[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] Background of my objection on final statement of Internet Governance Caucus

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi YJ and all,

Le jeudi, 24 fév 2005, à 20:39 Europe/Paris, YJ Park a écrit :

> WSIS CS is willing to pick up human rights issues of Tunisian gov't
> practice but have no guts to talk about collection of finger prints and
> eye inspection whenever people from other countries enter the USA.
>
> Where are human rights activists who address this issue at WSIS?
> How can CS at WSIS be so sensitive to human rights issues of South
> Gov't and numb to that of governments from the North?

I would like to draw your attention to the human rights caucus 
statement on internet governance, read by Rikke at Thursday governement 
plenary, which I'm again including below. You may also want to have a 
look at the privacy & security WG statement on internet governance, 
also read in plenary session the same day, and which is at: 
http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2005/02/privacy_as_an_e.html

You'll find that the HR caucus statement has expressed specific 
concerns on the fact that "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" and that it lacks 
inclusion, like many Internet protocols and standard setting bodies, 
from developing countries. You'll also find that it calls governements 
to take their responsibilities, and not dilute them into a fuzzy 
"multistakeholder partnership".

Moreover, as one of the few persons having kept raising deep concerns 
since early steps of WSIS regarding "multistakeholder partnership", I 
feel rather comfortable with the fact that the Internet governance 
caucus statement has been agreed upon by many caucuses, including the 
HR caucus, in a very inclusive and open process during internet 
governance caucus meeting and, later, during the C&T meeting session. 
The reasons are that:
(1) one has to acknowledge that the vast majority of CS organizations 
are favoring the multistakeholder approach, and even though my own 
organization is against that (and I know that many HR caucus members 
also are), one cannot fairly object to the current reality at WSIS,
(2) the Internet governance caucus has made efforts to make substantive 
changes in the first version of its statement, so as to accomodate 
different views and thus get support beyond the sole internet 
governance caucus, while the statement was not presented on behalf of 
the whole CS,
and, (3), that, with the HR caucus statement at least, other views have 
been strongly expressed. And this has been made not against, but with 
the support of the internet governance caucus.

Finally, I'd be very grateful if you refreign from inappropriate 
comparisons between the HR situation in Tunisia and in some other 
countries (specially when you only express concerns on collection of 
finger prints and eye inspection whenever people from other countries 
enter the USA, while this country should be accused of far more drastic 
HR violations, including violations of human integrity and dignity), if 
only for the minimal respect due to the situation of HR defenders in 
Tunisia. I'd also be very grateful if you refreign from joining the 
global south instrumentalization game here : frankly, I had enough of 
this from the official Tunisians themselves during this last two weeks. 
Many thanks in advance for that.

Best,
Meryem

======
HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE
Statement by the Civil Society Human Rights Caucus
23 February 2005, Geneva

Rikke Frank Joergensen from the Danish Institute for Human Rights
On behalf of the Human Rights Caucus

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.
=========