[WSIS CS-Plenary] Internet Goernance resolution

[Ronald Koven]

Dear All --

The following resolution on Internet Governance was endorsed by members of
the Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations at their meeting
in Belgrade in conjunction with UNESCO's Word Press Freedom Day
commemoration there. 

The World Press Freedom Committee thought it might be of interest to those
on the Civil Society list interested in the question of Internet
Governance.

Rony Koven



COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS
INTER AMERICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTING
INTERNATIONAL PRESS INSTITUTE
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NEWSPAPERS
WORLD PRESS FREEDOM COMMITTEE

INTERNET GOVERNANCE: DEFEND FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

The members of the Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations at
their meeting on 1 May 2004 in Belgrade, issued the following statement on
Internet Governance:

It is becoming increasingly clear that so-called "governance," management
and administration of the Internet will be the central issue in
preparations for the second World Summit on the Information Society. UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan was mandated to direct a study incorporating
the views of diverse interests to be produced in time for WSIS II,
scheduled for Tunis, Tunisia, in November 2005. 

Civil society caucuses are already exchanging message traffic on how to
determine their positions. Many of those groups have histories of favoring
content controls.  Any proposals that threaten press freedom on the
Internet, whatever the source, should be rejected.

It was clear at WSIS I that there was a general feeling among
member-states, including US allies in the European Union, that "Internet
governance" should not be the exclusive preserve of ICANN, the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California-based company
under contract to the US Commerce Dept. ICANN has allocated Internet domain
names on a neutral, technical basis. It has included industry, NGOs and
international representation in its governing board and committees.

Governments which want to turn responsibility over to an international
body, presumably in the UN system, want to go beyond technical matters to
deal with content questions, like pornography, pedophilia, fraud, hate
speech, etc., in a way that ICANN has refrained from doing. The Council of
Europe's Cybercrime Convention points the way governments seem to be
headed. The United States signed that Convention, but it has a separate
protocol on "hate speech" that was designed to give the United States the
option not to sign onto an element that would clearly violate the US
Constitution's First Amendment.

Under the US-accepted compromise of a two-year UN study to submit
recommendations to WSIS II, a process has begun that will probably produce
a UN proposal for modifications of the Internet governance system. A role
for ICANN should be preserved as part of any new system that may emerge
under UN auspices. Supporters of a free and open Internet should be able,
with the backing of allies like the UN Department of Information and
Communications and the UNESCO Secretariat, to resist any changes that
threaten the free flow of information and ideas on the Internet.

"Governance" must not be allowed to become a code word for government
regulation of Internet content. The intergovernmental debates over two
years of preparations for WSIS I amply demonstrated that authoritarian
governments, which already censor their own Internet traffic, seek content
controls internationally and/or legitimization of such controls nationally.
The system must not be reorganized to permit this on an international level
or encourage it at the national level.

In fact, the Internet's growth, popularity and integrity are based on its
content not being regulated by governments or international organizations.
Bearing in mind that the Declaration adopted December 12, 2003, at the
World Summit in Geneva provided that "freedom of the press and freedom of
information are essential to the Information Society," the following
principles should guide any changes in the Internet governance system: 

1. There should be no controls over content, nor modifications of the
Internet's technical "architecture" that facilitate or permit censorship of
news or editorial opinion. Nor should "self-regulation" be allowed to
become a surrogate for governmental regulation of content on the Internet.

2. The system should explicitly commit itself to respect and to implement
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to the
fundamental principle of press freedom. National or international security
concerns must not be allowed to limit freedom of expression, including news
and editorial comment, in cyberspace.

3. Considerations of "ethics" should not be allowed to become a veiled
approach to introducing or allowing censorship. 

4. There are many forms of communication over the Internet, and it is
important not to confuse them. News, for example, is different from such
things as pornography, pedophilia, fraud, conspiracy for terrorism,
incitement to violence, hate speech, etc., although there may be
newsstories about such problems. Such matters are normally covered in
existing national general legislation and should, if appropriate and
necessary, be prosecuted on the national level in the country of origin.

5. Any legal actions that may arise should be adjudicated in the
jurisdiction where a disputed message first originated, or in a single
jurisdiction agreed upon by the parties to any given dispute. 

The Internet is a major opportunity to improve exchanges of information and
ideas throughout the world. Nothing should be allowed to restrict this
powerful new medium for better communications among people.

#



-------------------- End Forwarded Message --------------------