Internet Universality Indicators Consultation Response

1. What are your priorities for issues that should be addressed through the Universality framework in each of these five categories?

Rights

With respect to the Rights indicators, there are two important considerations. First, all are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. Second, the increasing digitalisation of all aspects of life mean that it is likely, if not inevitable, that in the near future the internet will impact upon aspects of all human rights. As such, we believe that the Rights indicators in the Internet Universality framework should, as far as possible, examine and assess the extent to which all human rights are respected and facilitated by the internet. By “all human rights”, we mean all human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated upon in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

We note that UNESCO, when describing the concept of Internet Universality, makes reference to the need to ensure that the internet helps to realise human development, and that the Agenda explicitly recognises the links between internet access and development. As such, and notwithstanding our general position, we consider it particularly important that indicators relating to those economic and social rights which are closely linked to sustainable development be included.

With respect to other human rights, our experience in this field has shown that there are particular impacts that the internet has on the rights to and freedom of expression. We would therefore also encourage the development of indicators which explicitly address these rights, and the following priority issues which we have identified as of particular pertinence:

Anonymity: In order to exercise one’s right to privacy online, the opportunity to remain anonymous is crucial. As has been said by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, for example, “ provide[s] individuals and groups with a zone of privacy online to hold opinions and exercise freedom of expression without arbitrary and unlawful interference or attacks”. He has also recognised that anonymity plays an important role in “safeguarding and advancing (...) political accountability, public participation and debate”.

Encryption: As with anonymity, the availability of encryption facilitates greater enjoyment of certain human rights, particularly the right to privacy and, specifically, privacy of correspondence. The “zone of privacy” it provides enables individuals and groups more fully to be able to exercise other human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. As well as enabling greater enjoyment of human rights, encryption – and the security and confidence that it provides – also supports the accessibility of the internet in practice.

1

Surveillance: constitutes a serious interference with the right to privacy. As the Human Rights Committee has made clear, “surveillance, whether electronic or otherwise, should be prohibited”, with exceptions allowed only in circumstances where a legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality can be demonstrated. By undermining the “zone of privacy” that the internet offers – particularly when anonymity and encryption are available – surveillance beyond those narrow exceptions may result in individuals using the internet not being able to exercise fully other human rights, such as freedom of expression.

Data Protection: The right to privacy includes the right to control personal about oneself. This includes the ability to consent to the generation, storage, use and sharing of personal information; to be able to ascertain what personal information is being collected by a particular public or private body and for what purposes; to correct incorrect personal information; and to be able to request the deletion of personal information being stored. The scale of information which is now being generated about individuals as a result of their online activities, and the very sensitive information which this can reveal either by itself or when mapped against other datasets, creates further risks. Individuals belonging certain groups – such as the LGBT community, religious minorities, or political opponents – may, in some states, have their security put at risk if such information became known to state or non-state actors. As with encryption, the greater security and confidence that results from strong and effective data protection supports the accessibility of the internet in practice.

Cybersecurity: By providing a means to access and participate in both public and private services, a secure and trusted internet is increasingly central to the ability to exercise a wide range of civil and political, as well as economic, cultural and social rights. Weak cybersecurity measures can compromise human rights by resulting in data breaches which violate the right to privacy, but also by impeding access to and use of services which are increasingly central to participation in political, economic and social life. Therefore, cybersecurity-related laws, and practices should not undermine the integrity of , hardware, and services and should be in keeping with international human rights law and standards.

Content Regulation: The internet has created unprecedented opportunities for individuals and communities to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Inappropriate restrictions on what individuals are able to say online, or on certain forms of information that can be imparted and received, undermine those opportunities. A limited number of forms of content regulation may be appropriate – and, indeed, necessary to ensure consistency with international human rights law and standards. For example, propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence are required to be prohibited by law under Article 20 of the ICCPR. Child pornography must be prohibited under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Outside of limited exceptions such as these, however, content regulation poses serious risks to the right to freedom of expression. There are various forms that such content regulation can take, such as explicit through national laws and policies of certain forms of expression or inappropriate liability for intermediaries which encourages certain platforms to implement overly restrictive responses to requests for the removal of content.

Openness

Competition Law: An open internet requires that there are no unnecessary barriers to new entrants to online markets. Where monopolies or cartels develop, or where price fixing or other anti-competitive practices take place, this reduces the possibility for new entrants to enter and

2

compete with existing players. Combating anti-competitive practices requires the existence and proper enforcement of competition law.

Net neutrality: An open internet should not just be open in a theoretical sense, but a practical one, meaning that the principle of net neutrality should be respected. This means that there should be no discrimination in the treatment of internet traffic based on the device, content, author, or the origin and/or destination of the content, service or application. In the absence of net neutrality, the internet will be ‘more open’ to some than others, and inevitably those who could afford to pay for a premium, furthering socio-economic inequalities.

Accessibility

Reliability of access: The internet cannot truly be considered as accessible for an individual if that access is unreliable. Even partial unreliability can reduce confidence in access and dissuade individuals from fully using all aspects of the internet. For example, an individual or business wishing to offer services online is far less likely to establish such online services if they cannot be confident of having reliable access with the consequent risk to their business’s reputation and success.

Access for particular groups e.g. women, disabled people: The internet cannot be considered as accessible if certain groups, because of a particular characteristic, feel unable or unwilling to use it. There are many reasons why particular groups may feel this way. Unchallenged misogynistic language and online harassment are overwhelmingly targeted towards women. Women are disproportionately targeted by sexual harassment online. Much of the internet remains inaccessible to certain groups of disabled people, such as those with visual , reading disorders and other learning disabilities.

Locally relevant content: A lack of locally relevant content – including content in particular languages – may also present barriers for those in particular geographical locations, certain cultural groups, and certain language communities.

Multistakeholder participation

Open and accessible: Internet and internet-related forums should be open and accessible. This means that all relevant and interested stakeholders should be allowed to participate in the policy process; such processes should be advertised widely with stakeholders given sufficient notice to prepare and attend; no stakeholder should be excluded on the basis of any personal characteristic or as a result of high financial costs, bureaucracy or location; where there are barriers to participation, active steps should be taken to overcome these; and all discussions, documents and resources should be in an accessible format.

Inclusive: and internet-related policy forums should be diverse. This means that all relevant stakeholder groups should be actively represented in the policy process; the different views and interests within each stakeholder group should also be represented; stakeholders should have equal opportunities to contribute and their contributions should be given equal visibility and consideration.

Collaborative: Internet governance and internet-related policy forums should be collaborative. This means that efforts should be made to ensure that stakeholders are willing to work together and to agree on a common purpose; this common purpose should be used to determine and guide the direction of the policy process and stakeholders should remain committed to it throughout; collaboration should also be encouraged through building strong and trusting relationships, with ample opportunities for stakeholders to build these relationships with one

3

another; stakeholders should be encouraged to work well together and there should be no factions or alliances between stakeholders that undermine trust or collaboration.

Consensus driven: Internet governance and internet-related policy forums should be consensus driven. This means that decisionmaking processes and mechanisms should be based on the notion of consensus and, in practice, that groups act, as far as is possible, by general agreement; stakeholders should hold equal weight in decisionmaking and all should be involved or at least represented in the different levels of decisionmaking – from decisions around procedures, to inclusions in a draft, to agreeing the final document or legislation.

Evidence based: Internet governance and internet-related policy forums should be evidence based. This means that decisions should based on the evidence and facts available. Where these are contradictory, there should be due time for discussion and general agreement about which facts to consider and which to exclude; the group as a whole should have expertise on all of the issues relevant to the process; where expertise is lacking, the group should have access to balanced and independent expert opinion and resources; research should be carried out to ensure that all stakeholders have a baseline level of knowledge.

Transparent and accountable: Internet governance and internet-related policy forums should be transparent and accountable. This means that there should be a set of clearly defined procedures and mechanisms for the different aspects of the policymaking process, covering issues such as stakeholder representation, stakeholder contributions, inclusion and exclusion of inputs, decisionmaking, leadership of the process, accountability and redress; the interests of all involved stakeholders should be declared; the details of discussions and decisions should be documented and published; there should be clear and functioning lines of accountability internally between the leadership and group, as well as externally between stakeholders and their wider communities.

Cross-cutting indicators

Judicial Oversight and the Rule of Law: The issues listed above under the “Rights”, “Open” and “Accessibility” principles all – to different extents – require the existence of effective national legal and regulatory frameworks. Such frameworks are necessary, for example, to ensure the protection of human rights, enforce competition law, protect net neutrality, and tackle barriers to access. Without effective judicial oversight and the rule of law, such frameworks are, at best, undermined, and, at worst, irrelevant.

4

2. Are there are any existing indicators with which you are familiar that you think it would be useful to include in the ROAM indicators framework?

Rights

● Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: Human Rights Indicators ● Freedom House: Freedom in the World indicators ● Freedom House: Freedom on the Net indicators ● Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Internet freedom

Openness

Accessibility

● Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Internet freedom ● OECD Data: Internet access ● World Bank World Development Indicators ● ITU Global ICT Development Index ● DIRSI Broadband Indicators

Multistakeholder participation

● World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators ● Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Internet freedom ● Global Partners Digital Framework for Multistakeholder Cyber Policy Development

Cross-cutting indicators

● UNESCO Media Development Indicators ● Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Human Rights Indicators ● Freedom House: Freedom in the World indicators

5

3. What do you think are the most important gaps in data/evidence required for monitoring Internet Universality and the ROAM principles? What approaches do you think could help to address these in your country, region or area of work?

There are two, general and cross-cutting gaps in data/evidence required for monitoring internet universality:

1. There is a lack of data which is disaggregated by geographical considerations or personal characteristics (such as , age, economic status, ). Data which is collected invariably comprises a single dataset that is not broken down in subsets and therefore does not allow for a richer and more useful understanding of the situation. For example, data on internet penetration or average speeds for an entire country may not reveal significant gaps or slower speeds in particular areas. General measurements of censorship and content regulation online are useful, but may not necessarily show whether or not particular groups (such as religious minorities or LGBT individuals) are disproportionately affected. In order to ensure a comprehensive assessment of internet universality, and to allow for responses which are tailored to particular shortcomings, all data – where possible – should be broken down into subsets based on geographical considerations or personal characteristics.

2. Secondly, there is a lack of data from certain countries and regions of the world, particularly smaller and less developed countries, which results in an overreliance on estimates. Whilst larger and better resourced countries are often able to undertake research and obtain data relating to aspects of internet universality, the same is often not true of those which are smaller or less developed. Having more and better data from some countries than others undermines a set of universal indicators, such as those being developed to measure internet universality, and consistent data should be obtained from all countries, regardless of size or stage of development.

There are also particular issues within the indicators we have identified where little data is currently being collected:

1. Data indicating the extent to which the the internet is able to facilitate rather than restrict economic and social rights; 2. Data indicating the existence, enforcement and effectiveness of national competition law as it applies to online markets; 3. Data measuring the extent to which the principle of net neutrality is guaranteed and enforced; 4. Data measuring the existence and scale of locally relevant content; 5. Data measuring the extent to which all of the necessary elements of multistakeholder participation in internet governance and other internet-related policy forums exist; and 6. Data measuring the extent to which there is sufficient and effective judicial oversight of national legal and regulatory frameworks, including through respect for the rule of law and its various elements by all state actors.

There are three possible approaches to address these gaps:

1. First, as is being done through the development of the internet universality indicators, there need to exist agreed, appropriate and measurable indicators in relation to each of the issues identified. Drawing upon existing relevant indicators and measurements

6

provides a good starting point, with gaps addressed through multistakeholder initiatives comprising experts on the particular issue and other relevant stakeholders.

2. Second, there needs to be greater investment to address gaps through existing initiatives or bodies which already carry out data gathering and analysis on those and related issues. Such initiatives and bodies (such as the UN, the OECD and the World Bank) should, in gathering and analysing such data, ensure that data is disaggregated in accordance with the considerations listed above.

3. Third, there are opportunities provided by the responsible use of . Increasing amounts of data are generated as internet access and use increases and could be made publicly available to be used in initiatives such as the Internet Universality indicators. However, it must be gathered, stored and used in a way that protects the right to privacy, such as through anonymisation techniques or techniques which minimise as much as possible personal identifiers associated with data, while retaining the value of the data for its defined and specific purpose.

4. What experience or views do you have of indicators relating to the Internet which are concerned with gender and with children and young people?

As we note in our response to question 1 under the Accessibility principles, “the internet cannot be considered as accessible if certain groups, because of a particular characteristic, feel unable or unwilling to use it”. As such, we believe that indicators should be included under this category relating to the accessibility of the internet for women and children and young people.

In developing such indicators, we would encourage consideration to be given to relevant international human rights law and standards, primarily the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women . Efforts already undertaken by the European Union with regards to children and the internet, may provide guidance in this regard: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/en/policies/75978

5. How do you think you might use the indicator framework for Internet Universality once it has been developed?

GPD expects that the indicator framework will form a reference for our analysis, research as well as the input and expertise we provide as part of policy discussions on a variety of internet- related policies. The indicator framework may also assist in the identification of priority internet-related policy issues for national advocacy efforts.

6. How do you think that other stakeholders might use the framework?

GPD expects that other stakeholders might use the framework to analyse,develop and assess policies related to the internet's development and governance.

7. Please add any other comments that you think will be helpful to UNESCO in developing the indicators framework.

N/A.

8. Please upload any documents that you think will be helpful here.

Global Partners Digital Framework for Multistakeholder Cyber Policy Development.

7