[governance] JNC response to NetMundial

[JFC Morfin]

Brillant!
jfc

At 09:49 05/05/2014, Norbert Bollow wrote:

>Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome
>Document:
>
>http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>co-convenor, Just Net Coalition
>
>
>The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document
>
>The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of
>NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain
>important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on
>managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the
>document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the
>inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on
>intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the
>omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on
>net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all
>about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with
>new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed
>by different actors in the future.
>
>For the Just Net Coalition, "democratic multistakeholder processes for
>Internet governance" means democratic processes with clear guidelines
>for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and
>responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous
>interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not
>favour the "equal-footing multi-stakeholder model" and thus a clear
>departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was
>proposed in the original draft of the outcome document.
>
>While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is
>worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the
>meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was
>made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision
>making on international issues. This "equal footing multi-stakeholder
>model" would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big
>business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we
>will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose
>the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy.
>
>We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at
>NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the
>red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful
>parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business.
>In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful
>interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the
>point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed
>norms, such as happened at NetMundial.
>
>The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements,
>particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed
>"in the public interest". While falling short of the civil society
>demand for characterizing the Internet as a "global commons” or "public
>good", it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says
>that the Internet is "a global facility available to the public and its
>governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society
>agenda".
>
>We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic
>multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly
>foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of
>networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour
>the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and
>more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes
>must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and
>private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies.
>
>The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic
>multi-stakeholder model
>
>President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue
>between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final
>outcome document in the roadmap section accepts "the full involvement
>of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities" and
>is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda.
>The outcome document has further held, "Governments have primary, legal
>and political accountability for the protection of human rights". The
>NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda,
>creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision
>making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing
>these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the
>"democratic multistakeholder process" model.
>
>NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising
>multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of
>"multistakeholderism in practice" included the seemingly open format of
>"selecting" the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda
>setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for
>contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions
>and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the
>initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong
>contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these
>could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the
>delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an
>appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or
>alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how
>multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the
>fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were
>flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes
>themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and
>that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily
>dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be
>viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which
>ultimately only works for the few?
>
>In this regard, we see the reference to "democratic multistakeholder
>processes" in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now
>need to spell out what would constitute "democratic multistakeholder
>processes". This of course includes the NetMundial call for further
>discussions on "different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in
>Internet governance" and its two references to "respective roles and
>responsibilities". This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration
>of what is a "democratic multistakeholder process" where, of course,
>corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions
>regarding public policy issues.
>
>The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if
>public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through
>democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from
>citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or
>institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens
>they represent.
>
>Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and
>Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
>(ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct
>of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or
>through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes
>should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such
>decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations
>rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in
>violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR.
>
>Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory
>
>We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding
>certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see:
>http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response.
>
>Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible
>with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and
>proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down
>with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly
>resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we
>note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have
>primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human
>rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and
>globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global
>system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments
>must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own
>citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their
>jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global.
>
>In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and
>cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for
>addressing the issue of cyber-weapons.
>
>Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality.
>Marco Civil ­ the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European
>parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality.
>Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to
>bury net neutrality in the "Future Plans" section of the NetMundial
>outcome document.
>
>Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to
>copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the
>text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business
>representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that
>new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly
>there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have
>been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not
>validly part of it:
>
>First, while references to the "right to access, share, create and
>distribute information" exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone
>basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is
>limited to what is "consistent with the rights of authors and creators
>as established in law". The right to share and communicate has now been
>circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to
>be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators
>to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international
>copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative
>document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the
>existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our
>belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must
>be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that
>non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made
>legal.
>
>Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations,
>having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet
>users, has now been coupled with "private policing" for enforcing
>Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging
>"cooperation among all stakeholders" in order to "address and deter
>illegal activity" which is in fact, well understood as coded language
>for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other
>intermediaries.
>
>It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to
>the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the
>OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago.
>
>Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which
>President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access:
>i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to
>respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital
>economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and
>re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within
>countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the
>outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic
>justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet
>and the digital economy.
>
>Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition
>is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the
>transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US
>government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it
>sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions.
>While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government
>supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way
>in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact
>that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the
>transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this
>transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in
>a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that
>ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the
>"open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending
>beyond the ICANN community" for "discussion about mechanisms for
>guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions
>after the US Government role ends.”
>
>
>
>Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet)
>
>May 3, 2014
>
>http://JustNetCoalition.org
>
>info at JustNetCoalition.org
>
>
>(1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that "everyone can
>create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling
>individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in
>promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of
>life....".
>
>(2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in
>particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root
>zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS).
>
>(3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is
>currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with
>the US government.
>
>
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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