Prism Threatens Internet Openness, CoE Says, as Governance Issues Remain Unresolved

It’s been argued that many lives have been saved because of Prism and other programs, but that must be reconciled with the need to safeguard personal privacy and data, Kleijssen said. The executive body of the CoE recently approved a declaration urging members to ensure that digital tracking and spying don’t violate human rights (CD June 13 p3). Kleijssen said he thinks the declaration may be followed by a legal instrument that draws the policy guidelines together. The CoE is also considering whether to update its guidance on the 10-year-old Budapest cybercrime convention, he said. In addition, the cybercrime convention committee is working on a protocol on transborder access to data, which will be of particular importance to cloud computing, a CoE spokesman said.

The CoE, most of whose 47 members refused to sign the new ITRs at last year’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) (CD Dec 17 p10), must build bridges with those who did, Kleijssen said. The CoE position was that the ITU shouldn’t get into Internet regulation, or have control of the sort of criminal law issues that would arise under the Budapest cybercrime convention, he said. The CoE approach is that the Internet should be open and free, and that the existing multistakeholder dialogue should be the model for Internet governance, he said.

But several CoE members -- the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine and Azerbaijan -- signed the ITRs, Kleijssen said. Hence the need to build bridges, an effort that took place on the sidelines of EuroDIG. Some of those countries may have felt they had to sign the ITRs, because the open Internet advocated by the CoE is perceived by some as being a Western-dominated arena, he said. Some CoE members feel more secure in a United Nations-style intergovernmental environment, he said.

Asked if there’s room for compromise between the two approaches, Kleijssen said all members agree on the need for capacity-building to address cybercrime. From the CoE perspective, fighting cybercrime is about human rights and the rule of law, he said. There may be principles that all CoE countries can agree on as a possible bridge. The rest involves simply pointing out to ITR signers that governments are already included in the multistakeholder approach, he said. The European Commission, which has more clout globally than the CoE, can send a reassuring signal that the open Internet isn’t just an EU/U.S.-run system, he said.

One Dutch initiative, the Freedom Alliance, could point the way, Kleijssen said. Launched in The Hague two years ago, the alliance, which includes countries from all continents, aims to show that nations can tackle Internet free expression issues through a global partnership, and that the process is open to all regions, he said. This is exactly the sort of bridge the CoE is hoping for as an alternative to WCIT, he said. Kleijssen said he hopes the EuroDIG session makes clear that the CoE wants all its members on-board as it tries to move ahead on Internet governance issues.

The Internet community has worked together for about 15 years to figure out how to govern the Internet, said ICANN President Fadi Chehadé at the EuroDIG panel on keeping the Internet open and free. As the world moves into the next period, new and better rules are needed because existing governance mechanisms may no longer work, he said. The velocity of the Internet isn’t matched by the rulemaking process, he said. In addition, everyone knows how to make regulations top-down and bottom-up, but the Internet space works horizontally, making some current forms of regulation inapplicable, he said.

Applying old recipes to new situations is difficult, said Janis Karklins, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization assistant director-general for communication and information. The universal, borderless Internet is creating a clash between the knowledge of how society has been regulated and a new, rapidly developing system, he said. The community must apply its “best will” to discern which principles that new regime should be based on, agree on those principles and then translate them into action, he said. It’s probably not possible to make international rules for the Internet, he said. There are still some national administrations that feel uncomfortable about the presence of non-governmental actors in the process, he said. It’s always an “uphill battle” to convince governments about the need for multistakeholder dialogue, he said.

The community should evolve what’s working, said Chehadé. The way ICANN makes naming and addressing policy is the closest thing there is to a multistakeholder approach, he said. It’s working, but it needs improvement because it’s not scalable or inclusive enough and it’s too English-centric, he said. ICANN is “an” example, not “the” example, he said.

ICANN board member Bertrand de La Chapelle took issue with the title of the panel. The world can’t keep the Internet safe because the world isn’t safe, he said, saying his comments were personal. There is an “illusion” of creating the best of all worlds, but it’s unclear what the appropriate tools to do that are, he said from the audience. He cited the issue of online child abuse images, saying they're likely produced by no more than a few thousand people around the world. In no country would anyone propose putting a policeman on every street to catch such a small number of criminals, he said. Shuttering child abuse websites remains the “hugest alibi for surveillance” when there should instead by dedicated teams targeting the abusers, he said.

The panel was asked whether non-binding, high-level Internet principles are feasible. A universal declaration “may be a good idea” but it’s just a guiding framework, said Chehadé. How the framework is built is critical, he said; if it’s created in a top-down manner, it won’t stand, he said. The Internet community must work toward that consensus, but it won’t emerge until the time is right, said Karklins.