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

Tue Jul 31 16:26:53 EDT 2012

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120801/25eaf043/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APrIGF-Joint Statement-FINAL.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 494621 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120801/25eaf043/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APrIGF-Joint Statement-FINAL.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 430786 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120801/25eaf043/attachment.docx>
-------------- 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