Internet Universality Indicators Consultation Response 1. What are your priorities for issues that should be addressed through the Internet Universality framework in each of these five categories? Rights With respect to the Rights indicators, there are two important considerations. First, all human rights 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 Sustainable Development 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 privacy 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, “anonymity 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: 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 information 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, policies and practices should not undermine the integrity of infrastructure, hardware, software 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 censorship 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 disabilities, 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 governance and internet-related policy 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