NETmundial Comments

There is a question arises, whether considered in the preparation of these principles 10 principles of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of 21 September 2011?

An overwhelming number of commenters focus on the most significant oversight of this document — the failure to recognize the importance of intellectual property rights and the rule of law in fostering an innovative environment. For the process to be considered inclusive, the outcome document must reflect input from such a major stakeholder group, which includes artists, creators, and the cultural and entertainment industry. Although not incorporated in the draft outcome document, these views were expressed during the first round of comments in a submission by 38 entertainment and cultural organizations, representing 66 countries and six continents.

Contribution prenant en compte la diversité linguistique demandée (voir ma contribution au paragraphe « diversité culturelle et linguistique »)

Contribution taking into account the required linguistic diversity (see my contribution to “culture and linguistic diversity”)

Ce document sur l’avenir de la gouvernance de l’internet établit un certain nombre de principes directeurs que devrait respecter la gouvernance de l’internet. Toutefois il ne décrit pas les leviers, mécanismes et stratégies à mettre en œuvre pour y parvenir.
Cette question devrait à coup sûr être abordée…

This document on the future of the Internet Governance lays down a number of fundamental principles which internet governance should be based upon. However it fails to describe the levers, mechanisms and strategies which will enable to enforce these principles.
This question should clearly be addressed…

In the document as presented I see two notable and even astonishing absences.

1. The document refers to stakeholders/multistakeholderism in its discussions of the global Internet governance model in one form or another 46 times! While on the other hand, the document contains no, and let me repeat, NO references to democracy or democratic governance!

Clearly there is an intent to replace democratic governance with multistakeholder governance. But this issue is not addressed in a forthright manner anywhere in the document.

2. The document nowhere identifies an overall objective for the governance it is discussing. That is, for what purpose or to what end are the governance structures/models being directed?

To put it bluntly is the proposed governance of the Internet being undertaken in support of the “public interest” or in the interests of the individual “stakeholders” among whom of course certain private corporate and national interests/stakes are pre-eminent? Given what is identified in item #1 the answer to this second question would appear to be self-evident.

Who could possibly have imagined that this conference dealing with global (Internet) governance would look to erase the 1000 year evolution of democratic governance in support of the public interest, and replace this with governance by and for “stakeholders” acting in pursuit of their individual and private interests.

Why use the construction ‘may contribute’? It is clear that these principles do contribute. They may not be a complete set, but they are an applicable set. I suggest dropping the word ‘may’ in this case.

Maybe yuo need a definition of Internet Governance

to change “NETmundial identified a set of common principles….” to “NETmundial discussed a set of common principles….”

Internet belongs to the people of the world who use it. Governments and private industry are mere “Trustee” who must operate the internet and make policies that further the public interest. What constitutes the public interest must be determined in a democratic process and not in an ambiguously defined “Multi-stakeholder” way.

The US Council for International Business (USCIB) feels is important to amend this statement with language underscoring the importance of respecting the rights of individuals and the rule of law consistent with principles underlying democratic societies.

As others have mentioned before, the process for creating this document has been far from inclusive and represntative of the opinions expressed in the “over 180″ submissions. The document as stands avoids dealing with contentious issues and is thus an affirmation of the status quo.

Contribution prenant en compte la diversité linguistique demandée (voir ma contribution au paragraphe « diversité culturelle et linguistique »)
Contribution taking into account the required linguistic diversity (see my contribution to “culture and linguistic diversity”)

On ne peut pas soutenir que ce document soit vraiment l’expression de « toutes les parties prenantes » au monde, ni que les auteurs de contributions soient réellement représentatifs des catégories dont elles se réclament (de la contribution individuelle à celle qui se réclame du « Gouvernement du Royaume Uni »)… A ce jour environ 400 messages ont été envoyés dont une partie seulement peut apparaitre comme de véritables contributions provenant d’un peu plus des 200 auteurs. Ce n’est donc qu’un tout début d’une réflexion qui puisse constituer un large consensus mondial, mais bien sûr c’est mieux que rien et il faut en féliciter les organisateurs et ceux qui ont pris le temps de s’exprimer…

One cannot maintain that this document is the true expression of « all stakeholders around the world », neither that the authors of contributions are really « representatives of all stakeholder groups » from the individual contribution to the one claiming to be from the “United Kingdom Government”…) ; up to now, more than 200 authors did post around 400 messages part of which can be considered as true contributions. This is a very tiny start towards a worldwide thinking that could constitute a « broad consensus ».
Of course that is better than nothing and we must congratulate its promoters as well as those who took the time to contribute…

Our members believed that an element should be added to this opening, suggested that the bracketed text be added: NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values that may contribute to an inclusive, multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet governance framework[ that respects the rights of individuals and the rule of law consistent with the principles of a democratic society].

Paragraph 34 of Tunis Agenda clearly stipulated the working definition of Internet governance as follows: “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”. Any principles regarding internet Governance must derive from that definition and be fully consistent with it. It should be noted that the “multistakeholder” approach is not fully implemented as envisaged by WSIS. There is currently no mechanism for governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities regarding policy authority for international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. Use of the term “multistakeholder” must be understood to mean all stakeholders in their respective roles as defined by article 35 of the Tunis Agenda.

Any Internet governance body which is effectively controlled by one entity cannot be considered as being “legitimate”.

+1. I agree with what rishab says.

Labelling rights as being “online or offline” is problematic as don’t know how the technology might evolve. Article 19 of the UDHR universality principle could be used. For instance,,

Rights must be protected… through any media and regardless of frontiers…

For rights to be enjoyed online, it is essential that there is broad protection from liability for Internet intermediaries. Without such protection, those who wish to infringe these rights can place legal pressure on Internet intermediaries to act in ways that prevent individuals from making use of these rights.

This paragraph should be extended to call for broad protection from liability for Internet intermediaries as an essential means to ensure these rights are available in practice.

Intellectual property is a fundamental, inalienable human right.

Artists should be able to decide if, when and how others profit from their work.

This is non-negotiable. Creators’ rights must be included here.

Human rights must be respected and are protected by international legal agreements regardless of platform. It is odd to talk about offline versus online rights as communication and action crosses from one sphere into the other and impact on each other. It would therefore be better not to enumerate specific cherry-picked rights and add “online” as the UDHR and ICCPR already apply to the Internet and we do not want to imply that they do not or that online communication and activity needs to be protected because it is somehow outside of the realm of current protections.

Creative content is a driver of both freedom of expression and demand for Internet Infrastructure. Therefore, we believe that Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be added as one of the rights enumerated in this section.

We suggest to add Right to Education and Freedom from Discrimination.

Nowhere in this section is there any reference to Article 27(2), guaranteeing authors and creators the right to benefit from their moral and material rights of authorship. Intellectual property rights such as art and photography need to be acknowledged as commercially valuable to the artists and should be protected online as they are offline.

The UDHR is the proper starting point for articulating rights within the Internet ecosystem. However, A rush to endorsement without a deeper understanding around policy and implementation risks a “Rights Regime” for the Internet ecosystem that, at birth, would be at serious risk with regard to its stability and sustainability. There is a need for deeper knowledge, understanding, and agreement of how principles are turned into policy and practice. [It is not clear, for example, that even national governments (as powerful stakeholders) understand or agree with what is meant by a “multistakeholder model and process”, or what is means to go from a denizen within the Internet ecosystem to a “citizen/stakeholder” exercising his/her Internet ecosystem rights.] There are lessons to be learned here from the history of UDHR. There are also challenges that call for more than experiential learning, they call for focused efforts at greater understanding by all, in order to bring greater awareness and effectiveness to engagement. For meaningful participation stakeholders need collaboration and dialogue decide where and how, at which level, and in what governance venue, to best pursue policy and implementation of the endorsed principles. In the rush to define principles this “how to” strategy is being overshadowed.

We should not forget UDHR Article 27 (1) “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”, which would be quite important to balance all the copy and pasted calls to include paragraph 2. Free participation in cultural life, access to cultural goods, arts, scientific advancement are fundamental to even allow monetisation of said goods. A strong focus on IPR undermines the rights of the many for the rights of the few.

Again, would being more expansive – mentioning the internet, but also including future technologies would be beneficial

Delete the words “without arbitrary interference.” Everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek, receive and impart information on the Internet full stop.

application restricts just internet, leaving out current and future digital platforms

Respect for human rights on the Internet, including freedom of expression and privacy, is a basic principle. Thus it should be treated in accordance with international law, in particular the International Covenant “On Civil and Political Rights”, which imposes an obligation on a person special duties and responsibilities. It is necessary to establish the law of restrictions, for example, for respect of the rights of other persons, and also a public order or moral of the population.

to change “without arbitrary interference “to “without external arbitrary interference”.

The liberty should not be limited to expression only. There should be freedom of propagation of information also

It would be helpful if “information” could be defined. Too often “information” is assumed to include entire copyrighted works. Copyright owners must be protected.

The word “arbitrary” should be removed and the sentence should end with “and regardless of frontiers” (as per the UDHR).

what about protection toward them wrongfully accused of defamation? should the principles also stipulates to respect their rights of free speech without having fear of being forcedly silenced?

Freedom should include creation and formation as well.

All creative and innovative people need to respect one another’s output & guaranteeing authors and creators the right to benefit from their moral and material rights of authorship would be a huge step in the right direction!
We must NOT continue to allow permissionless innovation through an enabling Internet environment, I don’t see how allowing pirates to steal my work – benefits my creations or my finances in any way!

Here, I also propose a simple redaction: “The rights of people must be protected, regardless of media or technologies, including the right to privacy…”

Given the fact that we’re currently aiming towards an agreement on the future of Internet Governance, we should consider the possibility of including Data Protection (or better yet, the right of informational self-determination) in the final text of this declaration.

We should remember that in spite of the many similarities between Privacy and Data Protection, they protect different things (Privacy: private space; Data Protection: personal data, whether or not it can be considered as private) and in order to ensure a holistic protection, there should be an clear reference to Data Protection in this Internet Governance Principle.

I would suggest that this principle should read as follows:

“Privacy and Data Protection: regardless of technological advances, all peoples have the right of informational self-determination. By virtue of the international human rights framework, every individual must be protected from arbitrary or unlawful surveillance and from the collection, treatment, and dissemination of his personal data (and metadata) on the Internet.”

only online… digital has more scope

Please also have a look at these principles that the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has talked about (scroll down…it is at the end on this talk from Korea):

To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed.

1. First, legality.

Surveillance needs to be based on laws.

These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process.

The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated.

2. Second, legitimate aim.

Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim.

Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities.

3. Third, necessity and adequacy.

The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim.

4. Fourth, proportionality.

A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences.

5. Fifth, judicial authority.

Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority.

As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions.

6. Sixth, transparency.

States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance.

They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice.

7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions.

We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy.

Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights – not either or.

Word “avoiding” should be replaced and thus that part of the sentence on “arbitrary or unlawful interference” should be rephrased to say “right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence” in accordance with Article 17 of the ICCPR. So the section on privacy should read as follows:

“Privacy: the same rights that people have off-line must also be protected online, including the right to privacy, the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence and the right to the protection of the law against such interference.”

Collected by legal means personal data should be securely preserved. Responsibility of appropriate bodies for its preservation should be well-defined.

Global Monitoring Report on Education for All (EFA) stresses the urgency of attaching importance to the quality of education. Currently, one third of children who attended the undergraduate out not knowing how to read or write, or calculate. To correct the situation, it is important to highlight the importance of internet in education.

For these reasons, accessibility must also promote the use of technology within an appropriate framework which takes into account the diversity (linguistic, ethnic, socio-economic, etc..).

The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) supports strongly the idea of accessibility but believes it would be more realistic to say that “persons with disabilities should be able to avail themeselves of as many online resources as possible and practicable.”

ITI strongly supports for the rights of persons with disabilities to enjoy full access to online resources.

ITI-The Information Technology Industry Council

Equally important is – freedom of (online) association. Can this be incorporated?

and transform?

While every one should have the right to creat and distribute information, the right to access and share is relative to publicly available information…

to add “on the basis of respect for authenticity and reliability of content and also for the rights of other people”.

I write novels. I work very hard on them, and I give up a lot to make them good, and I sell them myself for a very low price.

Don’t I have a right to expect something for my hard work, the same as a carpenter or an IT worker?

This clause would mean that many novelists would stop working.

Until we have a society where things like housing and food are free, it’s unfair to expect artists to go without pay.

With regard to access, ICTs dramatically lower the costs associated with access to government-held information. States should take affirmative steps toward making public records accessible, machine-and-human readable, and free (or available at low cost) to journalists and others who seek to shed light on government operations.

To clarify the points being made above on behalf of Intellectual Property creators, here is a quote from the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) pamphlet entitled “Why is collective management of copyright and related rights necessary?”:

There have been two treaties “concluded in 1996, under the auspices of WIPO, to respond to the challenges of protecting and managing copyright and related rights in the digital age. Known as “the Internet treaties,” the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WCT and WPPT respectively) deal among other things with obligations concerning technological protection measures and rights management information in the digital environment. They ensure that the owners of rights are protected when their works are disseminated on the Internet; they also contain provisions requiring national legislators to provide effective protection for technological measures, by prohibiting the import, manufacture and distribution of illicit tools or material designed to neutralize technological protection measures and also outlawing acts detrimental to rights management information systems.”

This should not be listed under human rights since these are indivdual rights, whereas a commitment to development should be listed as a separate principle or, preferably, in relation to capacity building efforts.

to specify “ …internationally agreed sustainable development goals” – Millennium Development Goals.

New edition: Development: all people have a right to development and the Internet has a role to play in helping to achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable development goals. It is a vital tool for giving people living in poverty the means to participate in development processes.

We suggest this paragraph is replaced by the following formulation:
Economic, social, cultural and political development: Internet governance should support the vital role of the internet as an enabler of development which is a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process aimed at the constant improvement of the well-being of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom.

Internet governance must respect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity in all its forms, but can also support the integration of peoples and their cultures by use of the global network for the development of a new dialect a new language and its structure , by all institutions of education they wish , connected interested and involved in common , for the purpose of evolution in overall Internet use.
A language with agile symbology specifically studied and developed along with the reuse of already well established and widespread interpretation of rapid global visual communication in the example of some signals used to guide the traffic of people cars, in the universal language of mathematics, sciences and some gestures interpreted intuitively by anyone on the planet .
The development of sounds and words with expressions acoustic phonetics and auditory basis involving the possibility of an adaptive application the vast majority of peoples and ethnicities in their complexities around our planet .
 The use and implementation of a spelling and orthography, simplified universal and objective for this new context .
Transcribing and creating literature , artwork , plays, films and works of the most varied ranges in this new language and disseminate freely on a project open global network .
With the goal and results achieved without the long term and in its final faze , for its implementation and dissemination consolidation , primary schools and essential in all regions of the world have at their disposal by the developers poles as an option to implement this new language for their children .
The unsurpassed motivation for this new language , this new language would fundamentally break down barriers , whether phonetic , religious or historical, political Globalized that the Internet today in its practicality and its dynamics , since demolished .
The landmark proposal involving the participation of educational institutions connected by the worldwide network of all peoples , promoted the integration , transparency and multiplicity of the project , giving seriousness and a large proportion of success .
Languages ​​and languages ​​are born , die , are created or modified extinct , like Latin, Coptic, Ancient Greek , Esperanto and that enable or enabled the existence and functionality of computers and the internet as the ‘languages’ Assembly , Flow- Matic , COBOL , Fortran , Basic, MS -DOS and the pure and simple HTM .
The English and Spanish language lends itself well as a second language but worldwide ; carry some cultural and historical barriers in many people from many continents and also surely be integrated naturally in this universal language.
A new language , based on the speed and efficiency in spreading knowledge and integrate the communication , the global Internet network becomes plausible and possible necessary.
For the success of the project , there is only the need for a factor ; the initiative .
Probably the proposal is not in dispute but the governance of the Intenet ; undoubtedly is the propitious moment to be widespread
Invoking the article. 12 – Article 13 – Article 15 – Article 19 .
Ricardo Bartolome .

I would suggest the wording expanded to “Internet governance must respect, protect, and promote cultural and linguistic diversity in all its forms.”

Internet governance must respect and promote cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content in all its forms

Internet governance must respect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity in all its forms and for these purposes to strengthen all languages in the Internet, to promote creation of comprehensive and sustained indicators complex for dimension of linguistic diversity in the Internet.

An absolute mandate to “promote” linguistic diversity in all its forms may not be possible and could lead to restrictions on content (for instance in the case where translation is not possible). Therefore Intel proposes a slight modification.

9. Internet governance must respect and should promote cultural and linguistic diversity in all its forms.

Laying this charge on “Internet governance” as a whole is so imprecise as to lose meaning — and note tha this is the first time the phrase is used in this long list of principles. I suggest rather:

Development and use of the Internet should respect and promote ….

ITI suggests a slight modification to avoid an absolute mandate to “promote” linguistic diversity in all its forms. This may not be possible and could lead to restrictions on content.

Proposed new text: Internet governance must respect and should promote cultural and linguistic diversity in all its forms.

ITI-The Information Technology Industry Council

The Domain Name Association believes that the document should explicitly recognize that Internationalised Domain Names or IDNs (both from ccTLDs and gTLDs), and new gTLDs are coming online and will play an important role in supporting this principle. The DNA recommends adding “including the promotion of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and new gTLDs” to the end of the sentence.

One could question the degree to which this is true today. Perhaps we should drop ‘continue to’ from the first line.

Some people have argued that alternate roots will be developed in the near future and favor the term ‘interoperable’ instead of unfragmented

Even if we consider that the drafting of this text should not be the ultimate purpose of NETmundial as stated before at the “introduction” portion, we still can add some comments to the text, but again, to trigger the discussion during NETmundial and not with the single purpose to have an outcome document.
1. add to the title “Single, Unified and Unfragmented Space”
2. add to the text “single” before “globally coherent”.

One could question the degree to which the Internet is secure. Perhaps we could replace ‘should remain a’ with ‘should be a’ in the third line.

In order to fulfill such important objectives, the WSIS outcomes should be implemented. From article 35 of the Tunis Agenda, governments have responsibility for international public policy. Security of the Internet, in addition to countering and prosecuting cybercrime and countering spam, is dependent on the development and enforcement of international public policies and national and transnational laws. The mechanism for enabling governments to carry out their role needs to be established and operationalized.

” equal technical treatment of all protocols and data”. Is this net neutralitu?

“equal technical treatment of all protocols and data” is a poor way to phrase network neutrality. Equal treatment is against the user’s best interests, because some traffic (such as audio/video) requires timely delivery, and other traffic (such as browsing or email) may sometimes be slightly delayed. A more subtle word such as “fair” or “equitable” should be used. A slightly more technical term would be “fair differentiated services”.

“Equal” technical treatment of all protocols may not be technically possible, and so Intel proposes to replace “equal” with “fair”.

This paragraph is deficient in failing to recognize the fundamental importance of intellectual property rights and the rule of law in fostering an innovative environment. The reference to “permissionless innovation” should be replaced with a reference to governance “promoting an Internet environment in which intellectual property rights are respected within a framework of the rule of law.”

The Software & Information Industry Association considers that the second sentence of this paragraph should be struck. Instead, we propose that the value of intellectual property protection be recognized with a reference to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Concommittantly, we propose that Intermediary liability should be limited in line with international best practices. Intellectual property protection and appropriate limits on intermediary liability are essential components in a continuing thriving Internet economy.

Creative content has been an important driver of demand for infrastructure enabling Internet access. Time Warner Inc. feels that this principle should acknowledge that the production of creative works is a human right recognized in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We urge that language calling for “permission-less innovation” be struck and replaced with language stating that an enabling Internet environment also allows authors, musicians, and other creators to benefit from their moral and material rights of authorship and creation as recognized in Article 27. This would also make this principle consistent with language in the Human Rights section that references the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which includes the rights of authors/creators.

A strong vibrant internet is vital to the future of independent artists but the concept of permissionless innovation rejects the notion of respect for these same artists.

It’s vitally important and simply the “right thing to do” for all creative people including independent artists to respect one another’s creative output and not infringe or take unfair advantage of a creator’s intellectual property.

Permissionless innovation is at the heart of the reason why the Internet has been able to flourish and benefit everyone’s lives. It would be a shame if the intellectual property lobby were able to kill yet another key driver to innovation by devaluing the importance that this principle has held for improving humanity. Remember this is the same IPR industry that swore VCR’s would be the death of the film industry, and promised MP3 players would be the end of the music industry — even fought against piano roll players when they were 1st introduced and threatened the industry’s business model. But in every instance, the industry has been forced to adapt and has found even more money by selling video tapes, mp3 recordings, etc. The established intellectual property industry has been terrified of the Internet since its inception, but one thing that has been proven time and again is that innovation should not be stifled to benefit industries and business models of the past. Let’s not let the latest “sky is falling” rhetoric from the IP industry kill what is so great about the Internet. Keep “permissionless innovation” in the text and be on the right side of history.

Innovation and creativity have brought and are of great value. Permissionless innovation should not ignore copyright protection. If it ignores copyright protection visualizations and other creative thought can be claimed as anyones own creative statement.

This makes no allowance for creators of music or video works. They should be remunerated for use of their work…or those professions will become simply hobbies…

There needs to be language to recognize intellectual property protection and the rule of law generally as key ingredients of sound Internet governance. I believe a strong vibrant internet is core to the future of independent artists but all creative and innovative people, such as photographers, need to respect one another’s creative output and the concept of permissionless innovation rejects this notion of respect.

I think a strong vibrant internet is core to the future of independent artists but that all creative and innovative people need to respect one another’s creative output and the concept of permissionless innovation rejects this notion of respect. I am a photographer who makes his living by licensing the images I create. Without copyright protection, anyone could use my photos, and I wouldn’t be able to continue to create beautiful work to put online.

We are not clear as to what is meant by “permissionless innovation”. Moreover, we believe that there are many factors to promote the dynamism of the Internet. We therefore propose the following edits to the second sentence: “For the preservation of its dynamism, Internet governance must continue to support an enabling Internet environment.”

I think a strong vibrant internet is core to the future of independent artists but that all creative and innovative people need to respect one another’s creative output and the concept of permissionless innovation rejects this notion of respect.

Allowing the usage without permission of a creative work on the internet is a double standard to justify theft. If intellectual property is allowed to be taken and used by anyone, then the same rule should be applied to physical items such as one’s car, home and clothes — the ultimate “sharing”.

The internet should remain a diverse, open, worldwide forum for everyone to be able to share ideas. However, it must not be allowed to be a vehicle for theft.

“Permissionless Innovation” is nothing more than a license to steal and will stifle the very aspects of the internet that make it the wonderful tool that it currently is. This is far from any form of “respect” for creatives and their intellectual property and is not acceptable.

The outcome document — and Paragraph 13 in particular — disregards the importance of intellectual property rights and the concerns raised in 28 separate submissions, in addition to a filing by 38 entertainment and cultural organizations, representing 66 countries and six continents. We agree with the overwhelming number of comments filed in reference to paragraph 13, representing private industry, civil society, governments and academics, that the concept of “permissionless” innovation must be eradicated from the outcome document. The second sentence should be replaced with: “Internet governance must continue to allow for innovation, while preserving intellectual property rights within a framework of the rule of law.” The outcome document cannot be considered a “consensus” document without this fundamental change.

“permissionless innovation” seems to completely disregard the right to a livliehood of many creatives via copyright infringement.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the reactions to this phrase.

Should artists need permission to innovate? I hope not.

Permissionless innovation is at the heart of artistic creativity, not an opposition to it.

Similarly, innovation is at the heart of Internet evolution, and it is important that it remain so. A reference to innovation is extremely important here and must be maintained . And I really don’t understand whose permission I should seek before I innovate.

This paragraph has got nothing to do with intellectual property rights, but an awful lot to do with encouraging and fostering a creative environment.

This paragraph fails to address the critical importance of intellectual property rights and the rule of law in fostering and encouraging innovation.
“Permissionless innovation” actually threatens the dynamism of the Internet unless it is balanced by a respect for intellectual property rights. This section of the document cannot achieve multistakeholder consensus until it includes an explicit commitment to fostering an environment in which intellectual property rights are respected within a framework of the rule of law.

David Green
VP, Public Policy
NBCUniversal

We think a strong vibrant internet is core to the future of independent artists but that all creative and innovative people need to respect one another’s creative output and the concept of permissionless innovation rejects this notion of respect

In Verizon’s initial comments, we noted that the importance of policies developed around the Internet encouraging both innovation and investment throughout the Internet ecosystem. We suggest recognition of the importance of investment somewhere in the principles. A healthy ecosystem of connectivity, services, and content will enable market access and boost investments in infrastructure and access.

Reading through all these comments it appears that there are various connotations as to what ‘permission-less innovation’ means! On one hand I, as a photographer, would hate for it to mean that anyone can use my images without paying for them but if it means that people are free to innovate without permission then I would support that. I believe the statement needs to be more clear as to what it means BUT it should reflect an individuals right to be paid for something they have created.

Our members recommended a deletion and addition to the close of this paragraph, recommending that the final paragraph with changes read as follows: “The ability to innovate and create has been at the heart of the remarkable growth of the Internet and it has brought great value to the global society. For the preservation of its dynamism, Internet governance must continue to support an enabling Internet environment that, among other things, also allows authors and creators to benefit from their moral and material rights of authorship as recognized in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.”

In addition, our members recommended that the following bullet be added as a second element to this paragraph:

“• Intermediary liability should be limited in line with international best practice, recognizing that Internet intermediaries, like other stakeholders, can and do play an important role by addressing and deterring illegal activity, fraud and misleading and unfair practices conducted over their networks and services as well as advancing economic growth. Limitations play an important role in promoting innovation and creativity, the free flow of information, and in providing the incentives for co-operation between stakeholders.”

There needs to be language to recognize intellectual property protection and the rule of law generally as key ingredients of sound Internet governance. I believe a strong vibrant internet is core to the future of independent artists but all creative and innovative people, such as photographers, need to respect one another’s creative output and the concept of permissionless innovation rejects this notion of respect. Any group that collects intellectual property on the internet must not be able to delete EXIF and IPTC information from images and then claim that they are orphaned works. There should be permanently embedded information with images that protects the right of the individual creator and prevents such practices.

“Permissionless” is a broad phrase that overlooks the need to ensure that original creators maintain the right to control of their work. A vibrant Internet is undoubtedly central to the future of independent artists, but all creative communities should respect one another’s output. Permissionless innovation fails to acknowledge such respect.

There needs to be language to recognize intellectual property protection and the rule of law generally as key ingredients of sound Internet governance. I believe a strong vibrant internet is core to the future of independent artists but all creative and innovative people, such as photographers, need to respect one another’s creative output and the concept of permissionless innovation rejects this notion of respect.

proposes to add at the end of the paragraph the following:
PROPER CONDITIONS FOR ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL CREATION AND INNOVATION HAVE ALSO TO BE RESPECTED AND PRESERVED IN THIS ENVIRONMENT.

The human rights treaties create obligations of States citizens, respect for the dignity and worth of the human person (Vienna Convention). The inter-American system for the protection, promotion and respect for human rights, Inter-American Commission (OEA), international treaties incorporated into the constitutions than creating constitutional laws do not contradict Hierarchy as the Basic Law (at least in Argentina, by Article 75, paragraph 22, constitutional status by constitutional engineering, the Principal, the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. a respectful greeting to all. Thanks for allowing us to participate is an honor mutual enrichment, we learn together.

I think one of the Process Principles should be “RISK BASED”. Internet Governance must be risk based to ensure process principles in 16,17,18,19 and 24 are met and are aligned to the risks and opportunities faced by the internet at any point in time.

(& Para 22) The principles that articulate the Internet denizen’s “citizen’s rights” will not in and of themselves govern the Internet or define the citizen’s rights and obligations. That will be determined elsewhere, in different fora (e.g. covenants, national and local levels of government). As with the UDHR, the principles will serve as navigational aids to help shape policy and practice, and should serve as criteria for monitoring and accountability. This requires multistakeholder understanding and involvement well beyond just the framing of Internet ecosystem principles. It involves dealing with monitoring and accountability. This requires ongoing dialogue and engagement in policy and implementation at all levels of governance, and efforts to reach wider stakeholder cohorts and constituencies and assisting them in becoming knowledgeable and skilled in such engagement.

We suggest that the heading could be supported by the addition of some chapeau text clarifying the purpose of this particular section, highlighting the characteristics that we are looking for from a governance framework:

“Given the importance of the Internet for global economies and societies, the global governance model should be: resilient to capture, able to cope with rapid technological change and innovation, and be based on agreed high-level principles that ensure predictability and proportionality of decisions, without discrimination.”

I’m concerned about using the phrase “full participation of governments…” instead of saying that participation must be balanced and equitable with no predominance by any other stakeholder.

The language “respective roles” might be quite limiting. It doesn’t seem to incorporate evolution since WSIS…

In fact, This text seems to come from the WGIG report back during WSIS Phase II that defined 4 stakeholder groups and then really defined how limited they might be. Suggest either defining respective roles & responsibilities or dropping that qualifier.

I think it could be interesting to check whether a notion of autonomy would be viable w.r.t. Internet governance issue.

In our view para 15 can remain unchanged. In any case, the recognition of the respective roles and responsibilities must be retained, because states are responsible for public policy issues. If all stakeholders had equal footing, then it would be impossible to impose net neutrality rules: operators would block those. Public policy is decided by national parliaments, and surely other stakeholders should not have equal footing when laws are voted.

Proposed therein multilateral governance model is essentially a method of control with indistinct boundaries major powers acting forces. Roles and responsibilities of each participant in it is not defined, the mechanisms accounting value of the contributions of participants at various levels not transparent.

The Software & Information Industry Association strongly supports the multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance. We believe that this approach should be refined to reflect the idea that Internet Governance is complex with many difference workstreams and activities. Stakeholders with the appropriate expertise should participate in those discussions.

USCIB supports the meaningful participation of all stakeholders in the Internet governance process. However, we feel that the participation should be appropriate to the particular Internet-related forum based on that stakeholder’s skills and expertise. A stakeholder with policy expertise, for example, may have little to contribute to a highly technical discussion. Thus, we feel that the concept of multistakeholder participation would be greatly improved by language clarifying that stakeholder participation is most meaningful and impactful when groups are participating according to their competencies and expertise. Thus, we propose revising the language as follows: “. . . meaningful and appropriate participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and users.”

The term “in their respective roles and responsibilities” should be removed as it no longer adequately reflects the evolving roles and responsibilities stakeholders have in Internet governance processes and policy-making. APC’s articulation above is far better.

We agree that the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance is a core principle. We have provided suggested edits to emphasize the broad spectrum of stakeholders, while also accounting for a stakeholder’s relevant experience and knowledge with respect to their participation in various fora. For these reasons, we suggest the following edits to paragraph 15:

“Multistakeholder: with the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and the users, taking into account a stakeholder’s expertise and experience.”

– The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)

I think the last phrase here would read better if written as follows: “…and be made by consensus” (inserting “be”). And also add “wherever possible” as suggested below. (Sorry for the back and forth.)

ITI suggests replacing “roles and responsibilities” with ” competencies and expertise.” This reflects the need for participation to be appropriate to the forum based on needed skills and capacities.

New proposed text:
Multistakeholder: with the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and the users in their respective competencies and expertise.

ITI-The Information Technology Industry Council

I like to suggest to change the text to:

Multistakeholder:

Internet governance mechanisms should be implemented with the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia and the users on equal footing with their respective roles and responsibilities.

Multistakeholder should include the non-users of the Internet as well.

Include intergovernmental and international organizations and eliminate the technical community, academia as they are included in stated stakeholders as per paragraph 36 of Tunis Agenda. In addition, eliminate the users as they will be represented by these stakeholder groups. All stakeholder groups should be fully enabled to perform their roles as per the Tunis Agenda.

pertaining to their stakes and interests in specific issues, need to be defined. To implement the Internet Governance principles as described in this section, should we not recommended that a neutral multi-stakeholder body – Internet Governance Body (IGO) be established? Refer sec II block 16 comment.

I would add “wherever possible” after consensus to allow for movement when it is urgently needed and consensus is difficult to achieve.

I understand the desire for _consensus_ driven governance. However, the disadvantage is that reaching consensus especially on thorny, complex issues takes considerable time. Moreover, by the time consensus is reached, it is possible if not likely that technological component of the issue has already changed character through innovation. It is also possible on particularly difficult issues that consensus cannot be reached, leaving policymaking at an impasse. Consensus may be an ideal rather than a practical reality.

Agree that internet-related public policies can occur at the national, regional and international levels and that they should involve all stakeholders in open and participative governance. The word “international” should be removed.

Essence of Internet governance and global public policy is highly consistent. The core of global public policy is to achieve the public interest, and to achieve global public interest first requires broad-based global consensus, which is why “the deployment of Internet governance must ensure the meaningful and balanced participation”. Specific term of the policy process, from setting, assessment, policy-making, implementation, feedback to evaluation, is a fully guaranteed and balanced participation process. And this substantive participation must rely on specific, sufficient and balanced organizational structure. The existing Internet administration organization only goes so far, resulted from many problems, especially its lack of representation and representation only limited to articles and rules. Thus, how to rectify the current “closed club phenomenon” in Internet governance policies and process becomes the core mission in rebuilding the structure of Internet governance future evolution.

The development of international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should enable the full, unrestricted and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, and be made by consensus.

suggests to add at the end of the paragraph the following: “THE FIRST GOAL TO BE PURSUED BY THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE IS THE LONG TERM PUBLIC INTEREST”

Delete the part “, and procedures must be developed and agreed upon through multistakeholder processes“. Through what kind of processes the procedures are developed and agreed upon has nothing to do with transparency, provided those processes are transparent.

In regard to why the restriction to multistakeholder processes only goes too far, see my comment on paragraph 16.

A key aspect of transparency is knowing where and when Internet governance issues are being discussed or negotiated. The text is fine as far as it goes, but there should also be a duty to publicize in advance that decisions will be considered or made, by whom, where and when.

The Software & Information Industry Association leans on the side of being inclusive in terms of stakeholder participation, but again we believe that expertise should be taken into account when determining participation in a given discussion.

Transparent: Decisions made must be easy to understand, processes must be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures, and procedures must be developed and agreed upon through creating norms of international law.

EXTERNAL checks are needed for accountability. And we need “meaningful” mechanisms, not just ones that exist on paper. Take for example the ICANN Board’s 2013 decision to change the standard for anyone to win an Independent Review Panel to a std that is so impossible to meet, it has eviscerated the IRP process as any meaningful check on ICANN for not following its own rules. Sure, there is a “mechanism” the IRP, but it has been rendered so nearly impossible to actually win, it is a meaningless mechanism for achieving organizational accountability.

The Software and Information Industry Association considers that some appeals mechanism should exist. We therefore propose the following text. “Mechanisms for checks and balances, review and an appeals process should exist.”

Part of the checks and balances system should be the ability of creators to be compensated for their work that’s used on the net.

What accountability is proposed for organizations that seek to subvert or undermine processes or standards for national and/or commercial interests? How do you propose that accountability and privacy/anonymity coexist? How, for example, would the case of dissident blogger hailed as a hero in one country, and a hate-speech promulgating terrorist in another be reconciled?