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.