Joint Statement of Civil Society Delegates to the 2013 Internet Governance Forum

See the original statement. 

 

Freedom House led a delegation of civil society leaders and online activists from around the world to Bali, Indonesia for the 8th Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the UN's flagship conference for discussing global Internet policy. Following the IGF, 17 organizations and individuals signed on to a joint statement to highlight the concerns they raised throughout the Forum, and to offer recommendations to governments, internet companies, and international organizations on how to better protect internet freedoms. This statement was delivered to the Forum during the Open Mic session on the final day by Bouziane Zaid.

We, the undersigned representatives of a group of civil society leaders worldwide who attended and participated in the 2013 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on October 22-25 in Bali, Indonesia as part of the Freedom House delegation, make this statement at the meeting’s conclusion to highlight a number of opinions we expressed and concerns we raised throughout the Forum.

The 2013 IGF provided a valuable space for the members of our group to engage with other stakeholder groups, through the Forum’s sessions and also through side meetings and consultations with representatives of governments, businesses, the technical community, multilateral bodies, and civil society organizations from all over the world. We urge all stakeholders to continue to engage and participate in future IGFs, to strengthen the Forum’s multistakeholder process, and to uphold the principles of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness. Without the IGF, there is no comparable venue for civil society to directly raise its perspective and concerns with leaders in the government, the private sector, and the technical community.

We share the sentiment with the vast majority of IGF participants that the Internet governance process can and should be improved, but stress the importance of upholding and strengthening the multistakeholder approach to ensure that the internet remains open, global, secure and resilient. In calling for more efforts to promote, protect, and advocate for human rights online, our group has underscored broad principles and recommendations, such as:

1. All laws, policies, regulations, terms of service, user agreements, and other measures to govern the internet must adhere to international standards of human rights, including but not limited to Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression; Article 12, guaranteeing the right to privacy; and Article 20, guaranteeing the right to free association. As an important step, states and other stakeholders must look to Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8 – adopted by consensus in July 2012 – affirming “that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression,” and pledging to explore further “how the Internet can be an important tool for development and for exercising human rights.” This applies to ending illicit online surveillance by any government. To be legitimate and lawful, any surveillance must be limited, targeted, used to deter or investigate criminalized activity, and subject to independent judicial oversight.

2. Consistency across the many spaces for discussion around Internet governance issues – including those spaces clustered around regional, sub-regional, national, linguistic, and other groupings –  is crucial to ensure the principles of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness are upheld in all venues. This is not multistakeholderism for multistakeholderism’s sake, but rather recognizing the need to represent all voices, perspectives and interests in setting standards, norms, and policies that affect the internet, both locally and globally. The term multistakeholder is overused and applied to a wide range of events, groups and processes. Various international organizations, as well as national governments, must make it a top priority to replace lipservice to multistakeholderism with genuine efforts to bring all stakeholders to the table on equal footing.

3. Transparency and accountability are crucial next steps in the internet governance discussion, and need to be fully implemented by all stakeholder groups. Businesses are beginning to recognize transparency reports as serving their users and their corporate social responsibilities, as well as their bottom-line interests. Governments likewise should ensure that their policies and practices are fully transparent as a means of preserving their legitimacy, credibility, and moral authority with their own citizens and the international community. In instances of content censorship, surveillance, shutting down or deliberate slowing down of networks, and other methods of internet control, these two stakeholder groups must work independently and together to divulge details about these measures and have them open to public debate. In addition, governments should institute strict controls on the export of surveillance and filtering technologies to regimes that have failed to demonstrate a commitment to upholding human rights, while the private sector should take a close look at some of their own practices in this domain. In some countries, bloggers, activists, and other internet users are subject to beatings, imprisonment, and even murder when they post information critical of the authorities.

We thank the government of Indonesia for its warm hospitality and dedicated efforts in successfully hosting the 8th annual meeting of the Global IGF. Despite the confusion during the summer over whether the event would be held in Bali, we were able to convene our delegation of civil society advocates, activists and academics from more than 18 countries. However, three of our colleagues had to cancel their attendance owing to visa issues. The letter granting certain registered participants permission to obtain visas upon arrival in Indonesia came too late, was rejected by airline officials, and was not extended to participants from all countries. For future IGFs, it would be preferable to announce the visa on arrival special procedure well in advance and officially notify the appropriate channels.

Thank you.

Signatories:

- Freedom House
- The Unwanted Witness, Uganda
- Jorge Luis Sierra, México
- Damir Gainutdinov, Russian Federation, AGORA Association
- Nighat Dad, Pakistan, Digital Rights Foundation
- Artem Goriainov, Kyrgyzstan, Public Foundation “Civil Initiative on Internet Policy”
- Giang Dang, Vietnam
- Fatima Cambronero, Argentina, AGEIA DENSI Argentina
- Michelle Fong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong In-Media
- Dalia Haj-Omar, Sudan, GIRIFNA
- Bouziane Zaid, Morocco
- Syahredzan Johan, Malaysia
- Juned Sonido, Philippines
- Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (MIDO)
- Cambodian Center for Independent Media (CCIM)
- Mahmood Enayat, United Kingdom, Small Media
- Abeer Alnajjar, Jordan
- Arzu Geybullayeva, Azerbaijan

Internet Governance Forum meets again [updated]

It is that time of the year, when the annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meets again. This year, the event is hosted by Indonesian government and we are in Bali. I won't lie, concentrating in a beautiful place like this, surrounded by stunning beach hasn't been easy (especially when you are the only person dressed in business causal outfit while the rest of the guests walk around in their bikinis and other summer attire).  

This year's general theme is Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development. As it has been in the past years, the guests of the conference represent a diverse group- government representatives, civil society institutions, media, academia, human rights defenders, freedom of press advocates, activists, journalists, and bloggers.

I have only been to two IGFs but its enough to compare. Whether it was the internet, the venue or any other logistical matter, IGF2013 was by far, better organized than IGF2012 in Baku. There were shuttle buses waiting for guests at the airport not to mention a registration table set up at the arrival terminal. Of course, visas were issued upon arrival with no difficulties (this is not to say that there weren't visa issues- many participants, especially those traveling from Africa had difficulties to either obtain visa, or missed the forum, because they were managed to get it on time). 

The registration on the first day of the forum was also very quick. Perhaps it was because our delegation arrived early but still it did seem all throughout the day, that the registration line moved more or less quick.

Last year I attended IGF as an independent, this year however,  I am here as part of a kick ass Freedom House delegation and its been a privilege to be here with them (in fact, check out the Freedom on the Net reports published by the Freedom House this year).

Some highlights

Registration: The registration process was very efficient as I mentioned earlier.  One strange encounter was when I received my badge, it had my picture from last year IGF. I don't remember signing any papers letting IGF Secretariat keep my photo. As it turned out later during the day I wasn't the only one. Few more people who attended IGF last year in Azerbaijan were issued badges with photos from last year (as I discovered later, it wasn't only the photos from last year but also USB sticks too). 

Another bizarre experience was meeting Miss Internet Bali 2013- indeed, you didn't misread that. There was Miss Internet, who was the pageant winner (if you are fluent in Indonesian you can learn more about it here). According to an article in Jakarta post I found online the winner is the 19 year old Dewa Ayu Windu Sari Devi. She is a student at the Udayana University's School of Economics. Her extensive knowledge on Internet usage and services in Indonesia got her the prize. Devi is going to be the symbol of using the Internet "smartly and wisely" reported Jakarta post.

Wifi: the internet connection which was terrible last year (not to mention completely inaccessible during some of the sessions which focused on the human rights or freedom of expression issues in particular) was working just fine here (some participants had some difficulties connecting); each meeting room had a giant stand set up with a list of names of each sessions scheduled to take place in these rooms. The leaflet distributed upon registration with the IGF program provided the map of the venue with room names and numbers. 

I think the main reason why it was different this year was because for Azerbaijani government it wasn't so much about the quality of organizing but about simply having an event like this in order to add it to its list of "trophies" (there is an Azerbaijan booth here proudly distributing a report from last year's IGF, but proudly failing to mention anything about the human rights discussions or press freedom related criticism raised during the meetings). As an alternative you can read this report titled "False Freedom" that just came out. 

Issues discussed: Throughout the week some very interesting and important discussions were made-highlighting safety of bloggers, protecting rights of online activists, the role of governments in ensuring safety of users and free access of information and more (for the list of workshops and sessions see here). Surely there were sessions when internet policies of repressive governments was questioned and the lack of accountability measures- of holding governments responsible- highlighted. But whether there is going to be a solution to this any time soon is yet to be seen.

Wrapping up this one week long event, I am looking back and thinking of ways of taking back with me the knowledge (especially on online security) and contacts and hoping that meetings like IGF have more impact on certain governments and issues. But also get their control mechanism in order- because it is no doubt interesting that IGF is hosted in countries where human rights and freedom of the press records are not necessarily at their best. 

Freedom on the net 2011

After having celebrated the World Press Freedom Day yesterday, the report published by the Freedom House 'Freedom of the Net' came in handy especially as the report sheds light on some of the countries and issues discussed during the World Press Freedom Day. 

The description of the newly published report on the Freedom House website reads:

[...]This report examines internet freedom in 37 countries around the globe. The study's findings indicate that the threats to internet freedom are growing and have become more diverse. Cyber attacks, politically- motivated censorship, and the government control over internet infrastructure have emerged as especially prominent threats. 

Some of the countries as ranked "Not Free" include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, China and Burma. It came as a relief to see Azerbaijan rank among the countries listed as "Partly Free" however it was only a partial relief knowing how pressing media and internet freedom is in Azerbaijan. You can see the full list of score table here and the cluster map here.   

Below you can see the Azerbaijan evaluation of the report, while the full report can be accessed here. 

Azerbaijan2011

Ah these numbers...

http://i180.photobucket.com/
albums/x177/Beautifulx
Nobody/Photography/StopLying.jpg

I don't know about you but when it comes to numbers, especially statistical stuff, I take it seriously. But there is one place, statistics if which I never trust- State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan Republic (or alternatively any other data shared by the authorities or any of the official bodies- with very very very very few exceptions). Yesterday, I came across this article on Facebook, posted by a friend who captioned it "who are you fooling ha?". I went on to see what it was all about and what pissed off my friend so much. And guess what it was about? Numbers, but to be more precise indicators of the number of Azerbaijani women heading municipalities. Lyudmila Khalilova, chairwoman of an association "Women in the name of development of municipalities" claims in this article, that women head in total 301 municipalities across the country which according to Khalilova "testifies of high level of their competence, intellectuality and entrepreneurial spirit". 

Was this statement made in a country where there were real municipalities, doing real municipal work, having real people employed there, with real intellectual, competent, entrepreneurial spirit I would have never even thought of writing a post like this. But because we are actually talking about municipalities in Azerbaijan, that don't fit any of the above mentioned qualifications I really do agree with my friend's captioning- "who are you fooling ha?"

In all honesty and for those who don't know much about municipalities in Azerbaijan, here are few basic facts:

1. Municipalities were established in Azerbaijan in 1999 (not because Azerbaijani government wanted to  establish municipalities but because Council of Europe put forward a requirement calling on the authorities to establish municipalities). The law on Municipal Elections and the Law on the Status of Municipalities were adopted in the same year;

2. Municipalities in Azerbaijan are not independent. While in theory they should be in practice in Azerbaijan, municipalities are subordinates of a body called executive committee or as its widely known ex- coms. (Ex- coms are like regional KGB offices, headed by individuals who are appointed by the president himself and who are said to bribe their own ways to actually become heads of ex- coms). A report prepared by the EU Committee of the Regions (December 2010) says:

[...] limited number of responsibilities allocated to municipalities by the law. In practice their responsibilities are even more limited and at best are related to the maintenance of municipal roads, cemeteries, parks and some aspects of the delivery of social  care that are not covered by the central government. Municipalities in most cases do not have adequate capacity, training or knowledge to carry out those limited responsibilities prescribed by law.

Another report concludes [Freedom House]:

Municipalities are, on paper, independent of the executive committees or local bodies of state administrations. In practice, municipalities have been strongly subordinate to the executive [ex- coms] [...] Executive committees carry out most functions assigned to municipalities, such as community service prohects, renovations, citizen registration, social services, and so on; municipal authorities have minimal responsibilities in terms of addressing real socioeconomic problems. Generally, they tend to be responsible for issues such as rood construction and social assistance to low income households not benefiting from state social program.

Could someone please tell me where does entrepreneurial and intellectual women fit in this description? they use their competent skills to think of new ways to reconstruct new roads? Or entrepreneurial skills to find ways to help poor families (mind you they wouldn't anyway)?   

3. Municipalities in Azerbaijan don't have a separate budget designated for their spending, therefore as a local institution most of the times, these bodies fail in carrying out any substantial community based renovation work or any kind of work overall.  They maintain their existence through land tax (as their sole responsibility is sale, lending and purchasing of land) and state subsidies. 

4. Municipal councils are usually made out of 5 to 19 members who are elected for a 5- year term. Elected council members then chose their own Municipal leader and two assistants. 

In 2009, the number of municipalities went from 2,757 to 1,766. Maybe for Ms. Khalilova having 301 municipalities headed by women is a great development, but with this kind of poor and inefficient institutional capacity even if all women take over these already existing municipalities not much will change as long as municipalities are not given proper responsibilities; regarded as government institutions rather than NGOs and are provided with a budget that let these municipality workers do things like getting involved in various community projects, engage youth, have interactive seminars and workshops, and educate community. 

But no, instead, Khalilova continues:

[...] women justified the trust placed in them by the government and voters, serving to the development of democratic values, strengthening of state and government, as well as improving the general welfare

What trust? Which democratic values? What kind of improvement is she talking about? Do you even know what these words really mean? Because they are not just empty words!

Eh... Khalilova, who are you even talking to? Much of the world knows how things really are in Azerbaijan? Who is this fake data is for? Who are you trying to fool? Yourself?! Maybe thats what it is! Maybe, all of this, is part of constant self re-assurance. Continue re- assuring yourself Khalilova... It obviously helps you clinging to life...

"Azerbaijan: Freedom of Expression under Fire"

The video below is featured on Freedom House page, under the section covering the organization's most recent report on Azerbaijan: "Azerbaijan: Freedom of Expression under Fire". It is the end product of a three day mission organized by the International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan's freedom of expression held in September of last year. 

I came across this video as I was updating another report on the situation of freedom of association and assembly in Azerbaijan. 

The report, 

[...] details many challenges that Azerbaijan's bloggers and journalists must endure to carry out their work, including hurdles both legal and societal; critical reporting can lead to prison time; journalists have also been victims of violence, while perpetrators    go unpunished.  

The report is also available in Azerbaijani and the summary of findings are available in Russian. 

"Azerbaijan "upset" by foreign rights watchdogs' reports"

The following statement was made by the head of the public and political department of the presidential administration Ali Hasanov, after Human Rights and Freedom House assessments' of the country.

"The annual reports by Human Rights Watch and Freedom House on the human rights and freedoms situation in Azerbaijan do not reflect the "objective reality", the head of the public and political department of the presidential administration, Ali Hasanov, has said in an interview with Turan (Azerbaijan News Agency)".

In the same statement Ali Hasanov added, that Azerbaijan being an independent state forms its domestic and foreign policies "on the basis of the will of the people". 

Ali Hasanov, made a bold statement after Presidential elections in October of 2008 stating "Democratic, just and transparent elections were held in Azerbaijan. These elections are the best and the most democratic elections in Azerbaijan". According to him, the opposition didn't participate in the elections simply because it new that the President Ilham Aliyev, would with the majority. Ali Hasanov added "non-participation of opposition in the elections is not authorities' fault. If opposition wants legitimacy, it should participate in the elections".

All this, really makes me wonder...Maybe Azerbaijan really is a DEMOCRACY. It is just none of us (independent observers, political analysts, public, International Organizations) understand its true intentions...  

The following are just some of the points mentioned in the annual report on the state of human rights, released by the International Human Rights Watch organization:

- Azerbaijan failed to demonstrate improvements in human rights during October 2008 presidential elections;

- Freedom of assembly and media was restricted during elections;

- Opposition was prevented by authorities from organizing demonstrations;

About the situation overall:

- Journalists and human rights defenders who are critical of the state continue facing pressure, harassment and arrest;

- Three international radio services- BBC, Radio Free Europa/ Radio Liberty and Voice of America- were taken off their radio waves and made accessible only through satellite receiver or the internet;

- Torture and ill- treatment in custody continues to be a widespread problem...

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2009_web.pdf