Marcelo Thompson

Many think of the Internet Governance Forum as being nothing but a multi-stakeholders monumental talk shop. Even if so, that would not be so hopeless for an area in which customs play a decisive role; an area to whose build-up the showcase of state practices and formalization of diferent levels of opinio juris very widely contribute: the area of international human rights law. Though derided as a talk shop, and in spite of its notorious shortcomings, the IGF has had precisely that goal, adding up to the commitments already assumed in the World Summit of the Information Society.Since its inception the WSIS has been explicitly linked to the international human rights agenda. The UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/56/183, adopted in December 2001, though not using the language of rights, recognized “the urgent need to harness the potential of knowledge and technology for promoting the goals of the United Nations Millennium Declaration”, which is a customary international human rights instrument in itself. That Resolution welcomed the Council of the International Telecommunication Union’s proposal to hold the WSIS.More recently, in Tunis, the language of rights was reaffirmed with conviction. The Tunis Commitment, which was later endorsed by the UN General Assembly (Resolution A/RES/60/252), affirmed the Member States’ ”desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and multilateralism, and respecting fully and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so that people everywhere can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, to achieve their full potential and to attain the internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals”.The moto of the next IGF meeting in Hydebarad — “Internet for All” – would also be extremely auspicious in this regard.Hence, it is with sincere dismay that I am following the concerns expressed by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition:

15th of August 2008Dear IGF Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group,The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights respectfully requests that the issue of rights and the internet is made a core agenda topic for the IGF. The Dynamic Coalition notes that, through the “openness” theme, rights have been a central topic in the previous IGFs, and is concerned that this topic appears to have been pushed down the draft agenda for this year’s IGF in Hyderabad.We are greatly concerned by the significant reduction of emphasis on “openness” and “diversity” in the current agenda for Hyderabad. In particular, “openness and privacy” are only mentioned as a half of a sub-item of the general “Promoting Cyber-security and Trust” main theme. Rather than promoting positive discussion about how to expand the opportunities that the internet offers for realizing our fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in international law, the title of the main security theme plays on negativity and fear of the internet. We are concerned that the sessions will focus on security measures, without adequate discussion of how to ensure that these do not erode the capacity of the internet to support and advance human rights, for example to expression, culture, privacy and development.Given that, in addition to the IBR Dynamic Coalition, several other coalitions and IGF participants are also concerned over the limited consideration of rights on the program, we respectfully ask the Secretariat and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to reconsider the draft agenda and to add “Rights and the Internet” as a core theme for Hyderabad, and to work towards incorporating ‘Rights and the Internet’ into the IGF Cairo agenda as an overarching theme.We recognize that development of the draft agenda is well underway, but feel that it would still be possible to adapt the agenda without undue impact on the ongoing workshop merger process, by reorienting the sub-theme main session “Fostering Security, Privacy and Openness” to focus on rights. The issue of security would be better addressed in the partnering sub-theme session, coupled with the issue of cybercrime. The main plenary session could then bring these two strands together. Another possibility to give rights a more prominent stance would be to change the title of the main theme, “Promoting Cyber-security and Trust” to, “Balancing Security and Trust with Openness and Freedoms (or Rights)”.As we wrote in the Dynamic Coalition report submitted to the Secretariat on 30th June, the coalition would like to offer its support in helping to shape such a session in partnership with the workshop organisers who have opted to merge with it. We also stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the Secretariat and Advisory Group in order to ensure that rights receive adequate attention at the IGF.We thank you for your consideration and await your response.Kind regards,The Internet Bill of Rights CoalitionPlease also note that the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus has expressed its full support and endorsement of the letter.