Emerging Issues

(No.196) HYBRID TV OR CONNECTED TV: WHICH IMPACT ON THE EXISTING MODELS OF RULES FOR MEDIA?

Go to Report
Status: 
Withdrawn
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Theme Question: 

Question 2

Concise Description of Workshop: 

Broadcasters see great opportunities in the introduction of new platforms and devices which bring television and the Internet together ("hybrid systems"). They can expand the programme choice for viewers, simplify access to Internet content and enable broadcasters to provide new forms of enhanced content. Hybrid systems have the potential of combining the strengths of broadcast and broadband networks and services.

Organiser(s) Name: 

EBU BBC NGO to be Determined

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Will be provided after EuroDIG meeting

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
TBC

(No.189) Open Government Data for citizens, by citizens, about citizens?

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Concise Description of Workshop: 

Increasingly, governments around the world are developing open government data policies that promise to bring a new era of government transparency coupled with a wave of economic development based on the exploitation of these digital resources. This is linked to the rise of "big data". However, questions remain as to the where and how value is created. Much of open government data has been traditionally associated with national registers, maps, weather, etc -- but current initiatives are increasingly looking at data around citizens and public services.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Jim Killock (Open Rights Group)
Desiree Miloshevic (Affilias)
India/Chennai Chapter of Internet Society

Previous Workshop(s): 

Yes

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

CONFIRMED SPEAKERS AWAITING PANELLIST PROCESSING
Desiree Miloshevic (Afilias) 
Javier Ruiz (Open Rights Group, UK) 
Al Kags (Open Institute, Africa)
Lennart Huizing (Green Party, Netherlands)
Dominique Lazanski (Open Data User Group, Cabinet Office Ministry, UK)
Andrea Beccali (IFIL)

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Jim Killock
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
There were very few women participants
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Javier Ruiz
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

 
Javier Ruiz
 
Our starting point is the restrictive Public Sector Information reuse framework in Europe, while in the US we have simply a lack of intellectual property restrictions in federal information. The US has seen  huge growth and benefits and Europe wants to follow this course promoting open data.
 
 Open data takes things one step further with proactive release and removal of barriers to reuse. This means free data, using open technical formats that enable replication, open licensing, etc. 
This means not having to sign a contract with Government and explain how you are going to use the data, what you are going to do or not do and pay a small amount.  
Of course open data is important in itself for many people, but also it is seen as a building block for what is called Open Government, which is the idea that you can actually transform the fundamental relationship between citizens and the state through information and engagement. 
We can identify several types of data, each with its own issues around governance and potential implications.
Core reference data covers things like maps, weather, registers, etc.  These datasets normally have high economic value, although in some countries may not exist at all.  The question is should the Government be providing this mapping for free? If you want to map public toilets - which is one of the things that has been done in many countries for people with disabilities - you need a map.  You can use Google but you need to give up your own data. We think this data should be opened.
Functional data is where a lot of the direct impact can come from open data. Things like the micro-statistics that government departments use daily, such as levels of pollution, etc.  All that type of really useful bits of information, all that can go out and be put too very good use.  Here the main thing is how do you govern the processes and make sure this data gets out. 
Public services data, here we have two types of data: on the one hand you have performance data which is what many politicians will talk about. For example the mortality rates of a particular doctor or department.  Should you be able to choose which doctor you use on the basis of previous experience of patients.  Of course we believe that, but we think is important is to distinguish this type of accountability from the political accountability of the elected representatives.  It is all very good to say this doctor is responsible but who is responsible for creating the policy framework that put that doctor there.? 
The other question with public services - one of the biggest issues in terms of open data - is the personal data of public service users.  In the UK there are plans to share medical records, welfare data of many types with private companies in order to improve services. But that data is actually private data from citizens. We don't want to stifle innovation but we really have to be careful about this type of data.  
Then something that is important to see as well is public cultural information, this is something that is increasingly relevant.  All the text mining of public libraries can be really useful not just for Google to develop translation services, but for everyone else in society.  There are lots of issues around whether it is public domain or belongs to the state or libraries. 
Public accountability information, such as Government meetings is again public data and we also think that should be part of the framework. 
 
Al Kags
I will focus my conversation on what the experience has been in Kenya.  The Open Institute is an African organisation working with governments in Africa and the developing countries to promote the opening up of data by Government to promote also the participation of citizens.  
The first point I wanted to talk about was the question of motivation.  In Kenya  and in a lot of other countries while governments say that they would like to be as transparent as possible it is not a very popular thing, and the leaders are afraid of what that might mean.  In Kenya we took the view that that instead of pushing the question of accountability and transparency we would instead push the question of prosperity. Thus, open data will give employment, will help young people who are developers to develop obligations, help young entrepreneurs to find solutions that will better their lives and that sort of thing.  Which in Kenya turned out to be a very popular argument for the leadership and which we are finding also among other governments in the region to be a popular way into going about it.  
Once you have got governments to agree to publish the data in principle then you go to the technocrats and start grappling with the hows.  In Kenya we take fairly utilitarian approach and I have become a champion of the utilitarian approach where you deliver in bits.  You take what you can get now and you start with that and then you build on it as you go.  I have seen a number of open initiatives that are in danger of being still born because they try and get everything perfect. 
You can try and ensure that the platforms that you use are open, that the licensing regime is in place and you have a certain number of important data sets in a certain kind of level of quality.  In Kenya we went and looked for whatever was readily available.
We found health data and education data and within eight weeks we launched an open data portal and then we continue pushing more data on to it.  The reason that this is important is because when you do these things incrementally you also show the technocrats who sometimes are also afraid of what open data means and what this openness means and who have grown up, many have been working in the civil service for a long time and who have come to believe that governments are supposed to hold data secrets, it is not supposed to be published.  
You have to demonstrate that there is no threat to publishing the data, and really really hope that the media does not immediately find a scandal.  
 The third aspect of it is once you have published the data you have to really focus on building the ecosystem of data producers, the Government civil society, etc.  Media has access to a lot of data that we have accumulated over many years to ensure that they begin to publish that data and the academia who also have over the years gathered data from different sources and they also publish it.  
The second echo system is of infomediaries.  Quite a lot of the data is not in a format that allows the citizen to engage because you are providing the data in its rawest possible format.  The best way to get the citizen to have access and have an understanding of that data is by dealing with the info media, which tends to be the civil society organisation that works with the citizens that build the capacity with community groups and so on.  The media that are going to tell interesting data stories out of it, and then the developers who build apps that enable the citizen to then interact with it. 
Once you have done this, the innovation is ongoing, the users are working, their media study stories and that sort of thing, then we look at the legal frameworks, which are benchmarked globally but I champion that they must be focused on the local situation. 
In Kenya we have the constitution, that guarantees the citizens a right to information.  Number two, we have a cabinet paper that we did at the time of the launch that tells the public sector how to publish data and that they need to look for the data to publish it on a regular basis.  
We are working on a freedom of information bill and one of the most popular aspects of the freedom of information bill in my view that is currently under review for Parliament is that it proposes Government proactivity in publishing data.  
 
Andrea Beccali
Al talked about ecosystems and intermediaries where you mentioned the media, which has an important job, but I want to also include libraries.  Just to give you an idea from a recent survey there are around 320,000 libraries worldwide, and 73 per cent of these libraries are in developing and transition countries. We think they can play an extremely important role in accessing data.  
When we looked at the Open Government Partnership and we look at the numbers of countries that actually in their plans spoke about the ecosystem; only three countries, including the UK, Ukraine and Tanzania have conceded how a citizen can access those data. Only Ukraine mentioned libraries as an important partner in this.  But we think that libraries are often perceived as a building where you find books and that is true, it is still like that but actually there is much more potential inside them and we think that in the open data they can play an extremely important role, particularly when you look at cost effectiveness of providing access points to the citizens and also when you ensure that everybody has access to these resources. 
 
In Romania the Minitry of Agriculture produces an online application to make subsidy quicker for rural areas and they release the data for the rural areas, all the land that wasn't used and they wanted to use.  17,000 farmers were reached through libraries and got subsidised land and made the whole project work. 
 There is another important role in libraries and data mining.  It may be trivial but libraries have been collecting data all the time.  Data is about who comes to the library to read what and to do what basically and user is data is shared among libraries but is not always used by Government. 
Another important aspect is the role of Parliamentary libraries. All Parliaments worldwide have a library that stores all proceedings and documents and laws and draft laws and bills for the activity of the Parliament. They all have this information and could be put as open data.
 
Lennart Huizing
 
The Dutch Government has for the last couple of years being looking at development aid and actually the new Government that has just been installed this week has announced another cut back of 20 per cent of the budget for development aid.  
One of the reasons for that is I think that the lack of accountability, the lack of clear results that have led to some reevaluation of what the Dutch Government would want to get out there in terms of information for the public, more accountability and transparency.
Two years ago the Green Party in the Dutch Parliament had a motion to release all the data generated on projects funded by the Dutch Government and one year ago they went ahead and released that data.  I think that it is quite a limited set of data in the sense that it is very interesting to see what which company, which organisation gets what amount of money. 
 It is not particularly interesting for the general public but it is very useful for experts to figure out what works and what does not work.  It also has the side effect of being giving some level of accountability for foreign governments spending.  Finally we get to see how much money is actually going and into other countries but there is no clear information about the results that have been generated with it, so it is also very limited.
A year ago I wrote an app by request of one of the development aid organisations in the Netherlands using this information to try to get it to the general public.  You can find more value by combining the data sources and we have now included a lot of data from the World Bank.  
What we found is that the main problem in this data is two‑fold. 
Somebody needs to clean up this data because it is completely unusable for anybody outside of the Government involved, with heavy use of jargon. I come from a back ground in market research where we generally see the same types of questions and of course there we are working to give the information in a very useful way to our clients.  But still you know if you have been in market research for a while you know that you can torture data to make it say almost anything.  
I think that this is a very huge risk in releasing this data.  It is not even, you can't even use it to triangulate on a specific person.  But you can use it to triangulate on a certain politically sensitive project and foreign governments will have the opportunity maybe to locate projects that are not agreeable to them, and I think we have seen here in Azerbaijan, for instance what that might mean.  I am not saying ‑‑ whatever.  Let us not go there.
 One last point would be that open standards should be prevailing in terms of how do you release this data because if you don't use open standards, and I know there has been a movement where people wanted to be technologically neutral, the way that the data is being released which might be meaning that it should be used by any close standard as well which might not be what we want. 
 
Dominique Lazinski
I sit on the Open Data User Group in the UK, which is a volunteer body that sits within the Cabinet Office.  There are 14 of us and from Government and civil society which is my remit and a variety of other big businesses, small businesses, businesses collecting data, businesses start up… so it is quite interesting.
Our role is advising Government on what data should be open and I was particularly interested to hear Al because we have what I think is a rather cumbersome process of people that need to submit requests to data.gov.uk, which is our data portal in the UK.   A number of data sets have been opened already I think at the last count there was over 8,000.  There is a work stream within Government to release more data but we are not proactive, the Government is not proactively releasing data, which is why I think Kenya is well ahead of us on that front.
The UK Government has particular needs for having data to be open, with the remit of economic growth and development, so they are really interested in prosperity but they really want to make sure that they can also look at the value that society will get.  Understanding the economic growth that the UK will get, based on what may be open and projecting this, is a really hard thing to do.  
We are now looking at trading funds which hold a lot of the core reference data mentioned earlier, including the postal address file and mapping data and I hope we can talk a little bit more about that.  
There is a higher strategy  that is being done also within the Data Strategy Board, which looks at sort of the general policy around opening data, going forward an what that means.  I am liaising with civil society and I have been working with big and small charities as well as local groups who may deal with issues around housing or child abuse or anything like that.  I am there to champion all those causes and it is very hard to capture absolutely everybody in civil society in England and Wales.

Conclusions and further comments: 

 
Javier Ruiz stated that although we tend to talk about public sector data, increasingly there is of course private sector data.  We need to start asking questions what the public interest lies, whether it is just with the state, not just in the provision of public services by private companies, but also things like private mapping and other infrastructure.  Infrastructure and transport are two of the areas where the role of private companies would need to be questioned in the next few years.  
Javier also raised that the benefits that they want to achieve in the UK from transparency are improved governance, better public services and economic development, and we think that you can integrate all these aspects although in many cases governments tend to focus on one or the other. We need an open data policy that sits alongside a wider data policy framework that is consistent with data protection. 
Al Kags however disagreed with the view that when you focus on development you might not focus or you might not address yourself to accountability.  I think the whole question is so long as you get open accountability happens as a default, which is why we don't talk about accountability, we talk it down because of the fact that it ends up being a default byproduct.  
Andrea disagreed: I think that you assume that once you put data outside then people will go there and look.  I don't think it is a direct link.  There are many people that have no clue about than and maybe they heard about the media but they don't have the interest and so it is what I think that here libraries can provide this part it actually can make this link work perfectly and I have an example that I think can demonstrate that.  
Al also said that there has been a lot of pressure by civil society to get the Kenyan Government to publish its data.  There has also been a lot of pressure by civil society and citizens to get private sector to publish the data.  I think one sector that is yet to really get open is a civil society itself. 
Lennart reacted to this proposal for civil society to open up: We have now in the Netherlands eight organisations that have released the same type of data in the same format, open standard and that will really help us to get further into the data. So we can show people what is the aid doing on a very low level, increasing of course the risk of politically sensitive projects.  We now have the data being published once every quarter.  I think that is not enough.  We need to go beyond that and try to have as much realtime information that we can get our hands on as long as we keep in mind all the risks involved, that you have mentioned.  And we have to consider the risks involved with releasing data that maybe is not personal, that might have been anonymised or might have been aggregated to a higher level but it might still be used to triangulate on any one person. 

(No.187) Society before and after the Internet and digital media

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Theme Question: 

Questions 1,2,3

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The modern Internet is over 25 years old. We have generations of people who were born well before it and also those for whom the Internet has been the main tool of education, entertainment and business for their whole lives. To further bridge the gap between different age groups in Internet governance, we bring together active Internet users from varying age groups and backgrounds. Discussion will aim to pinpoint key differences and similarities in how digitally native youth and people, whose period of youth took place long before global networking became mainstream, see the Internet.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Joonas  Mäkinen, Board member, Electronic Frontier Finland

Previous Workshop(s): 

I have been organizing the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance Dynamic Coalition and related workshops. IGF11 workshop Challenging Myths about Young People and the Internet: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W... A general statement about YCIG-related events at IGF2011 can be found here: http://www.ycig.org/index.php/2011/10/2011-ycig-statement/

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Amelia Andersdotter, MEP, SE (confirmed)
Deirdre Williams (confirmed)
Ashnah Kalemera (confirmed)
John Kampfner, Google (confirmed)
Joonas "JoonasD6" Mäkinen, Board member, Electronic Frontier Finland, moderator

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Tim Davies

(No.174) Online Dispute Resolution: Justice on the Net

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Concise Description of Workshop: 

More than 100 million disputes are filed online each year around the world, and the number is growing every month. As our society becomes increasingly wired, internet users expect that they will be able to use the latest information and communication technologies to get their issues resolved as quickly and effectively as possible. Unfortunately the default channel for resolving most problems, the courts, are unable to deal with online, high volume, low value cases.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Mr Graham Ross - Private Sector - WEOG

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Professor John Zeleznikow (Australia) creator of Family Winner (Mr.) - confirmed
Colin Rule (USA), Modria.com, CEO - confirmed
Graham Ross (UK), lawyer/mediator and VP (Europe) of  Modria.com - confirmed
Dr Alberto Elisavetsky (Argentina) , Professor and  Director of the Dispute Resolution Centre Training and Services at the Universidad Tecnologica National-Facultad Regional, Buenos Aires  - confirmed
Professor Irene Sigismondi (Italy), Attorney-at-Law and Professor at the University of Rome - confirmed
Ijeoma Ononogbu (UK and Nigeria), Commercial Lawyer and specialist in Online Dispute Resolution - confirmed

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
TBC
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
The majority of participants were women
Please include any comments or recommendations you have on how to improve the inclusion of issues related to gender equality and: 

It has no relevance within the subject of ODR.

Report
Reported by: 
Graham Ross
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

This workshop followed on from one held at the IGF in Hyderabad in 2008. IGF 2012, outside of this workshop, featured much discussion about the general problem that, whilst the technological barriers are fast coming down leading to increased trade and social interaction across borders, the existing jurisdictional barriers remain fully in place creating significant issues over developing global cultural norms with regard to disputes when they arise. Whilst people who do not wish to resolve their disputes can always hide behind these jurisdictional barriers, ODR at least provides the consensual solutions for the majority of people and organisations who are motivated to resolve their disputes. Since Hyderabad this point has been taken on board by various organisations who have now created their own ODR agendas, including the European Union with its forthcoming Regulation on ODR for consumer disputes (due to be on the statute book by late January 2013) and UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law), who set up a Working Party on ODR which met for the 5th time in Vienna, in the same week as IGF 2012. The EU had also, since IGF 2008, funded a specific ODR research project (EMCOD) focused on measuring and evaluating the costs and quality of ODR which was published the week after IGF 2012.
This workshop considered numerous issues arising of relevance to ODR, whether as to scope of its application, its forms, standards and challenges and importantly the direction forward and what this means to our more globally connected society.
Graham Ross, commenced the workshop with an update on the above matters for those in the audience unfamiliar with the subject. A timeline was shown covering the first United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's Forum on ODR held in the Palais Des Nations in Geneva in 2002 , and which International Forum has continued to be held every year ever since, most recently in Prague in 2012. It was pointed out that the EU's motivation in encouraging ODR was the fact that the Single Market was not working (people still tended to trade within rather than outside of borders) and ODR was clearly a way to encourage trust in the cross-border marketplace. The EU Regulation on ODR was explained as well as significant last minute amendments, issued in October, to extend the reach of the Regulation to cover domestic transactions as well as claims by traders against consumers. Graham explained the context for the latter extension, which he had argued in support, being the recent growth in consumer reviews of suppliers of products and services. Whilst consumer review was a welcome development, review only sites had sprung up that, together with policies adopted by Google and Amazon to aggregate reviews wherever they find them to use in their assessment metrics for the star rating of vendors, encouraged false and defamatory reviews by competitors or aggrieved persons, that could damage not just individual businesses but the overall reliability of the review industry. Some sites appear to specifically encourage the negative reviews, as the domain name of one of them, www.RipOffReport.com makes clear. The latter effect could lead not to a lowered risk of buying from unreliable traders (the principle objective of reviews) but rather, as less reputable traders would be more likely to exploit the opportunities for false reviews of reputable competing traders, to the opposite effect. Speedy, low cost adjudicated ODR solutions, published alongside reviews, would be one way to balance the justice of the review industry.
By way of continuity with IGF 2008, Hong Xue, Director of Institute for Internet Policy and Law at Beijing Normal University, who had been the Moderator of the ODR Workshop at Hyderabad, spoke about the Chinese Government's Regulations on Internet Retails. Hong chairs the drafting panel. She gave insight into this work and explained that the Regulations are still being reviewed at the State Council and could be issued in 2013.
Colin Rule presented on his work as the Head of ODR at eBay and then PayPal for 10 years, during which time he had helped design, and run processes that handle 60 million disputes a year. One of the most influential people in the development of ODR, Colin explained how he had more recently left eBay/PayPal to form, together with other eBay/PayPal ODR staff, and leading experts in the field, both from academia and the industry, a spin-off called Modria (www.modria.com) which has taken the licence for the eBay ODR software and developed it further on through TFR (Technology Facilitated Resolution). Colin added further to the background of resources that has supported the progression of ODR including the significant work of the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution at University of Massachusetts and the annual Cyberweek that was also being held in the same week as IGF 2012. Colin showed the broad range of ODR processes and how they can be adapted to not only reflect traditional ADR processes, whether adjudication arbitration , or mediation, but be made to be more accessible and economic to the varying needs of a global wired society. This can be seen not just in the developed economies but the particular benefits ODR brings to generating trust in traders in developing countries so as to facilitate a more global growth in trade.
Professor John Zeleznikow of the University of Victoria in Melbourne, Australia, spoke about the fact that one of the major concerns raised by people using negotiation processes generally is about the fairness or justice of the process. How would this impact on the design and application of ODR processes? Individuals undertake negotiation to derive better outcomes than would otherwise occur. This  requires them to engage in interest-based negotiation. But interest-based negotiation focuses upon the interests of the disputants rather than any objective legal measures of “fairness”. By the notion of fairness we mean “legally just” rather than the more commonly accepted negotiation concept of meeting the interests of all parties equally. One example of the need for focusing upon justices arises in the domain of family law, where parents might focus upon their own desires, rather than the needs of the children. Similarly, in employment law, individual bargaining between employers and employees might lead to basic needs (such as recreation leave and sick leave) being whittled away. It is hence vital to investigate how can we develop measures, or at the very least principles, for the construction of legally just negotiation support systems.?

Professor Zeleznikow then considered and explained a game theory based ODR system he and a colleague had developed, called Asset Divider, which incorporates fairness measures into an integrated bargaining environment.
Dr Alberto Elisavetsky, Professor and  Director of the Dispute Resolution Centre Training and Services at the Universidad Tecnologica National-Facultad Regional, Buenos Aires referred to the history of Odr Latinoamerica www.odrlatinoamerica.com , social network that has operated since 2006 ,closing the digital divide by proposing the use of new technologies as a tool to resolve conflicts. Their most recent project is called SIMEDIAR www.simediar.com which provides distance mediation simulations in real time. It is sponsored by 10 Latin America universities, aiming to train conflict operators in the necessary  tools and techniques to manage distance mediation rooms in real time. Each university had proposed two students who received 100% scholarships from SIMEDIAR & ODR LATINOAMERICA .Their final essay with their experiences will be compiled into a document to be share with future students.
Irene Sigismondi , Attorney-at-Law and Assistant Professor at the University of Rome spoke about the challenges, as seen from the perspective of the individual, posed by ODR in terms of "law and justice" and the more traditional "landscapes" for civil justice systems. She spoke about the developments in Italy for mandatory court annexed mediation and the court ruling in October declaring it unconstitutional. Irene felt ODR could be looked at , in this context, in an encouraging way in Italy because it allows the parties to set the dispute without the rigid or formal procedures that seemed to encourage the challenge to the court mandated scheme. This underlines the fact that the consensual nature of ODR is possibly its key strength.
 
 

Conclusions and further comments: 

As to  the last presentation, if people can be shown reasons that benefit them to participate in fast and low cost resolution, such as , for traders, increased trust leading to increased sales, then there will be the encouragement to technology to deliver more and more solutions to satisfy that objective. In that way the fact that the jurisdictional barriers remain will be of less consequence. The more ways round those legal  jurisdictional barriers, the more connected will become our global society. Indeed, the levelling of the playing field offered by ODR can only aid developing countries in the promotion of their economies, and thus their citizens,  within a global context.

(No.169) Internet Policy Infrastructure for Sustainable Internet Development: Lessons from Attempts at IP Enforcement

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Theme Question: 

Question 1 and 2 of Emerging Issues

Concise Description of Workshop: 

Over the last few years, a myriad of new legal frameworks aimed at addressing enforcement of intellectual property rights both domestically and internationally have emerged, and rapidly became "center stage" of the Internet governance debate. Examples include: COICA, PIPA, SOPA, TPP and ACTA. Proponents argue that a new approach is needed because existing laws are insufficient to deal with infringement in the digital environment.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Konstantinos Komaitis, Internet Society (NGO, WEOG) Kevin Bankston, Electronic Frontier Foundation (NGO, WEOG) Cynthia Wong, Center for Democracy & Technology (NGO, WEOG)

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

David Hughes, Senior Vice President of Technology at RIAA;
Pedro Less Andrade, Director of Public Policy for Latin America, Google Inc. (GRULAC); 

Kevin Bankston, Center for Democracy & Technology (WEOG); 

Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (GRULAC); 

Desiree Miloshevic, Senior Advisor, Public Policy & International Affairs at AFILIAS (WEOG); 

Kurt Opsahl, Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation (WEOG); 

Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society (WEOG)

 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Matt Zimmerman
Transcript: 
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
There were very few women participants
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Konstantinos Komaitis
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

 
Participants:
Ø  Konstantinos Komaitis, The Internet Society
Ø  Susan Chalmers, Internet NZ
Ø  Kevin Bankston, Center for Democracy and Technology
Ø  Desiree Miloshevic, Afilias
Ø  David Hughes, Recording Industry Association of America
Ø  Trevor C. Clarke, World Intellectual Property Organization
Ø  Pedro Less Andrade, Google
 
 
Summary of Discussions
 
The workshop sought to address the various enforcement methods of intellectual property rights that have emerged both domestically and internationally and, have rapidly taken ‘center stage’ in the Internet governance debate. In this regard, some examples the panelists used in their contributions included: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), both of which were experienced in the United States; and, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement at an international level.
 
During the session, panelists were asked a set of questions to answer and some issues to address. The questions and the key points that came out of the panelists’ responses were as follows:
 
o   Q: What challenges and/or opportunities content creators face in the current Internet and intellectual property environments? Is the situation different for amateur and professional content creators?
 
Key points: Generally, professional creators have more at stake given that their livelihood depends on the revenue of their work. However, at the same time, the Internet offers new ways to monetizing content and new ways of distribution. Additionally, the Internet offers great cost reductions associated with new ways of distribution. Finally, in terms of amateur content, the Internet further opens up new possibilities to generate content revenue – a clear example of this is Kickstarter.
 
o   Are traditional IP laws still appropriate for today’s environment? Do they support or hinder innovation or both?
 
Key points: Some panelists expressed the view that the existing (copyright) regime is sufficient, at least in most developed nations, and it is not required to change. The main problem appears to be that many of the copyright laws are not enforced, which makes these laws meaningless. To this end, unenforced laws can act as hindrance in that they may affect the quality of content. The result is less creation and less innovation. And, unenforced laws are also an indication of a weak government, which is, additionally, a sign of instability.
 
Other panelists expressed their concern with some enforcement mechanisms, especially those resulting to disconnecting users from the Internet. They acknowledged that this is an extreme solution and more work needs to be done in relation to intermediary liability, fostering the creation of new platforms and exceptions.
 
Some panelists argued that the modern copyright regime both supports and hinders innovation. All the enforcement efforts currently in place and supported by the movie and music industries have given birth to a brand new industry – an industry of monitoring file-sharing networks. The counter-monitoring measures that we see spring up in response to these enforcement efforts are part of this innovation. Finally, end-users and younger users also innovate by identifying (technological) ways to bypass geo-blocked content.
 
Finally, some panelists asserted that, when it comes to copyright, we depend too much on the law. The law is necessary and, will always be necessary, but should not be relied on as the only mechanism for dealing with the complexity of copyright infringement.
 
o   How do Internet intermediaries contribute to sustainable Internet development? What role – if any – should they play with respect to intellectual property?
 
Key Points: Some panelists asserted that Internet intermediaries can provide the platforms to help the industry flourish online; they can also collaborate with the copyright industry regarding authorizations of copyright infringement. When it comes to the latter though, the main issue is not to turn intermediaries into the police or the judge of the Internet. Due process is necessary and should be preserved in any context.
 
Other panelists argued that intermediaries contribute to development by providing platforms to innovate without permission. To this end, safe harbor provisions are necessary in order to ensure that intermediaries do not move to an over-blocking approach, thus ensuring the vitality of their platforms. And, to achieve this goal, voluntary mechanisms are better than mandatory laws, although transparency, across all the levels, is necessary.
 
o   What lessons – if any – have legislative proposals like ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA taught the Internet community, the content industry, lawmakers and others?
 
Key Points: It was suggested that the issue was not whether one could block websites (governments block websites related to child pornography or Nazism), but whether the technology and Internet architecture would support such an approach.
 
The majority of the panelists argued that the main lessons coming from all these failed legislative attempts related to transparency, accountability, issues of trust and, very importantly, multistakeholder participation. They argued that issues affecting the Internet, its technologies and platforms should be deliberated under a multistakeholder model that allows the participation of all interested parties, including governments, technology companies, civil society groups and content creators.
 
o   What types of governance should be employed to tackle issues of intellectual property?
 
Key Points: All panelists answering this question agreed that there is a great need for multistakeholder governance when it comes to intellectual property. Currently, intellectual property is one of the areas where policy development is not occurring through a true multistakeholder participatory model, thus creating issues of transparency and accountability. To this end, it is essential we also identify forums where such multistakeholder process can take place.
 
o   Do laws need to be changed to deal with intellectual property environment?
 
Key Points: In answering this question, one panelist asserted that it really depends on what we mean by change. There is an apparent need for a review of the copyright regime; but, the tension that currently exists between copyright and the Internet is not only about law. Other issues that equally need to be taken into consideration include issues of cultural change – the way people react to the Internet and react to copyright – simplification of law and, improvement in the infrastructure – the way the data is managed in the global environment.
 
o   What, if any, is the appropriate role for technical solutions (e.g. automated response mechanisms) to tackle copyright infringement?
 
Key Points: One panelist suggested that automated (technical) solutions are very helpful, as sometimes it is the only way to process the vast amount of requests and handle incredible amounts of data. The advantage of automated solutions is that they are very objective.
 
Another panelist added that, although it is necessary for intellectual property abuses to be dealt with effectively, we also need to be very mindful when we implement automatic takedown procedures, as they could seriously undermine the stability of the Internet and put pressure on intermediaries.
 
Finally, one panelist argued that “the answer to the machine is the machine”.
 
 
o   Is domain name blocking and filtering an effective tool for intellectual property rights enforcement? What would be the best approach for a domain name that contains a mix of lawful and infringing material?
 
Key Points: In addressing this question, all panelists were of the view that there are issues of proportionality and due process that should be taken into account. Proportionality should be used as a measurement against infringing and non-infringing content as should due process. And, due process is not only limited to design, but it expands to substance and should be used a criterion for making determinations between legal and illegal material.
 
o   Could forms of copyright enforcement provide new tools or justification for censorship and surveillance by authoritarian regimes?
 
Key Points: According to one panelist, the crucial question is the way we implement tools to deal with copyright infringement. Additionally, another important point is that of accountability concerning the takedown requests. A copyright owner should be accountable for the (mistaken) requests they send out to users.
 
o   Given the global nature of the Internet do we need international intellectual property laws or something else?
 
Key Points: One panelist suggested that the great challenge is the conflict between the territorial nature of intellectual property laws and the global nature of the Internet. All Treaties that guide the foundation of copyright law internationally are negotiated across borders and, the limited rights that are established during these negotiations will have to be revisited.  However, there is a foundation that should not be eroded; this foundation relates to why these laws have been put in place in the first place.
 
o   Are there alternative business models, like pay what you want, that can support creators and innovators without requirement for additional enforcement mechanisms?
 
Key Points: (Alternative) business models existed for a long time – so the discussions about them are not new. One of the issues identified, was that for new business models to flourish, we need to create an inviting ecosystem, which does not appear to be the case currently. One of the hurdles is the licensing scheme that exists both within the European Union and internationally, which needs to be streamlined so that copyright content can travel without too many restrictions across borders.
 

Conclusions and further comments: 

 
Concluding comments
This workshop demonstrated the value of multistakeholder participation not only from a structural point of view but also from a practical point of view. The conclusions of the panel focused on the need to continue the discussions in a true multistakeholder fashion that facilitates the exchange of ideas and knowledge. 

(No.138) Internet and human rights: shared values for sound policies.

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Theme Question: 

Question 1

Concise Description of Workshop: 

 
In just a few decades, the Internet has demonstrated an exceptional ability in upholding fundamental human rights and democratic principles in unexpected ways and scale, empowering individuals across the globe to exercise a wide range of fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion or the right to freedom of association.
 

Organiser(s) Name: 

 

  • Mr. Nicolas Seidler, Policy advisor, Internet Society. Region: WEOG. Stakeholder group: Internet technical community. 

  • Ms. Joy Liddicoat, Internet Rights are Human Rights Project Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications. Region: WEOG. Stakeholder group: civil society.

 

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

[Moderator]

  • Mr. Markus Kummer, Vice President, Public Policy, Internet Society. Status: confirmed. 

[Introductory speakers]

  • Mr. Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Stakeholder group: IGO. Region: GRULAC. Status: confirmed.
  • Ms. Subi Chaturvedi, activist and assistant prof. of journalism and communication (Delhi University). Stakeholder group: academia. Region: Asia-Pacific. Status: confirmed.
  • Ms. Avri Doria, Research Consultant. Stakeholder group: civil society. Region: WEOG. Stakeholder group: civil society. Status: confirmed.

[Discussants]

  • Mr. Patrik Fältström, Head of Research and Development, Netnod. Stakeholder group: Internet technical community. Region: WEOG. Status: confirmed.
  • Mr. Jean-Paul Nkurunziza, Trainer in Computing and Internet Policy. Stakeholder group: civil society. Region: African. Status: confirmed.
  • Ms. Theresa Swinehart, Executive Director, Global Internet Policy, Verizon. Stakeholder group: business. Region: WEOG. Status: confirmed.
  • Mr. Emin Milli, Azerbaijani writer. Stakeholder group: civil society. Region: EEG. Status: confirmed.
  • Mr. Lee Hibbard, Coordinator for Information Society & Internet Governance, Media and Information Society Division, Council of Europe. Stakeholder group: IGO. Region: WEOG. Status: confirmed.
  • Ms. Joy Liddicoat, Internet Rights are Human Rights Project Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications. Region: WEOG. Stakeholder group: civil society.
  • Mr. Johan Hallenborg, Special Adviser, Department for International Law, Human Rights and Treaty Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden. Stakeholder group: government. Region: WEOG. Status: confirmed.
  • Ms. Jillian C. York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Stakeholder group: civil society. Region: WEOG. Status: confirmed.
Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Mr. Luca Belli (confirmed)
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was mentioned briefly in the presentations and discussions
Report
Reported by: 
Nicolas Seidler, Policy Advisor, Internet Society
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

The objective of the session was to foster a dialogue on the relationship and mutual dependencies between the open nature of the Internet and the ability for individuals to exercise key human rights in the online environment, in particular freedom of expression and freedom of association.

A draft paper developed by the Internet Society and the Association for Progressive Communications - comparing the processes and the principles between human rights and key Internet protocols – provided a background for discussions. Both the analysis and the workshop participants considered the perspective of human rights’ values being very much part of the Internet’s DNA;
The way the Internet’s architecture was designed - decentralized, distributed, end-to-end - empowers individuals at the edges of the network rather than the center. The global network and its underlying protocols and standards are developed by engineers under the umbrella of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which processes are open to anybody, with no sign up sheets and no membership fees. The keys to the Internet’s technical development are basically in the hands of its own community of users, an open and bottom-up approach which resonates with democratic traits. 

Several speakers shared the view that by fostering and developing an open Internet, the Internet technical community has de facto become a key contributor for human rights. One panelist even raised the emerging notion of network engineers as human rights defenders. An interesting insight was shared about the context of early pioneer Internet developments in the 1960s in the United States, marked by strong civil rights movements echoing the importance of protecting human rights and individual freedoms that drove the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights some 20 years before the creation of the TCP/IP protocol. From that perspective, the Internet and human rights would share core notions of individual empowerment, which are reflected in the processes and principles driving the evolution of the Internet.

One of the panelist mentioned India as an example of a large and diverse country where unifying factors are essential to hold the diverse communities together. The Internet has emerged as one such factor, in particular through the rapid expansion in mobile Internet use. The Internet fosters innovation at the edges without the need to ask for permission, which has been driving economic growth in this country. The same network architecture also enables the articulation of social movements in a decentralized manner, creating spaces for dialogue. Social media platforms were mentioned as new ways for people to exercise their right to freedom of association and peaceful assembly in the online world. It was however emphasized that this “decentralized thinking” requires skills and an ongoing learning process for traditional societies.

Beyond playing an important role in expanding political, economic, social and cultural rights, the Internet can also play a positive role in supporting human rights activism, raising awareness around human rights violations. The Internet is meant to be a force for knowledge and freedoms.

However, there are two sides to the Internet’s openness, and the same technology can also be used to restrict freedoms. 

Authoritarian regimes who have historically never paid more than lip-service to their citizens’ freedoms have become increasingly technologically savvy in undertaking actions to suppress freedom of empowerment online (e.g. censorship technology, online surveillance, cutting off access).
Even countries with strong democratic traditions are tempted to use short term technical measures (e.g. DNS blocking or filtering) to address issues such as security or copyright enforcement, often loosing sight of the bigger picture.

The example of Azerbaijan was mentioned during the discussion, as a case where people can access the open Internet without prior restrictions, but where the exercise of the right to express opinions and ideas can create serious risks of persecution in the offline environment. Several cases were mentioned where people were persecuted as a result of online activities that would normally fall under freedom of speech protections. In other words, it is not because technology is free of access that the use of technology is free from consequences. This is also what several commentators in Baku referred to as the importance of freedom after expression.

A key takeaway from the discussion was about the importance of further building the relationships between stakeholders who touch upon human rights issues. The significant number of IGF sessions related to human rights and the diversity of stakeholders involved in those discussions reflects an important trend towards considering online rights issues from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Beyond Governments and civil society, all actors of the Internet are becoming sensitive towards human rights concerns, including business and the Internet technical community. In this regard, the notion of enhanced cooperation within and between existing organizations of the Internet ecosystem is very relevant in the context of reinforcing human rights in the online environment. Everyone has limited capabilities, and a shared approach is needed.

Finally, one panelist from Azerbaijan confirmed the importance of the IGF as a forum to exchange ideas, but also for holding the IGF in such places like Baku as it gave the Azeri civil society a global platform for talking about issues they would otherwise not be able to talk about. As the IGF heads toward new host countries, this provides an interesting local perspective on the debate whether it was opportune or not to hold the Forum in countries with questionable human rights approaches.
 

Conclusions and further comments: 
  • The open Internet and human rights have developed deep and complex dependencies. Threats to the open Internet also impede on individuals’ ability to exercise some of their most fundamental rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of association. The role of the Internet technical community, namely through open standards development, has become crucial for several human rights.
  • We are at a time of affirmation for human rights online and it is likely that the online/offline duality will not stay many more years. However the applicability of existing rights in the online environment remains an important issues, and there is a need to continue analyze how Internet and human rights map together in order to better address new challenges.
  • The IGF is an ideal forum to share opinions and best practices on human rights-related issues, providing a space for stakeholders to socialize and offering the opportunity to shed light on local challenges. It is essential, however, to further cooperation beyond the IGF, and to identify new ways to collaborate and participate in other relevant processes (e.g. Human Rights Council, civil society and business initiatives, open standards development, etc.).

 

(No.137) How do we ensure the future of creative content online?

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Theme Question: 

Question 2

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The internet has helped to open up a global market for content producers.  However, while it has made it easier for producers to share their work, it has also made it easier for this work to be copied and distributed without permission.  This proposal is for a workshop session at IGF Baku which will build on the discussions from the UK-IGF in March.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Laura Hutchison, Nominet, on behalf of the UK-IGF. Nominet is a technical and a business entity. The UK-IGF is a multi-stakeholder partnership.UK-IGF (http://ukigf.org.uk/)

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

 Chair - Kate Russell, Journalist, BBC Click  - CONFIRMED
Dr Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute – CONFIRMED
Bill Echikson, Google – CONFIRMED
Mary Uduma, Nigeria Internet Registration Association – CONFIRMED
Cedric Wachholz, UNESCO – CONFIRMED

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Kieren McCarthy CONFIRMED
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Laura Hutchison, Nominet for the UK-IGF
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 
  • Kate Russell, Freelance journalist and reporter – Chair
  • Dr Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute
  • Bill Echikson, Google
  • Mary Uduma, Nigeria Internet Registration Association
  • Cedric Wachholz, UNESCO

Kate Russell opened the session by asking the panellists to think about what the Internet might look like in ten years time when it comes to creative content. 
Ian Brown began by likening the Internet to a celestial duke box which has been enabled by the fast pace of the internet and innovative products such as Spotify.  The technology for further development is largely there but it is the issue over artist compensation which is sticking point.  He highlighted how even within Europe, the differences in the legal framework for copyright law in the 27 member states makes very difficult for content producers to move between and market in all countries. 
Bill Echikson shared some stats to illustrate how quickly the internet is growing:  In May 2011, 325 million websites were registered worldwide, every day five exo-bytes of data are created on the Internet and 250 thousand words are written on the google blogger product, 72 hours of video is uploaded every minute on You Tube and all this content is becoming more accessible as the internet spreads.  The internet allows wider information sharing:  18th Century Dutch horticulture books are being viewed from Australia.  World wonders project in conjunction with UNESCO – helped to increase visitor numbers to Pompeii by a quarter. 
Bill also highlighted how online advertising is allowing creators to receive revenue from this rather than by selling their content.  He stressed that the audience is online now so creators have to reach out to them therefore reform is inevitable. 
Mary Uduma agreed with Bill and stressed that for the competitive market to succeed there must be supply and demand.  The demand for content is not going to change in 10 years.  Mary envisioned that the mechanism for sharing would probably change but the basic principles will remain the same.  The most important thing for the artist or content creator is compensation to encourage them to keep creating.  The relationship between the creator and service provider is key to the future of the content market and the sharing formula has to be acceptable to both parties.
Cedric Wachholz asserted that content creation is the key to equitable and inclusive knowledge societies.  He felt that predicting the model in 10 years time is not easy.  For UNESCO the key areas for development are:  diversity, inclusiveness, relevance and accessibility – increasing cultural and multi-lingual content online.  English is no longer the number one language on the web and it is important to have the goal of inclusiveness.    Content comes from all areas and these should remain accessible for the future  increasing digital heritage.  Cedric agreed that it was important to consider how to ensure the continued generation but there is also also the question of how we archive older content so that it remains accessible. 
In response to Bill’s point about advertising funding content, Cedric also flagged that some content is also publically funded.  Advertising is not the only way to fund.  Kate noted that crowd funding was also a massive growth area. 
Kate then invited the audience to examine what the threats to a dynamic model are moving forward what they felt needed to change in the current model in order to achieve this vision from the future. 
A number of participants contributed to an active discussion.  The key points were: 
A sound legal framework and a change in culture is key to allow creativity to flourish. 
The print model is no longer relevant and we are currently in a period of transition. 
The European motion picture industry was highlighted as an example.  There are differences in payment methods and the remuneration levels are not the same across all areas, just as the level of investment differs.  The speaker stressed that the industry is an employment provider and is providing economic benefits to the country so it was important that they were protected. 
A participant highlighted the dispute between Google and France and argued that this shows how powerful Google is in that they can just refuse to carry French newspapers.  90% of search market is via Google.  Others noted that there are other methods of making content available, not just Google and you tube.  The 90% figure is misleading.  The majority of people looking for the New York Times goes direct to their website rather than through Google.  It was suggested that strong brands will evolve and survive. 
Following a discussion around responses to infringement, one speaker felt that it was important to remember that blocking for abuse is not same as restricting freedom of speech. 
The group had a discussion around who has responsibility for content and it was remarked that more and more obligations are being put on intermediaries for controlling content eg as going directly to Google to request that a link to a defamatory story is removed rather than perusing the originator or distributor. 
The Hargreaves review in the UK was noted as an example of an academic trying to contribute research and data to the debate.  Ian Brown agreed and called for more evidence-based policy making, stressing that policies should be set on a thorough understanding of the needs and challenges of the environment and considering all possible impacts. 
The group suggested that pressure for speed of blocking is not necessarily the answer.  It is important to do all the relevant research before blocking or takedown.  Some members of the group felt that piracy was a result of a failure of good legal avenues to access content.  Others responded that it was impossible to compete with free products and gave the analogy of a shopping mall trying to sell products when a stand outside was giving the same products away for free.  The bottled water industry was held up as a counter argument to this as well as i-tunes which sells paid for music that is freely available via pirated and free means. 
The group briefly discussed the idea of the requirement for the standardisation of a proportional response to cases of infringement. 

Conclusions and further comments: 

In closing the panel gave the following remarks:
Mary suggested that there has to be a distribution of compensation.  High quality works should have different model of compensation to lower or less “valuable” works and it is up to the producer to decide the level they are happy with.  Market forces will dictate if the fees are agreeable. 
Cedric agreed that there needs to be an adaptable legal framework but we also need a change of culture.  Both sides need to work together to move forward. 
Bill agreed that the discussion should focus on how to move forward rather than backwards or in the same entrenched positions.  He urged the group to look towards the constant innovation of the TV and DVD markets. 
Ian called for more inclusive and better evidenced policy discussions.  Technical controls are too easy to bypass so we need to work towards another solution. 
The Chair closed the workshop agreeing that discussions need to be forward looking and constructive.  Standards of enforcement have to be agreed and a fair and level playing field for competition and innovation is what we should be aiming for. 

(No.134) HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE INTERNET: LEGAL FRAMES AND TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Theme Question: 

Question 1

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The emergence of the Internet is a turning point in human history. However, being originally conceived as a tool for communication between scientists worldwide, the Internet rapidly has turned into its own virtual world living by its own laws and rules of the game, and its own original interpretation of the concept of human rights. Moreover, development of the Internet changes the essence of the human rights policy, as well as realization of the human rights and freedoms in constitutional law.

Backgroung Paper: 
Organiser(s) Name: 

Dr. Svetlana V. Maltseva, Dean of the Business Informatics faculty, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia (Technical and Academic Communities)
Dr. Anna K. Zharova, assistant professor, Business Informatics Faculty, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia (Technical and Academic Communities)
Andrey A. Shcherbovich, lecturer of the department of the Constitutional and Municipal Law, faculty of law, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia (Technical and Academic Communities)

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Malcolm Jeremy (Mr), Consumers International, Malaysia (CONFIRMED)
Kleinwaechter Wolfgang (Mr), University of Aarhus, Germany (CONFIRMED)
Vixie Paul (Mr), Internet Systems Consortium, US (CONFIRMED)
Radu Roxana (Ms), Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Switzerland (CONFIRMED)
Adeleye Peter Olugbenga (Mr), Youth Crime Watch of Nigeria (CONFIRMED)
Organizers will arrange a report as well.

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Dr. Mikhail M. Komarov (NRU HSE, Business Informatics Faculty)
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was mentioned briefly in the presentations and discussions
Please include any comments or recommendations you have on how to improve the inclusion of issues related to gender equality and: 

Raise gender equality issues among other topics related to the Internet Goverance and Human Rights.

Report
Reported by: 
Andrey Shcherbovich
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

The initiative of this workshop belongs to the representatives of the academic community of the National research university Higher school of economics, Moscow.
The Workshop was chaired by Dr. Svetlana V. Maltseva.
The workshop contained 4 stand reports and general discussion with questions and answers session.
Dr. Svetlana V. Maltseva and Dr. Mikhail M. Komarov. Human Rights on the Internet. Synergetic effect of the technological and legal impacts.
Internet technologists contribute to the practical realization of human rights. First of all, they can improve the effectiveness of exist institution. For example E-learning. This type of training allows you to implement the rights to education for people who are unable to study in ordinary schools or\ and universities. For example, people with disabilities. But you must ensure that the technology and content have the necessary quality, and protected from fraud. Also we can see the organizational transformation based on Internet technologists, and the emergence of new institution. Another example, social networks. We see that they can he have a great impact on their forming and distribution of knowledge. Unfortunately in the same time Internet technologies give rise to new mechanisms in terms of human rights violations. So we need to create new means, new technologies for protection. We need new restrictions including technological means, identification and classification of violations, prevention-based on predictive analytics. But what we need, what we really need to improve the situation, should we improve the existing means, or we must build new models of communication. Perhaps such model could be the model based on the concept of web 3.0.
Dr. Anna K. Zharova and Andrey A. Shcherbovich. Adaptation of the technological solutions to the changing legal environment.
Report presented by Andrey Schcherbovich, and Dr. Anna Zharova was devoted to adaptation of technical solutions to the changing legal environment. Firstly the special concept of the Internet Governance which was developed some years ago by a group from the Higher school of economics which contents the trilateral model of internet governance. First there are three levels on which Internet Governance should be possible. They are supranational, national and community level or self-regulation. Those three levels couldn't be declared as self-sufficient, and should be connected to each other in the special way in order to make relevant Internet Governance in order to make a model of IG policy in realization of human rights. So, each level has its positive and negative effect. So that each of them couldn't be proclaimed and declared self-sufficient.  Dr. Anna Zharova presented special circumstances in which this concept to be applied in Russia,
Jeremy Malcolm. Human Rights and the future of Internet Governance.
We cannot rely on individual governments to respect human rights, we cannot rely on corporations to do so, and civil society, well, certainly we can act as a human rights watchdog and we can provide certain tools to help with the exercise of human rights on line, but we've nowhere near enough power or resources or influence to make much of a difference on our own account. So how do we regulate the Internet in a way that respects human rights if we cannot rely on governments, corporations or civil society to do so? The best answer we've is that we should do so by combining the strengths and weaknesses of all those stakeholders in a multistakeholder policy development process intended to explicate common principles or guidelines upon which governments, the private sector and civil society can agree as a basis for their respective actions. Such as passing legislation, or concluding treaties, moderating online services containing user generated content, and in common shared norms of online behaviour.
The Internet Governance Forum can be a good place to start developing global policies for human rights online, particularly in areas where there are no other global fora that have responsibility for particular issues, such as, for example, privacy and cloud services. However, the IGF, as it is currently constituted, is not quite up to the task. Its mandate does call on it to develop recommendations on emerging issues that can be transmitted to decision-makers through appropriate high level interfaces, but it hasn't yet developed the capacity to do that.
Roxana Radu. Dynamics between internet governance and human rights at the international level.
One of the questions that comes up first is whether to treat the human rights regime in a comprehensive way, in a comprehensive manner as the so-called package of intersecting rights, or whether to keep the rights separated and have this list of independent things. We already have several core legal instruments in place at the international level, but their interpretation is by no means uncontroversial. Access to Internet, for example, as a human right has been derived from several articles of the universal declaration of human rights, such as Article 2 on equality, Article 19 on freedom of expression, or Article 26 on education. Secondly, at the international level on the international human rights regime remains strongly dependent on enforcement, which is done through government and through the court system. The tension here is between two conflicting paradigms. On the one hand, the traditional human rights regime, which assigns a major role to states, and on the other hand, an emerging Internet rights paradigm in which the role of the state is kept the at a minimum or is ideally kept at a minimum, and discussions are now going on regarding a set of norms applicable to the Internet, but also in regard with conserving, for example, different frameworks of intellectual property rights.
Dr. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter summarized the discussion.
We remember the previous IGFs, we had only a low participation of friends from the Russian Federation, and I take this as a very good signal that, you know, the Russian Federation is a big country which has a large Internet community, become stronger involved in the discussion of Internet Governance in this multistakeholder environment. So I think this is certainly a positive signal and we can learn from each other, listening to the various arguments and understanding better concepts, very often we're using the same language but have different meaning behind the same words and this creates sometimes some problems because that we've misunderstandings, and the beauty of the Internet Governance Forum is that we've here an opportunity to look behind the words, to have individual discussions with speakers and people from other stakeholder groups as a nation and to find out, you know, what is behind the word, what is the real meaning, this helps us to create understanding.

Conclusions and further comments: 

This workshop was broadcasted in HSE, inviting students from various faculties of HSE (including students as the Faculty of Business Informatics, but also on other programs HSE, in one way or another connected with the Internet technology). In addition, the compendium on human rights and internet governance has been issued. It can be used in teaching courses in Management, Public Administration, Sociology, including related to human rights, and social sciences and humanities block: law, history, social anthropology, cultural studies, political science. As the materials of the collection can be primary or secondary methodological tool for the study of the complex disciplines.
Among Russian scientists involved in the study of human rights issues, as well as among policy makers, practitioners in the field, there is a tendency to consider the issue of human rights on the Internet only in Russia, which in turn is logical and reasonable. This in turn leads to lack of fundamental (as a rule, do any exist) conceptions of the understanding of the concept of human rights in other segments of the Internet. In the best case, attention is paid to the problems of human rights in neighboring states. However, in order to achieve successful progress in the field of human rights on the Internet, it is necessary first of all to study and know the basic elements upon which an understanding of human rights in other national and language segment. This combined with a critical understanding of their own interpretation of the concept of human rights will, in turn, identify "common space", which will move towards universalization of human rights.

Additional documents: 

(No.131) Rethinking copyright: can we develop a set of common principles?

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Theme Question: 

Question 2

Concise Description of Workshop: 

This workshop aims to build on previous workshops at the IGF, such as “Copyright under a magnifying glass: thought provoking ideas” organized by ISOC and WIPO last year. It intends to take the copyright debate one step further and concentrate on:
• finding common ground and establishing a minimum set of globally acceptable standards or principles, that could lead to a minimum-level of harmonization at global level, ideally in the medium-term;

Organiser(s) Name: 

Mr. Jimmy Schulz, Member of the German Parliament, Govt., WEOG

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Mr. Vinton Cerf, Vice-President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google WEOG (confirmed)
Mr. Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation WEOG (confirmed - remote participation)
Mr. Trevor C. Clarke, Assistant Director General, Culture and Creative Industries, WIPO, WEOG (confirmed)
Mr. Kamran Imanov, Chairman/President, the Copyright Office, Azerbaijan, Govt. Eastern Europe (confirmed)
Ms. Deborah Kulabako, DiploFoundation, Uganda, Africa (confirmed)
Mr. Jeff Jarvis, Journalist, WEOG (confirmed)
Mr. Chris Marcich, Motion Picture Association, WEOG (confirmed)

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Ms. Linda van Renssen (confirmed)
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Please include any comments or recommendations you have on how to improve the inclusion of issues related to gender equality and: 

N/A

Report
Reported by: 
Linda van Renssen
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

Considering the ever-increasing challenge of adequately protecting intellectual property rights in our digitalized and global society, the moderator (Jimmy Schulz, Member of the German Parliament) kicked off the discussion by asking the panelists to describe their “perfect copyright” regime, ignoring all existing rules and starting with a blank piece of paper.
 
Vinton Cerf, Google Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, suggested reintroducing the notion of registered works. At registration the owner could digitally sign the work and indicate the terms and conditions as to how the work should be treated. Registering transfers of rights, as is done with real property, would help prevent the current difficulty of establishing who a work belongs to and what rights are attached to it over a long period of time.
He criticized the extension of rights to 75 years after the end of life of the creator, arguing that this defeats the original purpose of copyright: to grant rights to the creator for a certain period of time, after which the work becomes available to the public.
Furthermore, the current rigid copyright system should be opened up so that it becomes easier for authors to choose how their work is treated. Creative Commons is a step in the right direction. Given the fundamentals of digital content, the focus should be on establishing a system to satisfy creators (not all want remunerations) and not on preventing copying. Important to bear in mind, is that digital works need software to interpret them and if that software is no longer available or doesn´t work anymore then the “bag of bits” is of no use at all.
 
Trevor Clarke, Assistant Director General, World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), agreed with the idea of registering ownership and noted that many countries implement voluntary registration systems. Although member states’ opinions vary, he said that he believes the copyright system needs to be revisited – in particular regarding copyright in the digital environment. It relies too heavily on the law which is always slow and in the case of copyright very complex. Despite the current problems however, there are also aspects which have benefitted society and should not be thrown out, he added.
Particularly young people should not be treated as IP criminals. There needs to be education and some cultural change to help them understand freedom on the Internet and the responsible use of protected content.
At the moment there are discussions taking place in Geneva regarding exceptions to copyright, such as facilitating access to the blind.
It is recognized that some people create for the love of it and just want to be acknowledged. However, those who want to be rewarded should be rewarded.
Principles need to be broad in order for them to be accepted in a multilateral environment. The question of territoriality needs to be revisited. We need dialogue and the best environment to discuss these issues is a multi-stakeholder environment.
The challenge of the middleman in music needs to be addressed with transparency, accountability and good governance.
 
Jeff Jarvis, Journalist, explained that content now has value in new ways, for example through signals we generate about ourselves via Facebook or Google. This value is great but different – it is not recognized by paying for content as was previously done. In this new economy there is value in relationships among people and data about them. Attempting to protect content for sale is therefore not the way forward. The value is also in obtaining credit through links.
He urged policymakers not to try to recreate the Guttenberg print era of content being value in and of itself. There is value in creating an audience for that content. There is also value in the aggregation of that content into a larger data set. There is value around interaction and conversation. We are currently trying to fit a “Guttenberg-era content structure” onto a new technology where the economy is not clear. We need to find technology and business models which work online.
Additionally access is important not just for blind people but also for people with dyslexia or other reading issues.
 
Chris Marcich, President and Managing Director for Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) at the Motion Picture Association, said he believed the current copyright model works - it has adapted to change and not impeded Internet developments and alternative creative models. Changes to the current working model should be carefully considered and justified with evidence. A copyright review at the international level would also need to address the broader issue of Internet governance.
He was skeptical of a mandatory register, arguing that it would have to be dynamic as rights are dynamic and it is therefore questionable whether such a registration system would work. In the US, a voluntary register works and there was a move away from a mandatory register because it imposed burdens on non-national registrants and was inflexible.
He commented on Jeff´s model, explaining that this only works for certain content, while creators with high investments are exploited. Each creator should be able to choose how their work is treated.  
Also, the property rights which underlie copyright are usually permanent. Copyright is a limited granting of rights which has been extended over time. It may be that certain works are more necessary to society than others, but generally this grant should not be expropriated at a certain point in time.
 
Kamran Imanov, Chairman, State Copyright Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan, explained that the compromise between exclusive rights of right holders and the interests of users is a social contract. The internet does not deal with works but with content and content circulation which creates new kinds of creativity. The term content is the strengthening of the content´s significance and the weakening of its form. Although interests are not fitting, there is no clash between copyright and the internet, therefore we need to find compromise between the two. Using the models of compromise theory we have determined that, in the future we need to find measures for compulsory or obligatory licensing.
 
Also Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation, had been invited to participate. Unfortunately the remote participation by telephone did not function correctly however, and he was therefore regrettably unable to join us.
 
Audience Discussion
 
There were many contributions from the audience - here are merely a few examples.
 

  • One participant said people will continue to share content and this cannot be stopped by reinforcing the present legal prosecution system. The impact is not made with publication but when that publication reaches people who can do something with it.  Restricting knowledge produced by society with public funding is reducing the impact of knowledge. The way forward is open access. Budgets can be redirected so that authors obtain more benefits. In the current grid of intermediaries there are very few authors which reap benefits.
  • Another participant mentioned that the human rights aspects of copyright enforcement need more discussion, particularly freedom of expression and association.
  • A music manager and artist with 25 years of experience explained how the extended collective rights management system in Scandinavia is an example of what works – you can use a piece of music by default if you pay the going rate for it to a central administration. This has led to the successful streaming services which started in Scandinavia. If the default is that a piece of music cannot be used, then you have to go around asking for permission and the result is that most people will not get paid. This participant added that the idea of copyright is that creators are incentivized to create on the premise that this will result in the widest availability of cultural goods to the widest number of people. What we have however, is a system that returns the vast majority of money to a tiny number of large companies because the rights are owned by the middleman.
  • Another participant mentioned that in the Transpacific Partnership Trade Agreement which is currently being negotiated by the US, New Zealand and nine other countries, the copyright section contains a provision which would give copyright-holders the right to authorize or prohibit temporary electronic copies.
Conclusions and further comments: 

There is no easy answer to the copyright debate, which will undoubtedly continue in the decades to come. Despite many conflicting views on how this issue should be dealt with, all participants agreed that the problem cannot be solved nationally and that the international multi-stakeholder approach is the best way to discuss this issue.
 

(No.115) Media pluralism and freedom of expression in the Internet age

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Emerging Issues
Theme Question: 

Emerging Issues - Question 1, 2
·          What are acceptable and proportionate measures that offer Intellectual Property protection, yet allow for and respect individual users’ freedom to express themselves, to access and share content/culture, and to innovate and create?
·          In what ways are new opportunities and challenges being created as the new Internet services and traditional media (such a broadcast TV and radio) are accessed through the ‘same screen’?
·          What are the policy challenges around free flow of information, freedom of expression and human rights and the Internet as they relate to access?
·          What measures can be taken to ensure freedom of expression, access to knowledge and privacy, including for children? What are challenges to protect freedom of expression online and what measures can be taken to better empower citizen’s access to information and participation in digital age?“Net Etiquette” and the roles and responsibilities of users as they relate to openness, privacy security?

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The advent of the Internet and the transition towards convergence and cloud-based content provision potentially challenge the traditional notion of pluralism, at the same time expanding its potential and undermining its foundations. The impact of these developments on freedom of expression and pluralism is highly debated. This workshop  examines current risks in the field of pluralism and freedom of the media and devise ways to address them
The workshop will discuss:

Organiser(s) Name: 

CEPS (Andrea Renda), ULB (Caroline Pauwels), Université de Louvain (Peggy Valcke), EUI (Florence School of Regulation – Pierluigi Parcu, Global Governance Programme – Miguel Maduro), CEU (Kristina Irion).

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Panelists:

  • Andrea Renda, Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS) – Moderator
  • Pilar del Castillo, Member of the European Parliament
  • Anja Kovacs, Centre for Internet and Society India
  • Peggy Valcke, KU Leuven
  • Alasgar Mammadli, Irex Azerbaijan, Lawyer, Deputy of Chief
  • Ben Hammersley (UK), Wired magazine; member European Commission High Level Expert Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism
  • Giacomo Mazzone, European Broadcasting Union
  • Eli Noam, CITI, Columbia University, New York
  • Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, Research Fellow, ELIAMEP, Athens
  • Maciej Tomaszewski, European Commission, DG CONNECT
Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Camino Manjon, DG CONNECT, European Commission
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Maciej Tomaszewski
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

The Centre for European Political Studies organised a workshop "Media freedom and freedom of expression in Internet age" which took place on 8 November 2012 during the 7th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. The European Commission helped with the organisation of this workshop in order to provide an opportunity for independent experts to express their opinion how the traditional notion of pluralism might be adapted to the digital age.
Those experts elaborated in their personal capacity the following recommendations:
1. First of all, in order to identify the best possible policy options, it is important to understand the current Internet media landscape. Therefore, it is important to raise awareness about the following facts:

  1. Internet is considered to constitute an environment in which media pluralism is easy to ensure. However, it is important to raise awareness that at least currently, Internet media is a highly concentrated market.
  2. Despite its universality, Internet media markets are different according to the countries. In particular, those markets are different in developed and in developing countries.
  3. It is important to recognize, that the Internet does not only constitute a tool enabling for free expression, but that it can be also used as a surveillance tool.
  4. The massive abundance of available content does not ensure media pluralism as consumers are not able to process this amount of content.  

2. Only after better understanding the current situation of media in Internet age, it is possible to lay down some proposals for ensuring media freedom and freedom of speech in Internet age. The following proposals should be considered:

  1. Tools are needed to systematically monitor different factors which have impact on media pluralisms. Those tools should take into account the specificity of the Internet.
  2. There should be a strong focus on interoperability in order to lower barriers of entry into media market.
  3. Copyright provisions also play an important role in ensuring media freedom. Some changes may include the liberalisation of copyright or the introduction in some cases of compulsory licensing.
  4. User-empowerment should be one of key actions. This might be implemented not only in raising-awareness actions, but also through better use of possibilities given by the user-generated content
  5. Pluralism of media should also mean "pluralism of sources" – it is important to ensure that information come from diversified sources
  6. A "diversity by design" notion should be introduced. This principle would mean that intermediaries who enable finding information should actually contribute to ensuring media pluralism.
  7. It is argued that certain rules imposed on traditional media are not well applied to new media, creating a disturbance in the equal level-playing field. Those rules include for instance competition law, obligations of public broadcasters, privacy laws etc. A proper consideration is needed to ensure that those rules, to the extent possible, are also applicable to Internet users.
  8. A global nature of the Internet must be recognised. Therefore, the development of international common standards in the area of media pluralism should be considered.

 

Conclusions and further comments: 

"The entire report from the workshop is prepared in a form of conclusions from independent experts".
 

Syndicate content