> 
> E-mail: office at elsam.or.id
> 
> Tel:             +62 21 7972662      , 79192564
> 
> Fax: +62 21 79192519
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgardo LEGASPI
> 
> Alerts & Communication officer
> 
> Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) <http://www.seapabkk.org/>
> 
> Bangkok, Thailand
> 
> E-mail: epl at seapa.org
> 
> Tel:             +66 8 1116 5137
> 
> Fax: +66 2 2448749
> 
> Sean ANG
> 
> Executive Director
> 
> Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM) <http://seacem.com/>
> 
> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> 
> E-mail: sean at seacem.com
> 
> Tel:             +60 3 2284 3367
> 
> Fax: +60 3 2289 2579
> 
> Victorius (Ndaru) EPS
> 
> Jakarta, Indonesia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NGETH Moses
> 
> Communication Coordinator
> 
> Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) <http://www.clec.org.kh/>
> 
> Phnom Penh, Cambodia
> 
> E-mail: Moses at clec.org.kh
> 
> Tel: (855) 66 777 010
> Fax: (855) 23 211 723
> 
> Sovathana (Nana) NEANG
> 
> Phnom Penh, Cambodia
> 
> 
> YAP Swee Seng
> 
> Executive Director
> 
> Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development
> (FORUM-ASIA)<http://www.forum-asia.org/>
> 
> E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org
> 
> Tel:             +66 81 868 9178
> Fax: +66 2 6379128
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Endorsed by:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association)
> 
> Jakarta, Indonesia
> 
> Email: info at ictwatch.com
> 
> Tel: (021) 98495770
> 
> Fax: (021) 8280691
> --
> John Liu
> East Asia (Southeast and Northeast Asia) Programme Officer
> Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development
> (FORUM-ASIA)<http://www.forum-asia.org/>
> 66/2 Pan Road, Silom, Bang Rak, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand
> Tel: +66 2 637 9126 | Fax: +66 2 637 9128
> <APrIGF-Joint Statement-FINAL.pdf><APrIGF-Joint Statement-FINAL.docx>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120801/236ee25d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


More information about the Governance mailing list