[IRPCoalition] IRPC looking forward
Marianne Franklin
m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
Mon Oct 27 12:37:44 EET 2014
Dear all,
Apologies in advance for a longish email:
It is Monday morning and I have just got through the intense, and
lengthy set of discussions spanning the full spectrum of possible
visions for internet governance as our attention moves from the IGF, or
ICANN, to the ITU this month. I am glad to see that there is now
acknowledgment in the IGF community that what happens at the ITU is
relevant to IG, just as what happens through ICANN is indeed relevant to
human rights issues for the internet. That said, and before continuing,
if I could just note that the ITU and the IGF, along with UNESCO, whilst
all part of the larger UN system, are all very different organizations,
with different histories (predating the UN itself as in the case of the
ITU) and diverging organizational cultures. They also have very
different approaches to how non-governmental participation works for
private sector and civil society groups; informally and formally.
Likewise for influential IG agencies like ICANN, the IETF, and bodies
such as the Internet Society who cannot be defined as IGOs. These also
have different approaches to both the problem (IG) and its solution (IG).
But let me take Charles's cue below about the primary focus for how the
IRP Coalition might consider and respond to the outcome of the ITU
Plenitpot meeting; how these various internet governance institutions
can better support _human rights_. This is, and indeed should continue
to be the IRPC's priority as human rights and principles for the
internet are the primary remit of this coalition. As such they inform
any IRPC support for any statement issued by others, or possible
contribution to any IG-related meeting, or other venues where human
rights for the internet are on the agenda or at stake; as a whole
(international treaties) or individually (e.g. freedom of expression,
education etc).
The recent IGF meeting in Istanbul underscored just how substantial and
tangible the contribution of the IRPC has been through the IRPC Charter
of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet
<http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/>; for framing and
focusing energy on this matter across all sectors in the face of, _and
despite_ intense differences about definitions, jurisdictional issues,
rule of law. The need to address the role of states and corporate
actors, and call all to account where need be, is by definition integral
to this objective.
In this respect the IRPC can stand proud I would argue as an example of
what a multistakeholder coalition can do; i.e. a network based on the
WSIS/IGF principles of a "multistakeholder participatory model" that is
inclusive and open to all. This is not to say that this is a perfect
model, nor one without enormous discrepancies in know-how, want-to, and
can-do. For this is work that is labour intensive, expensive, and risky
for those new to this domain where incumbent powers (governments and
proprietors) do hold sway, where legal and technical expertise is a
prerequisite for being taken seriously. But simply opening the door to
said "non-experts" has been an historical achievement of the IGF model.
Not perfect nor balanced but one that has been a sea change in how
policy matters are debated for public record.
Moreover, all of us in the IRPC since its inception and related
groupings (again, across all sectors) can share the credit for seeing
human rights now firmly on the agenda at meetings where such items used
to be considered anything but the first order of business. We can also
take heart at how human rights are increasingly seen as an integral part
of IG consultations, not an add-on or an afterthought. And those of us
working at grassroots level, including in university and school
classrooms btw, are looking to meet the demand of students for more
information and discussion about how their rights (aspirational, or
theirs by law) can be enjoyed when online. And when not, how they can
seek redress in ways that will not bankrupt them or see them bullied or
thrown in jail.
From where I stand, i.e. as my two years as co-Chair of the IRPC come
to an end, these are the most pressing issues and the most palpable
achievements.
Back to our primary focus; human rights for the online environment, and
with that as an integral element to IG decision-making. The IRPC is a
cross-sector network with a substantial civil society constituency, and
with support from corporate and government representatives. Within the
IGF remit, a Dynamic Coalition is as good as its outputs and to date we
can take pride in our main output, the IRPC Charter.
At this point in time, fives years on, the IRPC Charter has achieved its
core objectives and then some:
1) It has raised awareness and articulated a coherent and authoritative
vision of what human rights for the online environment - and for IG
decision-making processes - does already reside, in existing
international human rights law and norms. This helps lawmakers, judges,
local government officials as they make sense of what internet access
means to them.
2) It has provided a powerful tool for educating and mobilizing at the
local and national level for political actors and civil society groups
as they face a range of human rights issues online or as a result of
being online
3) The IRPC Charter has also become a tool for implementing policy
changes, both as aspiration (e.g. the Netmundial principles) and as law
(Marco Civil) that has been recognized by those active in these outcomes.
4) And it can take its place with pride as a key resource for landmark
reports and resolutions at the UN level, and in national settings, e.g.
in parts of the world like New Zealand
<https://home.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/internet-rights-and-freedoms-bill>
where even (neo)liberal democracies have a lot of work to do to
implement human rights-based internet policy
So far so good. The task now is to join the dots; generate synergies
with initiatives that resonate with the spirit and the substance of the
Charter e.g. the 13 Principles on Surveillance, or the Web We Want Magna
Carta work at national levels, or the African Internet Rights and
Freedoms Declaration.
So what next?
1)_IGF Stocktaking_ and Inter-sessional Work: Reflections and reporting
out of Istanbul are underway for all DCs and others involved in that
meeting; the IGF stocktaking process is one and reports on the IGF
website from all our sessions is another. And for those who are still
catching up; there is a full transcript and video records of WS 83
<http://igf2014.sched.org/event/3e25d63b87b9c4dd41bb3000026b806b>, 146
<http://igf2014.sched.org/event/b78a96b68de216dd4eb856751658c729>, and
225 <http://igf2014.sched.org/event/108673c90f772a94e889c94a72651104>,
and a report filed for the DC Meeting
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/dynamic-coalitions/dynamic-coalition-on-internet-rights-and-principles/282-dc-internet-rights-and-principles-report-of-the-igf-2014-meeting/file>
where we inaugurated the IRPC Charter Review with very useful insights
from Amnesty and Article 19 along with those from the Charter's
original Expert Group (Dixie Hawtin, Meryem Marzouki, Rikke Joergensen)
and Robert Bodle. Another sort of record is also available of all these
sessions and others in which IRPC members were active on our Live Blog
<http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/irpc-live-blog/>.
2) _Next Steps_; more on these once the new SC has been confirmed. Just
to note though that there is still a lot of work to do of course; to
consolidate the achievements so far outlined inWS 83
<http://igf2014.sched.org/event/3e25d63b87b9c4dd41bb3000026b806b>, find
financial and human resources to support new translations of the Charter
Booklet (currently in 5 languages) into Nepalese, Indonesian, Mandarin,
and Portuguese as we have volunteers willing to take on this work.
3) _Outreach and collaborations_; this year the IRPC has established
some productive new collaborations and taken the IRPC Charter into new
venues, IGO and others. More on these in due course.
4) _Funding_: Crowd-funding, crowd-sourcing and specific funding this
year has enabled us to bring the Charter to Arabic speaking, and for
Istanbul, Turkish speaking publics. We could not have done any of this
without the support of individuals (since Bali, and specially to those
of you who helped us find the funds to pay for the release of the
booklets from Turkish customs) and this year with support from the Hivos
IG-MENA Campaign <https://hivos.org/news/click-rights-and-get-it-right>
and the Web We Want campaign
<https://webwewant.org/projects/The_IRPC_Charter_of_Human_Rights_and_Principles_for_the_Internet_Booklet_Project>.
Looking back, and with this very long email as a preliminary annual
report (we are working on this!), I can only say that these achievements
are what count; we are here for the long haul, intense disagreements
about the relationship between the future of the internet and the future
of our respective societies, let alone the world as a whole, are
inevitable. They will remain so but as far as mobilization around human
rights for the internet go, I would say that inclusion and diversity
across all sectors has been a positive force. It is not an end in
itself, nor a perfect formula, nor a silver bullet to address all
injustices perpetuated by governments, corporate entities, and
individuals (trolls, bullies, predators etc) online. But I am going to
settle for less than perfection to enable that the good can prevail.
And, on that note, recall Antonio Gramsci from the 1930's on the need to
keep a pessimism of the intellect alongside an optimism of the will.
Lots to debate, lots to do, so please hang in there, and do join us for
the next steps; one simple way is to take part in the election of an
incoming co-Chair and an SC member for the 2014-2015 IRP Coalition
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QFPKLCN> as we head into 2015, an
important year for human rights and the internet; everyone's voice
counts: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QFPKLCN.
All views above are my own.
yours
Marianne F
On 24/10/2014 15:29, chaals at yandex-team.ru wrote:
> Hi,
> This by now pretty unedifying discussion about the finer theoretical
> points of different approaches to democracy seems to have outlived its
> usefulness to this group.
> It takes a certain kind of stubbornness not to recognise that there
> are extremely serious limitations to the capacity of a
> "multi-stakeholder approach" to be guaranteed to represent all the
> people. But then, that pretty much follows from Arrow's theorem, along
> with the fact that there are equally problems any other approach.
> We could argue about whether the model chosen for this group is the
> right one, if there were some alternative proposal. Otherwise, I'd
> love to see discussions related to some concrete proposal related to
> ensuring or improving the way that Internet governance supports
> improved Human Rights.
> (Yes, this is also what a "neo-liberal" would reply if they wanted to
> shut down a discussion they found uncomfortable. Unfortunately, there
> is no a priori way to determine whether my motivation is to spend my
> time doing useful stuff, or to use any rhetorical trick available to
> further my hidden agenda. So I'll just go with calling it like I see it).
> cheers
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals at yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp
--
Dr Marianne Franklin
Professor of Global Media and Politics
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Goldsmiths (University of London)
Department of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20141027/f3e99b2a/attachment.html>
More information about the IRP
mailing list