Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles

15 September 2010 - A Dynamic Coalition on Internet Governance Principles in Vilnius, Lithuania

Also available in:
Full Session Transcript

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

>> LISA HORNER:  Hi everyone.  Thank you for coming and I think I am going to suggest we start now as we have two hours and we want to make the most of our time.  Some people still might be coming in and so we obviously like that to happen.  So thank you for coming and I am Lisa Horner.  I am the Chair of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles.  And I am going to leave the door open for another five minutes or so.  I work for Global Partners and Associates which is our human rights democracy but I am here in my capacity as Chair of the Dynamic Coalition.  
We would like to give you a little bit of a brief introduction about the coalition, about our work.  We have one project in particular that we like to present to you in that opening section.  But then the rest of the session, the main portion of the session really we want to talk about our main initiative that we have been working on for the past year which is the charter of human rights and principles for the Internet.  We have put a few copies around the room and we have more here.  If anyone would like one they can get one here.  I have distributed some agendas throughout the room so you can see the broad issues that we want to cover today.  
It is an ambitious agenda which I am sure you will see.  We probably won't get through all of it.  Indeed I am sure we won't get through all of it.  So see how we go.  We will keep the discussion fairly open.  It is your workshop rather than mine, especially the workshop of members of the coalition.  So we can take it where we want to go.  It is a loose framework of the issues that we can discuss.  Maybe I will kick off with a brief background and history of the coalition for those of you who are new in this room and is going to see some new faces.  So I hope that you will join our work as we go forward.  
The Dynamic Coalition was really started as the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition at the Athens IGF back in 2006.  The coalition was founded by some organisations really interested in author a bill of rights for the Internet.  Some of the large organisations or groups involved the Brazilian or Italian Government.  But as we moved forwards lots of members are questioning whether it is actually a bill of rights for the Internet is the right way to go.  And at the same time we started talking a lot more about principles and a lot of questions about what the principles mean in the coalition.  
And then we will be talking about policy principles, implementation principles.  So the Dynamic Coalition we have now is very much based and rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  We are not trying to create new rights but rather to apply our existing rights to the Internet environment.  I think in order to do that we need what you might call policy or implementation principles to help guide the stakeholders.  So that's what we mean by the principles section of the coalition.  
In Hyderabad IGF we merged with the Dynamic Coalition on the framework of principles for the Internet and hence the e mail the Dynamic Coalition Internet on Rights and Principles.  We have a multistakeholder group and we are an open platform and anyone is welcome to join.  We aim to be a platform for discussion of human rights issues within the Internet Governance Forum and wider Internet Governance space.  So we aim to be an umbrella coalition to bring everyone together and coordinate their collaboration on rights issues.  We also encourage members to undertake practical initiatives so that we can actually share our ideas within the coalition and members can work together on practical issues if they are interested on working together and then we have some broader, bigger initiatives like this charter of human rights and principles for the Internet which we are quite proud of and put a lot of work in to.  It is a formulation and we have actually come a long way before we actually got here.  
So that's briefly who we are and where we are at.  We have a multistakeholder of groups that is elected by the wider coalition and I think I will leave it there in terms of coalition, but if you have any questions or would like to find out more, please do come and talk to me and obviously we can talk more about that.  
So I think I will move on to item No. 2 on our agenda which is really talking about human rights and the IGF.  And just to let you know we had a business meeting for the coalition yesterday and we talked a little bit about our strategy and moving forwards for the rest of the year and we decided our focus would be on this charter that we developed and taking it forward and sharpening it up and then launching an improved version at next year's IGF.  In terms of our strategy for moving forward that's our focal point.  But we are also encouraging wider initiatives, as I say initiatives undertaken by members of the coalition as working together.  Really aimed to create awareness and importance of taking human rights in to consideration and Internet Governance and then also in terms of setting standards and in terms of bringing people together and collaborating around the issues.  Dixie, I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an update on one of the projects that we have been working on which was an attempt to coordinate between the different regional IGFs that have been happening around the world, to really find out what human rights issues are being discussed and indeed human rights perspectives were being used at all when talking about different issues.  We had a    I am going to hand over to Dixie to tell you a little bit more. 

>> DIXIE HAWTIN:  Hello my name is Dixie Hawtin and I work with Lisa at human rights partners.  And we had someone that was attending each of the regional IGFs in the human rights discussions which went on there.  And then we put all those together in to a global report which you will see there are a number of them around the room and that report chose to compare and contrast different approaches at the different regional IGF.  Our mission behind the project was to try to capture some of the important discussions that take place and harness them so we can say that human rights issues are important all across the world.  And that while there is some differences in terms of approaches and in terms of what (Off microphone) kind a bit of consensus about how we want the Internet to look and what our approaches towards topics such as privacy and access are.  
Another motivation was to try and reach out to people in certain regions of the world such as Africa or the Asia Pacific where we don't have so many members in the IRP Dynamic Coalition and that's really important to bring them in.  Especially something like the charter where they can have a word.  I don't want to go too much in to the findings because I know there is not too much time and the charter is a big topic for today.  But I just want to say a few of them viewpoints that it kind of acts as a to do list and it shows us what are the main areas of consensus.  So things like access was the No. 1 human rights issue almost everywhere.  So that kind of gives us an idea that that's something we need to put a lot of effort in to.  And when we are talking about privacy issues and expression issues you have to remember that a lot of people don't have access.  Something like women's rights and the rights of people with disabilities weren't given much attention at all.  
Also intellectual property rights weren't discussed in any great depth, and where it was discussed it was mainly about enforcing intellectual property rights rather than getting the right balance.  It gives us a sense for more work.  I think it is all in adjusting.  As I said there is a few of them around the room that you can also access them on the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition Web site.  
And oh, one other really interesting point was that human rights issues were discussed everywhere but really discussed was human rights language and there will be a lot of value in giving human rights language discussions.  One thing to ensure that we are investing in that Internet ecosystem and also brings in minimum standards that Governments already to a large extent agreed to be bound by and it would also help inform state people to make the policy decisions according to Internet standards which are well developed and well accepted.  So there would be a lot of value in bringing rights language in to these and I think for that reason the charter is a really important initiative because it helps us all see how this language is relevant to the Internet.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  And thanks to Dixie and herself for pulling that draft report together and indeed to all of our Rapporteurs who were working in the regions to gather that information.  Does anyone have any questions, comments at this stage either about the coalition itself or about this initiative or trying to foster regional outreach and collaboration or about the report itself?  Did you say something?  So we are moving on to the charter.  Any general comments?  

>> Over here.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Do you have a microphone?  Dixie, is there a microphone over in that corner?  Okay.  So if you like to come and speak here it would be great.  

>> Thank you very much, Madam Chair.  Thank you very much your friends and colleagues.  I would like to make a comment concerning general connection within human rights issue and the Internet Governance.  Because in Russia in our educational institution we initiated a project which is directly related between Governments, ensuring people with expression, insuring information accessibility and general human rights problems.  We would like to provide to the scientific comments, scientific research and analysis on the    interpretation of human rights in different regions.  And so this Dynamic Coalition is very important to link this initiative to ensure global Internet rights in the context of general human rights problematics.  
So far I would like to ask you a question about the connection between the human rights and general human rights issue and the problem of interpretation of the Internet Governance this year.  Thank you very much.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  And thanks for stressing that it is an important area of work to undertake.  I think there are lots of issues in trying to apply human rights standards to Internet Governance policy issues, and indeed that's what we have been trying to work on with our charter of human rights and principles for the Internet.  And maybe you wouldn't be surprised but we found that in the process of doing so that it just raises so many issues.  That it is not a straightforward process.  And the online world that is emerging or has emerged and is continuing to evolve it is so different.  But we do believe that we still need human rights standards that we have that have evolved over generations, and indeed in all past 60 years and that we can continue to build on those standards that are still relevant and it is a case of application but it is not an easy process which is why we are here today.  Thank you for that comment.  Are there any other general comments or questions at this stage?  
I think we should move on to discuss the meeting matter, what we want to really discuss in this meeting which is our charter of human rights and principles for the Internet.  And I would like to invite the special Rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Frank La Rue  who was interested in our work and has supported it with his support since the last IGF that we had in Sharm El Sheikh.  Make some opening remarks about the charter. 

>> FRANK LA RUE:  Thank you.  I will be brief.  I would like to congratulate the Dynamic Coalition in this initiative.  I think it has been absolutely wonderful, the group of people and organisations are interested in really focusing the issue of human rights to the Internet.  I strongly believe that human rights is related to every single aspect of our life and we should have a rights oriented focus in all our activities.  But obviously there is nuances that Dixie was saying before.  The language is very important when you come to the IGF and to Forums on electronic communication.  You talk about ISPs, ICTs.  You begin speaking the whole jargon of Internet.  I think that equally we should familiarize ourselves and all this audience of the Forum with human rights terms.  And I always say expression is one of the more sophisticated rights because it is not so easily defined as are the others because here you have a right, actually encompasses two rights in itself because it is freedom of opinion and freedom of expression and in that sense freedom of opinion is an absolute right.  
There was no limitations whatsoever and freedom of expression might have limitations.  As a matter of fact my report in Geneva this year I tried to make a contribution adding charter or principles how to interpret which legitimate interpretations of freedom of expression.  The other point I point out here this is a right.  To improve your opinions you have to seek information.  And when you have the definition of this right that says freedom of expression is the right to seek and receive information.  So on one hand are exercising in the direction of seeking and gathering information and receiving it.  And that is very clearly linked to Internet, of course.  And on the other hand you are exercising your form of expression through any means possible.  Your thoughts, your ideas and your opinions.  
So it is important to keep this in mind all the time that we are exercising this right in two different ways and, of course, here is where this gets complicated although this right was initially started in Article 19 in the ICR.  In Articles 19 and 20 in reality it is a local right and it is now linked to economic and social right.  The right to education and I mentioned yesterday in another panel, one cannot understand education today for the new generations without linking it to the Internet.  Education will be linked.  We talk about electronic literacy or Internet literacy.  That is essentially crucial.  So we cannot talk in an occasion today without linking it to the Internet.  We cannot talk about struggling, for instance, again impurity if we don't talk about breaking silence and breaking silence is linked to freedom of expression.  By breaking the silence of impurity.  And finally I say it is linked to economic rights because today you cannot receive electronic    even the poorest nation in the world will have to have some form of communication in order to be able to participate in the economic life in their region or the country or international.  And I think today I like very much what Dixie mentioned.  But the one of issues that comes about in every time regions is access.  
There is many other issues but access is the crucial one because nothing else makes sense to talk about freedom of expression over the Internet if people don't have access.  And here I include we say and this is something that not everyone likes, also the freedom of expression is an individual right.  It is a collective right because the right of society to be informed.  But it is also a people's right, especially with the conventions of UNESCO because it is the right of the peoples of a nation to introduce their culture, their languages and the traditions and values.  And I think again we have to link Internet to move the cultural nature of the world.  
Finally we say divide access for all sectors in three and this is part of the development that I am trying to buy for reporters this year.  That access some people focus it from the point of view of new technologies and this is particularly relevant for those of us who are disabled people because it facilitates the accessibility to the new technologies.  
Secondly, access people, link it to policies, corporate policies or state policies that either facilitate or movement, the working or services of Internet in different regions.  And finally access is also linked to economic conditions of groups of peoples.  And here I believe where there has to be a major effort and no sense of talking about freedom of expression over the Internet if we don't seek the reality and the many development goals that everyone should have access to the Internet beginning with the children and schools but eventually interconnecting all the houses.  I think as our generation made a priority of learning to read and write as a necessary means for everything else for communication for education, today we have to guarantee that every single household, especially every single child will learn to communicate through Internet but also have the economic alternative to reach to the    that all states should subsidize this access.  
I will finish there.  General considerations that I have developed on the question of economic expression over the Internet I just like to congratulate this initiative and you don't know how pleased I am to see that there is an effort by all of you here just by being here in this room to link the human rights issue and to make human rights a compare priority to focus it on technological advances and the fastest advance and the most important technological advances of our century which is electronic communication.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you very much, Frank, and it was a very useful introduction to inspire us of the importance of the work that we are undertaking here.  So I would like to start by telling what the charter is.  What are we trying to do here?  What are we trying to achieve?  
As I mentioned in the history of our coalition initially we thought that maybe offering something that was to be a bill of rights for the Internet was probably going a little bit too far and there was a danger that people would think we were trying to reinvent human rights.  We needed to do some thinking around this issues and what does it mean to apply human rights standards to the Internet age.  That's why we started to go on this charter.  At the same time thinking that APC, the Association for Progressive Communications kindly said we have been thinking of doing some more work around our Internet charter.  Maybe we can use that as a starting point for our work.  That's what we did.  The first phase of creating the document was a real collaborative effort amongst members of the coalition.  We had a Wiki and everyone put their ideas, what should go in to that charter and how the right standards translate and everything went on to this Wiki and it went through several revisions.  
People were editing each other's work and it was a really great progress and I would like to say thank you to all those who took part in that process.  What we then had was a big amalgamation of everyone's thoughts and ideas.  So the last IGF we decided that we needed really to make this document that we had a little bit more good and to sharpen it and make sure it was aligned with existing rights standards and we were not undermining anything with what we are trying to do and it wasn't contradictory.  That's why we got human rights experts to look at the collaborative and written document we had.  In that process we had Wolfgang Benedek who is here and Meryem Marzouki who is from France with us and we had Rikke Frank Joergensen and we had Andrew Rens in South Africa and we had Roberto Saba at the University of Palermo and Wang Sixin at University of China.  This expert group looked over the charter and it wasn't the easiest of processes as we didn't have any funding.  We didn't have any money to bring the experts together.  And as the whole effort was done remotely and it wasn't easy.  But we got to a good end point and we had a Dynamic Coalition meeting in Geneva in May which gave coalition members a chance to ask the experts what they were doing and where they were up to.  
We then produced a draft of the charter this summer and coalition members then had the chance to go through it again, to make comments and the participation in that process was fantastic as well.  We have a colation document.  So that process has culminated in what we have here which is version 1.0.  But this is the starting point.  It is really a draft and we are all aware that still there are issues to be resolved in the charter and we have further work to do on the second section of the charter.  There are still things that might be missing, things that we feel we could take out.  Lots of discussions what we need to do and furthermore, we are keen to consult people and different groups as possible because we want this to be a commonly owned document.  We want to take it in to Governmental organisations.  We want to take it to human rights NGOs that haven't been initially engaged so far in this space.  We want to take it to the regional IGFs to get as much bottom up input as possible.  Which brings me on to say that I think we have objectives really of what this charter is for.  And that first one really is a platform for collaboration to really bring people together, to engage and we have really seen that this year but now that we actually have a document to be    for people to be looking at, that it has brought more people in to the process.  It feels like gather around, which is a really good aim in itself for as Dixie mentioned we really want to be bringing people together to collaborate on these issues on different regions.
The second main objective that we aim for it to be a norm setting document and it is really that process of bottom up value creation and norm creation that we are trying to achieve with this.  We don't aim to take this to the UN and to demand that it is enshrined in to international law.  It is not a feasible goal.  I think there is a general consensus about that within the coalition.  
But it is supposed to be a norm setting document.  And so then the third goal is that once we have a coherent document that is really authoritative and we are happy with it could be a resource for people.  It is supposed to be guidelines for stakeholders that want to enshrine human rights and hold human rights through their work and it is an educational source and can be an advocacy tool.  So we discussed this in our internal coalition meeting yesterday and there was broad consensus that these are the main goals of the charter.  That's where it is at the moment.  I would like to invite Wolfgang Benedek to give us a brief run through and then I would like to invite Meryem to fill in the gaps that Wolfgang didn't get to.  And I would like to hand it over to everyone else and I would like to hear your ideas and opinions.  And we are using this meeting as the first stage in our longer process which we envision happening across next year and maybe beyond.  It is a living and breathing document.  And so we    this document might go through many, many different revisions.  But we will see where we are at at next year's IGF in Kenya.  So with that I will hand over to Wolfgang to tell you a little bit more about the substance of the charter and I hope as many people as possible in the room can see a copy so that you have it in front of you.  So thank you, Wolfgang.  

>> WOLFGANG BENEDEK:  Thank you, Lisa.  Welcome to so many people around the table who came because they are interested in this project and because they have already contributed or about to contribute in the future.  Lisa gave you a short introduction in to the process that started about three years ago which involved many people in the institutions.  You have in front of you a clear copy of the draft.  And in a certain sense it is a historic moment that we are able to present you with such a first consolidated version, but I would like to emphasize that there is also a version available which is more referenced and where you can find the sources from which most of this language has been taken.  
Lisa mentioned already that we tried to follow the universal declaration on human rights and subsequent documents like the covenant and civil rights.  But obviously the information society, declaration of principles and so on have been taken in to account and a very important basis of the charter was the Internet charter of the Association for Progressive Communications and then a number of texts of other, other groupings which obvious    often had the more limited focus.  Like, for example, the charter for innovation, creativity and access to knowledge of the Barcelona Forum for the Geneva declaration on the Internet.  One approach was to make use of as much of this existing material as possible.  And there is a lot going on also at the national level.  Think of the constitution of Costa Rica or think of the ongoing debate of a draft bill for a civil rights framework for Internet in Brazil.  And Brazil has also developed ten principles for the Internet and all this material we have used more or less.  And those stakeholders who have been involved with this they are welcome to tell us whether they think their ideas are adequately reflected or there should be more work done in that field.  
So I want to acknowledge the many sources which existed in that field.  Otherwise in the consolidation of the first part I had the privilege of trying to coordinate it whereas the second part which is on the responsibilities of specific actors has been produced more or less by Meryem and she will talk on that in a moment.  So if you open your text, which you should have in front of you, you will see that basically the charter follows the universal declaration but not totally because universal declaration comes from 1948 and there have been important developments since that time.  Consumer protection and rights of the child and so on needed also to be taken in to account.  
And as it has been said a key right is actually the access to the Internet for which we put on the universality and nondiscrimination and enjoyment of our rights which has a number of connotations, the principle of access for all the right to access but does it include broadband access, for example, as it does in some countries like Finland that is    has been qualified to the legal situation.  
Access in different languages, appropriate access for children, the older generation, digital inclusion, taking in to account the needs of marginal groups or people with different needs and so on.  So this empowerment dimension that was involved in this right to access and we could have a discussion whether this right to access which is instrumental to so many other rights as Frank has pointed out before has not emerged already in to a new human right.  But that should not keep us too busy here because that is a long discussion.  
When we look at which human rights have been included then the idea was to be as inclusive as possible, as comprehensive as possible.  But there might still be some gaps and so we rely on you to identify if there are such gaps or if you think we have been able to cover it more or less.  And certainly we also have to take in to account that there are different approaches and perceptions.  For example, when you look at the freedom of expression itself we are all aware that the European and the U.S. approach of freedom of speech are different.  And so the problem is how to bring this together in one document when it comes to the freedom of hate speech and other related elicit content that can reflect on the text.  The question is also how should the limitations be framed.  So Frank mentioned that they have been doing work on this and you can check whether the way we try to do it is adequate or if it needs further work.  
Certainly one major right is a right to privacy in its different connotations and in that context also the basic concepts which exist in that field and which describe more or less the same from different perspectives.  Either you go for the right to virtual personality information, self determination, digital identity as a different approach we find this in different legal systems and we think we should bring it together but that could be a discussion on that.  How to deal with freedom from deformation, anonymity and you see what we have been doing there and we can certainly discuss it.  Data protection has been one of the most voluminous parts.  We have tried to restrict it a bit through the main rights and principles.  And here I should emphasize that this is a charter on rights and principles.  Meaning that not everything what you find there is    can be considered a human right but maybe a principle which is giving guidance and orientation on how to deal with the particular issue at stake.  
And this is not unusual in human rights field.  If you look at the European charter on fundamental rights you will also find rights and principles next to each other and certainly they are all based on common values as it is also pointed out in the preamble which explains a bit how we go about the whole process.  Right to education and its different dimensions.  Education on and through the Internet, local and regional knowledge tradition or education and training for digital literacy.  The importance of open source software open standards has been emphasized but this is obviously a principle.  That is not a right to open standards.  And one area where we are still looking for guidance from those who are experts in that field would be access to knowledge.  This balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge is one of the most sensitive areas everywhere and in this charter as well.  
The    yeah, we also covered the rights of the child, child protection.  And I will not go in to details.  But also participation in public affairs, Internet Governance, principles for Internet Governance.  Here one discussion would be an online voting.  Some want to promote it and others are skeptical about it and in any case the right to participate in Internet governance has been taken in to the charter.  And with regard to legal remedies we also have included the right to a legal remedy and certain rights which belong to fair trial, like due process and so on.  This can play a role, for example, when it comes to the question of hot lines and their procedures.  
And then in end there are some general clauses which include, for example, the nonexhaustive nature of the charter because the Internet is an area which is evolving very quickly.  And so we should have an open ended approach because there can always be new developments.  And it is also said in the interpretation of the rights and freedoms of the charter one right cannot be interpreted to the detriment of others.  This is a clause which is taken also from the university declaration on human rights.  There is divided development and also the right to health, a right to work, consumer protection.  There is a some paragraphs on duties and responsibilities on the Internet.  
So in that sense we tried to be inclusive.  We also put something on the issue of the environment, sustainable development.  We called it environmental sustainability.  Poverty reduction in the context of right of development.  Sometimes language is still an issue.  If you have proposals for improvement of the language, that is welcome.  But take in to account that we have to be very precise to the point nobody wants to read the charter which is too lengthy and bulky.  So the challenge is also to bring it down to the essential and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.  
Obviously this charter will not get speedy ratification of states and this as Lisa said the idea is not to ask states to ratify it.  The idea is rather to understand the soft law as a guideline, as a code of conduct which looks for the endorsement of as many individuals and institutions as possible.  
And in endorsing it certainly you have your role also in clarifying and in developing further.  What is the way for the future?  We are about to consult now also with representatives of International Organisations which is    which have a special expertise in that field.  Like in particular Council of Europe, UNESCO, OSCE, United Nations.  Frank here is a special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and with a special knowledge, and certain communities who could contribute.  So what you see in front of you is really the 1.0 draft and what we need now is to go in to the discussion also with the specialists in the field.  And which however should not result in too much watering down.  
So if you look for a special    for general consensus, then there the result could be that it is not    there is not much value added left.  And therefore I think we should aim at something in (Off microphone) and bringing the thinking in that field together.  Not compromising too much.  We will not get everyone on board but look for a kind of rough consensus and here everyone is really invited to contribute.  There are still some controversial issues which also have been pointed out.  Some of them at least in our workshop agenda.  So maybe we manage to discuss some of them even today.  But otherwise as Lisa said this is a longer term process.  And the process itself is important because it helps us to understand the concepts and to understand where we are heading and therefore we are not rushed.  We can give ourselves time and maybe at the next IGF have a better, more consolidated and more generally acceptable version to be presented.  Thank you very much.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you, Wolfgang.  And I would like to hand over to Meryem.  And if I can respectfully ask you to keep your comments as brief as possible because we are looking to get in to the meat of the document and start the discussions.  Thank you very much, Meryem.  

>> MERYEM MARZOUKI:  Thank you very much.  Wolfgang also said it also and I would like to simply add some quick comments on this second part of the charter.  First of all, because we    yeah, is it okay?  We have long discussion inside the coalition and whether we should have a single charter or two charters, one for human rights and the second one for principles which could be interpreted as of lower importance.  And finally after the long discussion we decided to incorporate human rights and principles in a single charter but to have a second document which would be more specific.  First of all, specific to this online environment which is very technical and also more specifically directed at different    not only different stakeholders but different entities which in our opinion should be bound by one provision or the other.  
So we have different    identified different entities, Government law makers but also legal authorities, law enforcement authorities, the police.  We have also another category with technical intermediaries like network corporators, Internet service providers, online service providers which is still different.  They have different roles and also we have two other entities.  One is we have called it the employer because we have to be careful on how some fundamental rights may be breached in the working place, the working environment.  And the last entity is the general public because also some rights and freedoms that should be enforced toward general public.  
A second issue is that following the discussion that we had inside the coalition we wanted more specifically because of this very technical environment we wanted to translate the general human rights and general principles that we can all agree not only in this room but beyond this room that we can all agree but going at the lower level, at the level of specific details.  This might raise some strong controversy.  So we wanted to be more specific and to indicate at which technical layer some specifics of this rights and principles should apply.  And we have roughly identified of the coalition discussion four layers which are the physical layer, the layer of protocols and standards, the layer of application and services and the upper layer which, of course, is usages, the Internet users.  
One word of caution this second part is not complete.  We still have to add some other sections.  We have tried as for now to work on three groups of    for the rights and freedom.  The first group is freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of concerns and freedom of religion and opinions, freedom of information, freedom of movement and also partly access to knowledge.  
The second grouping is related to privacy, generally speaking.  So we have the right to privacy, the right to personal data protection and even the right to information self determination.  
And the third part is sometimes forgotten but it is very important.  It is what we call the guarantee right but it is the fair trier, presumption of innocence and the right to no punishment without trial.  The right to not be punished twice and the right to resource and remedies.  What I think in terms of process, we could decide and we are looking for your comments on this, we can decide to first gather comments on the first part and then only on the second part.  But we can decide and I would personally prefer this approach that we gather your comments on both parts.  Because by    you might agree or have some concern on the one provision on the first part and you might want to look what this would mean more specifically at which technical layer to have a better idea of what is meant.  So I think we should deal with the two parts of the document at the same time.  And I think I would stop here.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you very much.  So we would like to open the floor now to questions, comments.  I suggest that we go abroad first.  Well, what do you think about the charter?  Do you have any ideas?  Are we going along the right tracks and the next step are we covering the right    rights in there.  Are there things that we can take out?  Are there obvious gaps?  Let's have that conversation about your thoughts and opinions.  We would love to hear them.  We have two comments here.  So start with Ronnie, thank you.  

>> RONALD KOVEN:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Excuse my bad voice.  First of all, I want to say that I am    I know that this endeavor, that everyone around this table involved in this endeavor have nothing but good intentions.  But looking at this draft first of all, I think it is too long.  God did it in ten short points and I think that the attempt to solve all the world's problems has been one of the sins from the start of all WSIS process.  I am arguing about the statement in the preamble that you are not trying to reinvent the wheel and that you are not going for new rights but you have new rights in here.  The right to development and the right to work and so forth, which aren't necessarily directly related to the questions of the Internet.  
And I think what one of the things that it is lacking is application of a very skeptical worst case analysis to the wording because there is a lot of wording in here that can be misused by people with bad intentions.  And then there are contradictions.  For example, on freedom of expression, you say under freedom from censorship number, the Internet should be free from censorship and filtering, but in the article right before you say restriction on censorship and filtering should be based on law.  Those are two obvious contradictory statements.  When you talk about freedom from defamation you talk about people can be free from unlawful attacks.  Whose law and what's the intent of the law?  We know throughout the world that laws are used by dictatorships to try to control opinion and that's what I mean when I say you haven't applied worst case analysis.  
I think that what you should be calling for instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and I think you do    are trying to reinvent the wheel despite your statement to the contrary, you should be calling I think for the universal implementation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is clean and unqualified and the language of the universal declaration is a lot cleaner and more unqualified and less technical than you have tried to be.  I think that a short spiffy statement of universal principles would be much more useful than this attempt to solve every case.  Thanks.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thanks, Ronnie.  I think we had a comment over here as well.  I will say just quickly that I think that there is two different things that we could be doing.  I think a short spiffy statement is very useful as an advocacy tool but we are trying to explore this issues in this document and really drill down deeply.  But thank you very much for your comments and I think we would all agree to them to a certain extent and we would like to discuss the issues further in this workshop and beyond.  I would like to invite the comment from over here.  

>> Excuse me, last time I didn't introduce myself.  My name is Andy Cher from Russian Federation Moscow.  I would like to express my personal opinion.  So it is important to know that human rights are realised in the Internet online quite differently than outside Internet, outside web space.  The general principle is to know which right of the provided in the list is basic.  Is a prerequisite of the realisation of any other rights.  In the universal declaration of human rights of the General Assembly of 1946 it is a right to lead.  In the Internet, in the bill of Internet rights or declaration what is chartered it is right of information accessibility.  Without this right it is impossible to realise any other rights.  So there is a kind of chain which is connected between the information accessibility and general access to knowledge and any other realisation    the realisation of any other rights.  
So if you have no information accessibility; you have no freedom of expression; you have no political rights; you have no any other rights.  This is kind of a general comment.  So I think the first point and the first position we need to ensure and guarantee information accessibility and freedom of expression.  And then to connect any other rights to this point.  Thank you very much.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you very much for that.  We have a couple of other people who have indicated they want to make contributions.  I am first going to ask Marianne.  She is our moderator.  I am not sure if we have anybody on line.  It is very early around the world.  

>> Marianne:  Not at the moment.  Rebecca McKennon has logged on but I am not sure she is here at the moment. 

>> LISA HORNER:  I think we had Andrew first and then Michael and then over here.  So....

>> Andrew:  Yeah, I want to address Ronnie Koven's points.  I don't know if calling it a charter is the right phrase.  This is not a basis of a binary international statement or treaty.  I think where Ronnie is right is that Article 19 remains the overarching international standard or freedom of expression which governs the principal issues of the charter but we have had about 40 years and that discussion and debate over 30 or 40 years means that we have a rough consensus about what we think about how journalists should be treated and how broadcasts should be regulated and how print media should be regulated.  And I think what you have tried to do with the charter of Internet rights and principles is really spell out what I would see as a policy framework for thinking about the international human rights standards apply to the new online environment in ways that are different to the different offline environment.  The value of this document is a beginning of a sketching out of a systematic approach to thinking through the application of human rights policies in the online global digital world and that's what I think is the value of the document.  It begins to sketch out what do we think about issue X when it occurs in the online world when we are thinking about applying human rights principles.  
The approach I would therefore adopt is to go through it fairly rigorous and say do we need a statement on this because it is changed by the online environment, and the only question I have for Wolfgang or Meryem or whoever on the rights of fair trial, for example, with most of these I can see that there is a different policy dimension where we have to think through what do human rights standards mean in this environment.  But with fair trial what is the distinctive nature of the online world that creates the need to have a policy discussion about the rights of fair trial.  I mean maybe there is some issues but I didn't see it in the statement of the charter.  And so I think in being fairly rigorous about where we do need to reapply standards or do need to think through standards and policy terms would be helpful but I would be relaxed if I was Ronnie, I am not Ronnie.  So we often have these discussions and disagreements because I don't think this is going to supplant the basic international standards but there is a need to think through what they mean in this online world because they don't simply read across from our traditional approach to the traditional media.  And I think this is a really valuable exercise in beginning to sketch out a comprehensive policy statement which needs elaboration and work with a lot more bodies and groups, but I think it is a terrific start for us to build upon.  

>> LISA HORNER:  We have quite a few people in the room who want to make comments.  I am going to go to Michael and over to here and then we will take it from there.  

>> MICHAEL ROTERT:  I am Michael Rotert from the European Internet Service Provider Association.  I can fully subscribe on what you said on the principle of the document.  What's not quite clear to me is how to make use out of the document in terms of the Internet service provider, no matter what kind of provider you have in the future because I can see to go in to more specifics already if I look at participation and public affairs and Internet governance right to participate in electronic Government, this is definitely an issue that is new in this environment but it is already    if you look on countries where they have implemented a three strike model, the third strike is already against this principle.  Because it cuts you off from electronic government wherever you are.  If they cut off your Internet access for whatever reasons, France is an example for that one.  
And I found another one that is the freedom of censorship.  There should be much more on what you said here, criteria being used and specify the relevant laws and regulations for requiring it.  There should be no way of blocking or filtering whatsoever.  Having said this there is a problem with Spam.  You mentioned it but many providers do not filter Spam.  They even deny the acceptance of Spam mail.  
I personally think we don't have to go that far in to the details but at least it should be mentioned that these things exist and must exist in terms of protecting you from overrunning your mailboxes.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  We are going to go over here.  

>> MARTIN DALY:  My name is Martin Daly and I work for the European Commission in Brussels.  The European union is the one international body in the world that can enforce its laws.  It is based on rule of law.  And any country that fails to comply can be taken to the European court of justice.  There is no other international body that can do this and we already have considerable problems enforcing European laws and everyone    all the member states subscribe to the charter of fundamental rights.  That was a basic introduction.  I work for the commission.  So we are interested in enforceability of laws.  I think it is a great document in terms of its comprehensive nature.  But I fear that it band these together a lot of very, very diverse rights and principles.  If I may take    I mean, for example, there is the social and the economic rights which are not enforceable anywhere.  The right to work is not enforceable anywhere.  That we have freedom of expression which is subject to considerable interpretation within the European union.  Iran, China, Russia, U.S., these are entirely different meanings and interpretations.  The FCC and the European Commission are both consulting on that neutrality now.  I want to go to the sentence, "Internet content should not be prioritized or discriminated against for economic, social or political reasons."  Speak to any telecoms operator, speak to AT&T that's present today.  Ask them whether they want to go for prioritization of traffic.  Can they afford it?  They had to double the size of their network I understand in the last year purely through the use of the iPhone.  
I am picking a few of these examples.  I think it is worth having a shorter document and I think it is worth trying to separate out your economic rights, your Internet principles, your human rights.  I mean sort of freedom of torture and some definitions as well.  I am a lawyer of training.  No one should be liable to be tried or punished again for an Internet offense for which is already being finally acquitted or convicted.  What is an Internet offense?  What is it in China?  Lithuania?  In Britain?  And these are extremely diverse concepts and I think it would be more helpful if you have several or other different charters or you try to separate out.  
So separate out the right to work, the economic rights.  Have your freedom of expressions.  And maybe have a bill of rights or principles for perhaps net neutrality.  Let's take another one.  You have access to the Internet for all.  Everyone has the equal right to access to Internet where appropriate.  This includes right to broadband access.  We are wrestling whether to bring broadband access to universal service.  Do you think the Governments want to cough up the billions of dollars and Euros to provide Internet access?  These are huge economic and social arguments and all brought together in this one document.  They are the subject of huge debate in the western world already that has a lot of money at its disposal.  I think it is very helpful to have a universal declaration but write more rather than holding up a paper.  My final plea would be to separate out some rights, Internet principles, principles that be tailored purely to the Internet world.  Your human rights, I think to some extent replication and putting now twists on existing rights and may be separating out further your social and economic rights like the right to work.  Those were my comments.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you very much.  We have a gentleman at the table and then behind as well.  

>> Can you hear me?  Okay.  I would like to support the gentleman's statement from the beginning that we should have careful wording for weakening the Article 19.  Be aware of contradictions.  Rather I would strengthen about freedom of expression.  For your commitment to the freedom of expression can be gauged by how strongly you protect opinions that you strongly disagree with.  Freedom of expression is also foremost protection of opinions and ideas that are forced, disgusting or dangerous and I would like to explicitly put that in there.  
Another point relating to this, when you look at this limitation on racist and freedom of speech you want to ban insightment to discrimination, that is very strong and I find that strongly that racism is wrong, disgusting and even dangerous I still would not want banning those people who really think so from arguing their points of view.  I believe that even the most abhorrent and dangerous issue should be argued out in public.  I would rather have less language that's not so open to interpretation than try to ban any opinions in advance.  Likewise I would like to again about the language or defamation, no community shall be subjected to unlawful attacks on their owner.  This is very widely open to interpretations I do not like.  And when you look at the right to express and practice religion and belief, the freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion.  You should not be subjected to religious rules that you not subscribe to.  What is blasphemy to one    we should be careful about putting that kind of language in the document.  
Thank you.  That's all for now.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thanks very much.  I would like to say obviously as we have already said this is a long term process.  And so I would like encourage everyone who is making comments to also submit them by e mail and I think that people are giving their top line comments which is perfect but do feel free to send the e mails so we can go in to depth and we can discuss the nitty gritty and pull out the issues.  I think we have got a lot of people on our list.  We have got 45 minutes left and I encourage people to keep as concise really.  So thank you.  

>> My name is Annette Muehlberg.  I am the head of eGovernment at the United Services Union, that's the largest union here.  I wanted to reply to the rights of workers.  I don't agree that this is something you should leave out there.  Because we could discuss if it is a matter of freedom of association or if you could put it under worker, the right to work.  But the issue of freedom of association and privacy at the workplace is absolutely linked.  And this is also a matter of you could check how to enforce these rights.  So it is something which is extremely important when you are applying these rights and I want to agree with this over here, it is a policy framework and I want to congratulate you all to this paper because I think actually and I think it is certainly not too long.  Not at all.  Because you do need some tax.  You do need the whole list of issues and I wouldn't even mind if it is a little longer because it is not a handout on the street.  It is something where you can point out listen, this is an issue here.  We have    I mean the human declaration is a book.  It is not just a handout.  
So if you want to apply those to the Internet world you have to point out where are the problems.  And I didn't really understand your statement as you said oh, this is a problem of enforcing it.  You exactly pointed out the issues.  I thought that was fabulous.  You said there is a discussion on network neutrality, right, and here are the issues where you can see whoa, there is a problem.  Yeah, we do have to talk to AT&T.  Yeah.  Right.  Because here you can see there is a problem.  And this is    I rather see this as a help for lawyers, as a help for discussions of politicians, as all those who have to implement IT infrastructure either on a private level or on a public level, on a government level that they have to be aware that they have to consider those issues.  So I think this is a good start, and, of course, we have to, you know, discuss where to put what and what to add and so on and so on, but I think it is great.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  I think next we are going to go to Johan and I have seen Carlos, Parminder and Joy is my list at the moment. 

>> Johan:  Thank you very much and my name is Johan and I come from the Swedish Government, the ministry of foreign affairs.  And I would like to start by congratulating this group and this discussion shows you have come a long way to last year and prior to that.  Congratulations to the group.  I think this is a great achievement.  I would agree with Andrew in many of the things that he said.  I think it is important for us to apply a human rights perspective to all the different aspects of the Internet Governance.  This is not only a technical issue but there are human rights dimensions to nearly all the issues we discuss in the Internet Governance sphere.  Our challenge here is to take this discussion further and to infuse human rights in the various areas.  And this kind of document setting is our starting point for our discussion and this is something we should cherish and something we take as a positive sign.  I do agree with Annette which said well, yes, there are many problems.  Consultations must now be ongoing with many different stakeholders, ISPs, telecompanies, organsations, International Organisations, et cetera.  I do believe yes, there are many issues, but if we remember the universal declaration from '48 that document is also forward looking.  It is broad.  It is widely encompassing, a lot of things and that was also a future forward looking document.  
Coming to the things of freedom of expression, for example, it is    I think it is very important for us to get to the details, to drill down in this what does it mean in the Internet context.  It is not    it is not okay for us to say well, freedom of expression can be interpreted in one way in Iran and another way in Sweden.  This is not according to human rights as we know them and this is something we need to work on.  
So just to finish, thanks very much for the efforts.  We look forward to continuing to work on this.  We acknowledge that this is not going to be a binding document ratified by states.  But rather a discussion, a discussion charter, charter for discussion and we will continue to work with it from there.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  So we have Carlos next I think.  

>> CARLOS ALFONSO:  Okay.  Hi.  Good morning.  I am Carlos Alfonso from GTR Foundation.  I would like to go back to a little bit of the very beginning of the coalition and just to remind because this is something that it seems quite important for the meeting that we have today.  That if we go back to 2006, 2007, back then called Internet bill of rights, Dynamic Coalition has as one of our main doubts the answer to the question do we need a bill of rights as a formal document or this coalition would focus on best practice on delivering small pieces of documents that will address very specific and crucial issues for the Internet Governance and for the operation of the Internet itself.  
And it was clear for us at the time that formal document could be possible at least for a starting point for the discussion, and it seems that in many of the comments that we see here the issue and the quoting of starting point seems to appear quite often.  So to portray this document as a starting point I believe it is a positive perspective when you think that the coalition has doubts back in three or four years ago on what will be the first step.  But then again if this is a first step, maybe we should reflect on how this document can have some reflections, some importances in the national level, because from four years now and Wolfgang mentioned some national initiatives, Brazil has been doing a good job at least in my perspective dealing with Internet Governance and with the civil rights framework and there is, of course, a relationship between the work that has been done by the coalition and the work that has been done at the national level.  So I think on the second step of the work of the coalition will be to look at how this draft, how this charter could be reflected and be used by national Governments, by civil society and academics in the national level to try to build upon this first document and use it as a first step to reflect and to improve legislation at the national level as well.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  Next on my list we have Parminder.  

>> PARMINDER JEET:  In listening to a couple of very strong comments initially here about how we have to be very careful, I heard a lot of voices very early on, very strong ones and I am very sure they are all very well intentioned about how we have to be very careful.  I think we need to do more discussion and have more clarity on both what are we trying to do and who are we.  
What is our problem?  Is it the problem that we are afraid that Internet would be used to control us and curtail or do we think that Internet has a great promise for social justice, could make the world easier.  What is the problem we are trying to solve?  Determine what we do ahead.  And I hear all the people I think early said that we are not giving it a worst case analysis and my problem is exactly the opposite.  We have not given it the best scenario looking forward.  That's what the human rights documents did.  They did it 50 years back.  We get up and we say we want an equal world and no discrimination.  We talk about a realistic state from where you derive what you are going to do and not only from a worst case analysis and that brings me to the point who are we.  Are we a global group taking the responsibility of a fact that we are increasingly more globalized and our policies are connected and our ideas have to be more connected and therefore trying to figure out what are the things which we all, all global citizens can agree on?  
In my country, whether you are in the north and rich country and you are not bothered by the socioeconomic rights, right to primary education is mentioned in 1948.  The word free education is mentioned.  They did it because they were forward looking.  They wanted the world to be alike.  And before they did I am sure they didn't hold consultations with private schools and they did    and before they did a bill of health they didn't go around talking to drug companies.  We need to step up and see what are we trying to do here and economic social rights are important and cannot be separated.  And I think this discussion should be held early and draw the lines are we    what is our political vision.  What's our political boundaries and clearly accept that as an exercise.  It is not a best practices kind of thing.  That's different.  Rights is a political exercise.  Rights is bringing to very diverse set of people and different interest and negotiate what is the best for all human beings.  
Actually I see many Government officials, I saw it in the opening ceremony yesterday talk more clearly about right to access and neutrality around all rights frameworks and talk about global democracy and civil society and multistakeholders are rather meaded on those terms and I think we really have to make our vision stronger.  I am not looking at something unworkable, something which is simply not going to be adopted but we need to start at a more idealistic version and not do the worst case scenario.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thanks.  We have a half hour left and as I suspected we are not going to get down further in our agenda and we were hoping to drill down further.  We knew we were being ambitious.  So let's stay on this track.  It is very, very useful to hear everyone's comments.  And I got five further people that have indicated they want to make comments.  I would like to stick to that and hand back to our experts and invite any coalition experts who have not spoken.  So next on my list we have Joy.  

>> JOY LIDDICOAT:  Thank you.  Joy Liddicoat, the commissioner with the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and also director of the charitable company that runs the .DDNCL.  I want to initiate a discussion or continue the discussion about a charter of Internet rights.  I think that as someone who has worked both across the critical Internet infrastructure resources and human rights this is a necessary bridge between those two groups and I welcome its initiative.  I just wanted to respond to some of the points made earlier.  In terms of the length of the document I would like to point out this document is considerably shorter than the terms and conditions that I am used to when I go on line.  Thank you for your brevity.  In terms of enforceability, the human rights document is not an enforceable document.  All states have agreed there are minimum standards on which they agree.  More recently it has been in the environment and climate change and in relation to people with disabilities.  So this is a very welcome and necessary document to particularize their implication to Internet and again I think we should welcome that.  
Thirdly in terms of the process going forward I would like to support the initiative of building consensus.  People disagree, those are points that should be examined and given consideration and develop consensus on appropriate wording and balance and nonetheless the fact that we don't agree is not a reason to continue.  I welcome a revision to 2.0 in a year's time or as further time as it goes forward.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thanks.  And then we are going to go over here to my right.  

>> Oh, thank you.  I am the head of the political foundation in India working on digital rights.  Just on the length of the document I would like to support the voices for keeping it rather long than short.  I don't think we have the wheel.  I think we have to invent really something for Internet because there is no established documents on that for us to talk to business, to Governments.  So we really need clarification on all these issues.  My point would be to put more work in to clarifying issues as mentioned here that issues are not clear rather than shortening and to produce a separate document which is sort of a summary and take out main points for advocacy reasons or whatever, but definitely we need a longer version, safe in not touching.
And second point on enforcement and enforceability and this is a main point and I don't know what the reason behind leaving governments out of the discussion.  I understand we don't want them to ratify.  Maybe we can talk to them so that we have some kind of endorsement.  So maybe the second track could be considered.  And the third point is from privacy and I clarify the language and add something on filing and it is a very important issue and also clarify our point on privacy setting and I will keep my comments short and put it in an e mail.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thanks very much.  Just to clarify we do have Governments in the coalition and they are more than welcome to feed in to the process.  And we have had some discussion internally about where we draw the lines and where we accept people as acceptees and we don't accept any political pressure or any lobbying pressure from companies.  Next we have Andrew over here.  

>> ANDREW CUSHEN:  Thank you very much.  My name is Andrew Cushen.  I was one of the iStock investors.  My day job is working for Vodafone.  And my comments are also my own.  I want to commend you all for what is a noble and very useful project.  My comments are largely    I think about the way this is being developed.  And I say this as a caveat as having seen this document early this morning and having participated in this debate.  I think in a sense that you have too quickly linked to the final stage of this process.  This I think is better seen as an output of a far, far larger piece of work which I think is more valuable.  There are issues here as well been discussed that I think you are dealing with far too simplistically and have leaped to conclusions that I think are premature at this stage.  And I looked at this document and I understand that part 2 is still under development and you have already reached to points that already say what must be done and who will be responsible and what their obligations will be and who the bound entities are.  I don't think that you have in this document done enough of a treatment of some of these issues to reach those conclusions yet.  But I think that you are on the right track to do so.   
My own suggestion, and again I apologize if I I am ignorant as to the process that you are undertaking, you are absolutely right to go out and explore these principles and you are absolutely right to do that in a consultative and involving manner that involves as many stakeholders as possible, but I think that should be done in going and exploring each of these piece by piece and getting all of the different perspectives and taking it in those chunks and then taking all of those conclusions that you reach on each of these individual areas and summarizing them in a final charter document at the end.  And I think that that would be a far more manageable project and I think a far more successful project.  And I think that ultimately that would end up in a charter that could actually be used and implemented and bound upon and as this I wonder whether or not it will be a hurdle because it simply tried to get to the end too soon if that makes sense.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  And that's really useful and that's what we exactly intend to do.  I am not sure if you were here right at beginning.  We have had at least a year and more work to get this far.  Actually we had a meeting yesterday to discuss that.  We are going to draft some initial ideas about how we see that consultation working and send it around to our coalition mailing list which is a main platform that we use to do our work.  So I would encourage everyone to join that list and to feed in ideas about how that consultation should work because I think that would be extremely valuable.  

>> BRETT SOLOMON:  Hi.  I am Brett Solomon from Access.  We are a global movement for digital freedom.  I wanted to pick up on a couple of issues briefly.  On the issue of consultation I have to disagree.  I feel like this process has been going on for a long time.  Actually really many years.  And I am very much in favor of ensuring that everyone in this room and beyond this room gets to have a point of view.  But decisions are being made now.  Big decisions are being made now.  And I actually want a document like to be able to rally around not in six months' time or a year's time or two years' time but as soon as possible.  And I feel like because there are so many views there is never actually going to be a point where everyone is happy.  At some point we need to make a decision that the consultation process needs to come to an end.  And I guess what I am suggesting is we have a timeline.  If you think about the comments that were being made in the opening session yesterday, nearly every single state representative talked about rights.  But is civil society, we had nothing to come back to them with and say okay, you talk about rights.  This is the framework with which we want you to implement them.  And massive decisions are being made in all of these rooms and we are still talking about a charter a year or two years later.  
I don't want to sound too critical because I think the document is great and I think it is unedited and there is clearly problems with it as it exists and I want to come to a conclusion as soon as it is.  Enforcement, similarly we are going to have problems with getting this adopted by states.  I want to come back to the enforcement mechanism in the 2.0 world which is the user.  And I think that we need something which people can rally around.  And so I think this idea of kind of a two step process whereby we have a longer document which is based on new interpretations of existing rights plus additional rights as Andrew suggested as the model for what it should be and then a simpler document that people can use in their everyday lives because this is really in the absence of state enforcement or state ratification.  I think we can use the user to be able to kind of use this document in discussions with the Governments, in our geos and with the ICT sector.  That's it.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  Next I have Anriette over there in the corner and a lady over here who would like to make a contribution and then I am going to two of our long  standing coalition members, Max and Shaila.  Then I am afraid that's all we have.  And then I would like to go to our experts, Wolfgang and Meryem to comment briefly on what they have heard and to pick out some of the key points and if they have any comments on those.  Then I would like to finish with going back to Frank.  So we close the circle and finish in a way where we started as well.  And then I would like to continue this discussion with you all as we go forward.  But first let's go to Anriette over there. 

>> Thanks, Lisa.  Anriette Esterhuysen from APC.  So also congratulate not just on Dynamic Coalition but Lisa in particular.  And Max before her for facilitating this process.  I think based on our experience in APC, with the APC Internet rights charter and also in response to some of the comments what we have found there is a dynamic relationship between our document, our interpretation of existing rights of how people use it at a national level and what happens at a global level and also looking at it over time.  What we found, for example, when we first developed the APC Internet rights charter in 2000, 2001 the only other document available at the time was something called the People's Communications charter which was developed by a group of people mainly from Latin America, Europe, someone from Frasi Link and it was used by social movements and it was very powerful.  Used very emotive language.  
We found as APC because we were beginning to fight battles for human rights at a national level and there wasn't enough specific reference to existing rights.  We developed a very minimalist document, the APC Internet rights charter which simply takes some of the clauses of the universal declaration and reinterpret that.  And it was a difficult process and it worked well but at the same time we found that, in fact, people really use that at a national level, used this to then lobby for communications rights.  So, for example, in one of the countries that we are active in Ecuador Communication rights was in brought in to the union.  They went from very vague language to looking at specific rights language and reinterpreting it to get what they really wanted.  
So I am not sure if I am making it very clear but I think there is a relationship between the tools and the language and the existing rights frameworks that people use when they fight their battles at a national level and what we do at a global level.  So what might seem like a very vague document now could actually inspire people to use existing rights to reinterpret them, to expand them but also to lobby for new rights.  I think it is important for the coalition of how people use this and how they use this at a national level.  What we found worked well with the APC charter was that people could translate it and spread it and it was    when we released the second edition in 2007 it went out in 22 languages I think in a few months.  I think something like that is very, very powerful just as a tool to engage people to feel part of the process.  That's actually more important than whether the document is perfect or not.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  I would like to go over here.  

>> SONJA LIVINGSTON:  I am Sonja Livingston and I work at the London School of Economics.  And I work for eCommerce.  I wanted to welcome the inclusion of children's rights.  Children's rights are often not included in broader discussions of human rights.  Of course, there is the UN charter.  So really it was to say I welcome that.  And then to add as a rider the importance of not keeping it as just as one small section.  I mean I understand you can't keep repeating children but there are all kinds of points of which children's rights are seen.  Probably perhaps wrongly as in conflicted with adults rights on Internet or adult freedom of expression rights and wanted to urge the importance of finding a way that doesn't put children's needs in conflict with the adult's needs.  And the other terms throughout the document need to be thought about carefully with relation to children's rights.  The consumer rights, contract with the ISP or with the Internet provider which is often not the child and therefore children's rights can be neglected in rights of consumer protection.  And I wanted to be somewhat weary in always regarding the parents between the mediator and the child's right or the parent as necessarily the protector of the child's rights and they often don't know what they are doing and express themselves in diverse ways online and make sure that you perceive people under the age of 18.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  So now I would like to go to Max and then to Shaila.  

>> MAX SENGES:  Hello.  Good morning.  Max Senges, Google policy and long time member of the coalition.  I would like to channel some of the I think constructive critique that we heard and, you know, make a suggestion.  I think, you know, if the universal declaration was to be redeveloped or started today we could still be discussing.  It is a never ending process and that's actually part of the objective of what we are doing, is to talk about these issues and get them on the table.  When I heard Ronnie I had the idea why don't we make a very short statement that basically says human rights as the basis for Internet governance is a very good idea and a lot of organisations could subscribe to that and subscribing to the chart and the different aspects might be difficult.  To have the charter an ongoing process always discussing and a different version and having two, three paragraphs just saying that human rights as the basis for Internet Governance that might be something that a lot of organisations can subscribe to.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  

>> SHAILA MISTRY:  I am Shaila Mistry.  I am from the private sector small business and I work heavily in trafficking of women and children and I have a passion for public policy.  And when I look at this document, of course, this is a draft.  It is 1.01.  We are aware of many of the missions and commissions in the document and I very much welcome and have learned from some of the comments that have been made.  Overall I say this cannot be a document that's either/or.  We need to be idealistic and we should be clearer in spelling that out under each of the right, what the idealistic forward looking statement that is encompassing to that right and then also drill down to the practical application.  As an employer and as an attorney in my past life I understand what was said about enforcement.  And enforcement and usability is very, very important.  Because when we have written this document and it is accepted which we know it will be at some point in the future we want to know and make it available for people to use it.  How will it actually protect people's rights.  How will the different multistate members use it to improve and advance human rights.  So keeping that in mind it needs to be all inclusive and yes, it is a long document and it cannot be something that is just handed out as somebody mentioned.  So and I like the idea of separating the different sections of economics, social rights, human rights and Internet rights.  Eventually what will happen is that the right will also relate to individual groups in the community.  So if you are looking at specific Internet rights, chances are that you will go only to that section.  So it will not be as significant that the    that the charter has become a book.  So to that extent the length is not the critical factor.  Clarity is.  And then the way forward is very much consolidation and compilation and, of course, there needs to be a time when we are done and we are ready to send this forward for being accepted by Governments and private sector and so on.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thanks.  So the floor is now closed for comments I'm afraid.  I can't stress at this point how valuable this process been and how much we appreciate the richness and diversity of the opinions and views we had and I would like to continue this conversation.  I would like to invite Wolfgang and Meryem.  If you can keep them    we only have ten minutes left and you have two minutes left and then we go to Frank and then we close.  

>> WOLFGANG BENEDEK:  Thank you for your skeptical and enthusiastic reactions which we have received and we will benefit from both of them quite a lot.  When it was said that even the European Union we have a problem of assuring access, this does not mean that countries aiming for this for the individual citizens and if I take here the Brazilian bill it has the guarantee of the Internet access to all citizens.  That's what they want to achieve.  Also they will not do it in one day.  If you aim to say in the plan of action of the council, if you hope, it sounds a little more cautious, explore the extent to which universal access    yeah, that's an inter Governmental Forum.  They cannot do more than that.  But if you look at the whole process of the IGF then it is about access in the first place and other things like diversity and so on come afterwards.  
Finally I think that the enforcement issue in international law today is not something which has to be legalized or ratified.  It is a lot of issue for authority which comes with the quality of a document and also the community behind it.  And therefore this is what we are aiming at.  There have been so many efforts to produce parts and parcels of contributions in that field.  Because there is a need for orientation.  People are looking for orientation in the situation that decisions are being taken on a daily basis.  And they want to know how best to orientate themselves.  Certainly some of you are right when you say do we really need everything in there.  For example, the right to a fair trial.  It is not phrased differently than what you will find in the offline world but maybe Meryem would say a word on what this could mean in practice in the online world and certainly the standards we have tried to identify should not fall behind existing standards.  So maybe sometimes we have not been elaborate or specific enough and here we would like to    well, like to rely on your advice and suggestions.  I think that we need a universal mission and Parminder has reminded us of that and this is actually behind that document and it should be a strong issue.  And it is certainly the mission of our coalition to carry it forward and to convince as many stakeholders as possible to participate in that exercise.  
At some point we were thinking about doing a kind of commentary on the various provisions in order to explain better the genesis and the meaning of it and so on so that could maybe help in better understanding what is the purpose and also agree that it would be good to have an easy to read version.  We have discussed that which would produce a kind of summary of the main contents.  That is something that could be done in the future.  But what we are aiming at now is we have to improve the charter also in detail.  So your comments would be most welcome, in particular if you have special expertise to help us doing that.  The details count.  And if you find flaws and general terminology which lends itself to misunderstanding, then please we invite constructive criticism sooner and that is better in order to work on an improved version of it.  And at the same time we would also invite I think to check whether those issues which have been identified for discussion today but we have not been able to discuss it what is your position on that.  So we are anyway having this online process.  Lisa will explain how we carry on from here.  And for today I would like to thank everyone for the very valuable comments we have received.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thanks.  Meryem.  

>> MERYEM MARZOUKI:  Thanks, Lisa I am also very grateful for your comment, even the negative comment that we received because this is very important for us to improve.  My first point is that I am not sure I like to be called an expert.  This is not Cocketry as we say in French.  This is my first point and it is very important.  We are in a political process.  We are not in a process, an academy process and a process of expertise, bringing the expertise and someone can bring the truth about human rights.  We are in a political process and basically what we want to achieve is formalize what we really want to see changing, improving in this online environment but still in line with the fundamental rights.  
My second point would be a methodology one.  We need your comments but we also need that you read the whole set of documents and comment on this.  And, for example, if you read the second part of the document which is more explicit on some aspects you will, Andrew in particular and the other participants also you would find the answer.  Why do we need to reinterpret in this environment the right to a fair trial?  Because we have an enormous issue with breaches to the rights of fair trial, for example, with the notice and takedown provisions content.  This is private censorship.  Not necessarily the intermediary service provider wants to exercise this censorship, but because we are forced by national legislation, international to exercise this private censorship and we have an issue here and we have an issue of blocking content.  
My third and probably last comment is regarding some participants' comments on the need to separate some rights.  I am thinking of the comments of the gentleman from the European Commission that we should have separate    we should emphasize freedom of expression and probably not speak of economic rights or at least separate them.  We have been and we still are very committed to principles.  In the declaration in the world conference on human rights on 1993 and more specifically to the principle of the universality of human rights and the fact that they are interrelated.  So we have to bring all the rights and how they are interdependent in such a document.  Thank you.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thank you.  And I would like to hand over now to Frank to give his final comments.  

>> FRANK LA RUE:  Thank you, Lisa.  Let me begin by the last comments that were being made.  First of all, I congratulate again as I said the beginning of this initiative.  Lisa said that there is much benefit in the process itself and the debate and the discussions and the contributions means that people have actually studied this issue.  This is wonderful.  Secondly, I actually think that the document is very interesting and there is no reduction.  I would only disagree with one of the comments, I would establish the principle of the having the right to legal remedy and the fair trial.  But I would not include the principles of due process and fair trial because that will be the same for all trials.  And I think that's already a given.  So that doesn't vary for the fact that this is an Internet.  But in the rest I believe it is a good contribution and I think one of the important elements that you have done is that Internet is actually one of the instruments that links the universality of all rights and the interdependence and this is what I like about it, but there is elements of civil and political rights here but there are elements of economic and cultural and social rights.  So I believe this is one of the contributions of the document.  
So I like the idea of integration and I think it is very good.  And finally I would do some minor comments which I will gladly contribute to the coalition in terms of defining more precisely what is the freedom of opinion and the difference of freedom of opinion and expression and I think the document in general goes in the right direction and is rightly done.  I don't see a problem as using it as a whole.  The documents, that universal declaration and this length and everyone reads it and studies it and I think to have a charter like this on the application is not necessarily new rights but it is the interpretation of already defined rights and international instruments and doctrine to the Internet.  And I think that should be clarified in the beginning.  It is a reinterpretation    finally would discuss it with the states.  There should be a discussion and a ratification of a new charter because I think this would enforce the states to engage in a debate and I think this is good.  
I am not going to comment on many of the comments but I don't think we can apply someone mentioned cultural relativism.  I believe that you cannot apply cultural relativism to human rights.  Human rights are universal because they should be seen and interpreted in the same way around the world.  Someone made a mention of blasphemy.  I think it is a violation of human rights.  That's a matter of interpretation.  And finally as a contribution to that I would like to add that there are several documents and yearly statements of the full Rapporteur on freedom of expression from the UN and Latin America and Europe and Africa.  And I would    certainly there is a document on line and last year there was s statement on the challenges for the next ten years and I think we also mentioned issues of the Internet there.  And I hope this can be a contribution but I will certainly congratulate you and encourage you to bring it forward to the states to force the states to debate it as well.  Thank you Lisa.  

>> LISA HORNER:  Thanks very much.  So we are at the end now.  Again a huge thank you to everyone who has taken the time to come and to read and to comment.  Extremely useful.  We will be taking this process forward.  Please sign up to the mailing list and it is http://and then lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org and that's our actual mailing list, kind of holding site where you can sign up to the mailing list.  Our Web site is www.internetrightsandprinciples.org.  We will tell you how we intend to take this forward.  The extent to which we can do so will rely on a degree of funding I think.  We have gotten this far purely on a voluntary basis where people are donating their time in kind.  If anyone has any bright ideas of how we could raise some money for this process or you think your organisation or company would be able to put a little in to a pot where we can hold some rigorous meetings, please come talk to me because I think that would be extremely useful.  Similarly any technology and technical donations that you can provide in kind in terms of creating a platform would be extremely useful.  We don't have any ideas at the moment.  That would be much appreciated.  I will end it there with a huge thank you to everyone who has participated so far and a huge thank you in advance for your participation as we go forwards.  And I am excited by this process and it is full of energy and I am looking forward to it continuing in that vain.  So thank you very much.