WSIS Prepcom II Statements to the Intergovernmental Plenary Regarding the Working Group on Internet Governance
The Internet Governance Caucus, the
Human Rights Caucus, and the Privacy
and Security Caucus statements:
February 2005, Geneva
Internet Governance Caucus Statement:
1. We commend the Secretary General of the United Nations on the
establishment of the Working Group on Internet Governance.
We express our support for the WGIG’s multi stakeholder
approach, and wish to stress that there is a fundamental difference
between multilateral and multi stakeholder processes, and that
the Summit documents were explicit in calling for the balanced
participation of all stakeholders. Legitimate and successful Internet
Governance can only be achieved if all concerned or affected groups
have an opportunity to influence the outcome. Gender balanced
representation in all aspects of Internet Governance is vital
for the process and its outcomes to have legitimacy.
We believe the WGIG is becoming a working model for multi-stakeholder
collaboration, with all sectors providing expertise and contributions.
The governments that agreed to this new global practice should
now take positive steps to ensure its full implementation.
As a first step, conformity with this evolving norm should be
carefully assessed with respect to existing arrangements at intergovernmental
level, like the ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, other organizations such as
OECD and WTO, private sector arrangements like ICANN and the IETF,
and to emerging mechanisms.
2. The WGIG should ground its work within a human rights and development
framework. The rights to freedom of expression and privacy are
of special importance in this context as is the need for a greater
emphasis on the principles of openness and transparency.
The caucus believes that two outcomes of the WGIG that will add
significant value are:
1. An understanding of how governance mechanisms can further these
basic rights and principles,
2. An elaboration of the concept of democratic internet governance
which fosters the goals of creativity, innovation and cultural
and linguistic diversity
3. The extent of participation from those who do not yet have
access to the Internet is still far from sufficient. This is especially
true for civil society actors. The stakeholders present during
this WSIS process have been, in the main, economically privileged
and predominately male. We would like the WGIG to make appropriate
recommendations to ensure the effective participation of ALL people
from all regions of the world. For governance mechanisms to be
all-inclusive and transparent, even women and men who are not
yet connected by any communication technologies should be represented
and heard.
4. All stakeholders should recognize the diversity of processes
and mechanisms involved in Internet governance, including:
• decisions by individual users
• private agreements
• national policies, and,
• international and transnational bodies.
This diversity of perspectives, opinions and values should be
reflected in the final report and any further outcomes of the
WGIG. While we support WGIG’s efforts to establish consensus
on various issues, the report should go beyond consensual matters
and find ways to reflect diversity.
5. Although Prepcom 2 is early for substantive progress on issues
and definitions, we wish to emphasize those that the WGIG must
consider in its next phase of work:
• Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects
for the name space
• The crucial role of technical standards in the preservation
of an interoperable global Internet
• The impact of Internet Governance on freedom of expression
and privacy
• The different implications of Internet Governance for
women and men
• The impact of Internet Governance on consumer protection
• International Intellectual property and trade rules where
they intersect with Internet Governance
• Access to knowledge as global commons
In addition we wish the WGIG luck in coming to closure on a coherent
and meaningful definition on Internet governance.
The relevance of the WGIG report lies in advancing a global understanding
of these issues. Such an understanding constitutes the basis of
informed, inclusive and democratic approaches to Internet governance.
We look forward to progress being made on these issues and the
opportunity to contribute further to WGIG’s work.
Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, negotiations must
be conducted “in an open and inclusive process that ensures
a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments,
the private sector and civil society from both developing and
developed countries” as stated in the Geneva declaration
of principles. The final negotiated document MUST reflect and
honour the multi-stakeholder process that produced it.
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
»
Statement by the WSIS Civil Society
Human Rights Caucus:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE
23 February 2005, Geneva
Read by Rikke Frank Joergensen from the Danish Institute for Human
Rights
1. The civil society human rights caucus would like to express
our support to the open and inclusive approach, which has been
taken so far by the working group on Internet Governance. However,
we wish to express our concerns with the following issues.
2. Internet governance has important impact on human rights and
democracy. Whether defined broadly or narrowly, at least human
right issues of privacy, freedom of expression, access to information,
and the public domain of knowledge are at stake in Internet governance.
The effective enjoyment of freedom expression and the right to
assembly is tightly linked with the protection of privacy. In
addition, the current forum for domain name management is a private
party, dominated by a limited number of countries and based on
a contract with a single government. This lack of inclusion of
especially developing countries also applies to many Internet
protocols and standard setting bodies. Any decision resulting
from WSIS on Internet governance must ensure that future mechanisms
are human rights compliant, both through their composition and
governing structures and through regular assessment of their decisions.
3. The civil society human rights caucus is deeply concerned with
the tendency to address any Internet related aspect within the
framework of Internet governance. We recognize that a number of
transnational issues related to Internet lack a global space for
political discussions and agreement. However, discussions on issues
such as privacy, freedom of expression, prohibition against discrimination,
access to information, intellectual property, and illegal content,
must be addressed within a human rights framework. Internet governance
must not result in a lawless zone escaping international human
rights protection. This is especially important since, in the
information society context, a number of human rights are threatened.
4. We agreed to develop an information society based on human
rights. As reaffirmed in the Geneva Declaration of principles,
the information society should be based on the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the UN Charter, protecting and upholding the
universality and the indivisibility of all human rights, and their
centrality to democracy, the rule of law and to development. The
protection of human right standards is the first responsibility
of governments. It is a state responsibility to ensure that Internet
governance mechanisms are compliant with human right standards,
that there are means to enforce them, and that governments can
be held accountable for human rights violations, including before
international courts. Holding governments responsible and accountable
for human rights protection does not exclude the active participation
of private parties and civil society; however there must be clear
divisions of responsibility.
5. An essential feature of Internet relates to its transnational
nature. International agreements have traditionally been based
on the assumption of territorial jurisdiction, whereas Internet
is a global communication forum. One of the results of the World
Summit of the Information Society in Geneva was a growing acceptance
of the Internet as a global commons. This implies effective access
for all countries to participate in decisions regarding enjoyment
of this common good.
6. Internet governance mechanisms can and should further human
rights by ensuring an enabling environment that protects and enforces
human rights standards and democratic principles of inclusiveness,
transparency, checks and balances, and the rule of law.
--
WSIS Human
Rights Caucus web site »
WSIS Civil Society Statement on Privacy as
a Human Right, drafted by the Privacy and Security Caucus:
Presented to the Plenary in Arabic, February 23, 2004
PRIVACY AS AN ESSENTIAL HUMAN RIGHT
Privacy is an essential human right, enshrined in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of
Political and Civil Rights.
Privacy should be a key element in every issue in the agenda of
the Working Group on Internet Governance.
In an ‘Information Society’, where almost all attributes
of an individual can be known, interactions mapped, and intentions
assumed based on records, the need for protection of privacy is
more crucial than ever.
Privacy encourages co-operation and trust. Privacy is essential
for on-line support groups, in consultations with doctors and
counsellors, as well as in the marketplace.
Following from the WSIS declaration in Geneva in 2003 and the
work of the WGIG, we insist that privacy is not only protected
offline, but also on the Internet and we illustrate this with
the following examples:
* Next generation internet protocol, IPv6. There are plans to
include in the IPv6 address field the ethernet address of the
network card. That would mean that every packet you send out to
the public Internet using IPv6 would have your fingerprints on
it. And unlike your IPv4 address, which you can change and which
can be assigned dynamically, this address is embedded in your
hardware permanently. Anonymous Internet access would no longer
be possible.
* Marketing and advertising regimes and various web-services can
seriously endanger privacy unless effective measures are taken
to protect it.
* Voice-over-IP policies and standards that promote surveillance
over confidentiality may inhibit the growth potential of this
technology.
* Initiatives on unlawful speech and excessive measures to protect
intellectual property may threaten privacy.
* Regulatory or technical requirements to disclose your identity
prior to speaking or even accessing information will unnecessarily
hamper free expression.
* Agreements, standards and protocols on network security that
do not first protect the privacy of individuals will affect all
conduct within the Information Society.
Privacy protects human dignity and individual autonomy. Total
information about someone reduces that person to a set of known
facts, an object of control and manipulation. In contrast, a zone
of autonomy around the individual limits the opportunities for
abuse and oppression. Privacy is a core pre-condition to participation,
a most basic civil liberty and thus a fundamental component of
freedom and development.
Thank you.
February 2005
