As an arcane UN body seeks new relevance and campaigns to take over internet governance, Dominique Lazanski — a member of the UK WCIT-12 delegation — outlines the risks it poses to net freedom and free speech

At the beginning of November I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to attend the Internet Governance Forum. As the imported London taxi cabs zipped along the streets, my old school friend who now lives in Baku explained to me that in preparation for the Eurovision Song Contest earlier this year, the government built new facades on the ageing, Soviet buildings in order to revitalise the fronts of the buildings that face the street. This temporary veneer, placed on top of a series of ever crumbling structures and not designed to last, reminded me of the what the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is hoping to achieve in the World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT): make itself relevant, if only for a short while.

WCIT begins tomorrow (December 3) and lasts for two weeks. This is where the much-discussed International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) treaty will be renegotiated and discussed for the first time since 1988. The ITU was founded in the 1860s as a single place in which telephone and telegraph standardisation could take place across multiple countries and territories with differing standards and payment systems. The ITRs as a treaty was one way in which this could be achieved through the ITU process, and the 1988 ITRs focused on telephone exchanging and payments.

WCIT will take place in Dubai from 3 – 14 December

Back in 1988 the internet was barely a twinkle in the eyes of those who participated in the last WCIT. The rapid growth of what we know today as the internet has hit the revenue of traditional telecommunications. We all know the story: the decentralised, pervasive information and communication network has grown rapidly providing freedom of speech, opportunities and prosperity to all, including those in developing countries and the aged population in Europe. The benefits of the internet seem obvious to us, but at the WCIT those benefits and how they were achieved will be questioned.

The current internet governance model is one in which all can participate. It is a multi stakeholder. The Internet Governance Forum that I just attended, along with members of Index on Censorship and other civil society groups, is the main, annual opportunity in which anyone who wants to attend – indeed any stakeholder – can participate. It is free of charge and invites all levels of experience and expression. Regional events throughout the year offer similar opportunities including those hosted by the Internet Society and the OECD.

This model is currently under threat at the WCIT. The ITRs were never meant to have anything to do with the internet, but governments who attempt to control their own people, often unsuccessfully, through limited access to websites and other online services, are proposing to place tighter restrictions on the internet itself in the name of spam and cyber security through the treaty. The multi stakeholder model is not only under threat from them, but is also under threat from other proposals closer to home, like the “sender pay” model that European Telecommunications Network Operators (ETNO) has put forth which will require a payment from the originator of the web content. The list of other proposals that would fundamentally change the way the internet works goes on, but in all of these proposals, governments would be in control of internet governance and it would no longer be a multi stakeholder model.

The Center for Democracy and Technology has done a fantastic job of highlighting these issues and they have tools and a joint letter to sign up to. Dot next put all of the new proposals online for the ITRs recently, as did WCIT Leaks. The documents were previously only available to members of the ITU — and that does not include civil society. At the WCIT conference itself, only government delegations are allowed to attend. Though the UK and US have civil society members on their delegation, most countries will not. How can an international treaty on telecommunications which may now include the internet, not include all stakeholders who, for the last seven years, have been discussing internet governance at the Internet Governance Forum?

So for the first two weeks in December, we will wait to see what exactly happens at the WCIT and what the new ITRs will look like. Many countries, including the UK, will seek to ensure that the ITRs and the resulting treaty remain as top-level principles, that will not force restrictive conditions that could change the internet. Many will not, however, seek to achieve this same goal. And for most of us who work in civil society groups, we will have no say in the final outcome. At the beginning of 2013 the ITU may have a new veneer called internet governance, but the same old, closed system of governing telecommunications will stand behind it, crumbling slowly despite its best attempts.

Dominique Lazanski is the head of digital policy at the TaxPayers’ Alliance and a member of the UK delegation to WCIT-12.

What can you do?

Index and many other civil society organisations that fight for free speech and internet freedom oppose moves to give the ITU authority over the internet. Join more than 33,000 other citizens from 166 nations and sign here to ask your nation’s leaders to protect global internet freedom

If you are an academic or work for a civil society organisation — join us by signing on here and send the letter to government officials who are participating in the ITU process

==

The post The obscure threat to the internet you need to know about appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This year’s Internet Governance Forum, to be held in Azerbaijan from 6-9 November, comes at a key moment in the battle between those who want to keep the internet free and those who do not.

The United Nations’s flagship forum for discussing internet governance, the IGF will be a primer for the crucial World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) taking place a month later in Dubai. WCIT could fundamentally alter the structure and global reach of the internet as some countries seek to wrench control of the net away from the United States and centralise it through new UN controls.

Exactly how the internet should be governed as it continues to grow is contentious. The current multi-stakeholder, bottom-up model of internet governance is not without its problems: A large part of the world’s population feels excluded from internet policy making.

The internet is facing multiple threats: Censorship enacted by states and corporations through filters, firewalls and takedown requests. As private companies expand internationally they face the challenge of respecting both fundamental human rights and the law of the land, as demonstrated Twitter’s recent decision to block the account of a German far-right group. Such companies also play a leading role in delineating the boundaries of “acceptable” speech through their own terms of service and policies.

The thorny issues do not stop there: Mass monitoring and surveillance of citizens’ use of digital communications endanger fundamental human rights, and Western companies’ role in exporting surveillance technology to authoritarian states continues apace. And both democratic and authoritarian states are ever more willing to criminalise speech online — be it tweets by activists in Bahrain or offensive jokes posted on Facebook in the UK.

Index sets out these challenges in its policy paper below. We will be in Baku for the IGF; our head of advocacy Mike Harris will be chairing a debate on censorship enacted by private companies, and our CEO Kirsty Hughes will be taking part in a panel on security and privacy. To follow the forum on Twitter, use the hashtag #IGF12.

Policy Note:  The Growing Threats to Digital Freedom 

Marta Cooper is editorial researcher at Index. Follow her on Twitter @martaruco

The post Index tells policy makers to keep the internet free appeared first on Index on Censorship.

More on this story

Witnessing Azerbaijan’s autocracy in action, Mike Harris reports from the Internet Governance Forum

Azerbaijan’s chaotic capital Baku has been spruced up this year for the government’s two propaganda victories — its hosting of the Eurovision song contest earlier in the year, and this week’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF). That a global forum debating the future of internet freedom should be held in an autocracy (Autocracy 2.0 as blogger Emin Milli dubbed it) has raised questions over the UN’s criteria for the conference hosts. These questions are growing in volume as our hosts continue to harass local activists trying to draw attention to the country’s shocking human rights record.

The overly friendly registration staff at the IGF are members of a pro-government youth organisation and security is tight and formal. Yesterday, the IGF’s Secretariat attempted to prevent the distribution of two reports Searching for Freedom: Online Expression in Azerbaijan and The Right to Remain Silent: Freedom of Expression in Azerbaijan.

An IGF coordinator told a representative from the reports’ publisher Expression Online (a group of local human rights organisations including the Human Rights Club, the Azerbaijan Media Center and the Institute for Reporters‚ Freedom and Safety):

“You are not allowed to distribute these reports within IGF premises because the report was perceived by the Secretariat as an attempt to attack one of the stakeholder group”, that stakeholder being the government of Azerbaijan. The Secretariat staff suggested that the distributors of the report seek permission from the communications ministry to distribute the report saying: “If your government does not find the content insulting we will provide you with the booth and allow distribution of those two reports.”

While domestic NGOs are subject to strict rules preventing them from distributing literature, on Twitter #igf12 hashtag continual mention was made to Azerbaijan’s poor human rights record. There is a strange disconnect between domestic repression and a new found tolerance by the authorities for international criticism.

My visit to one of Baku’s Courts today brought home quite how autocratic the regime is. Journalist and editor Avaz Zeynalli has been held in prison since October last year on allegations of extortion made by a Member of Parliament, Gular Akhmadova (who has since resigned her seat after being accused of misconduct). Today Zeynalli and his lawyer Rashid Hajili (winner of Index’s law and campaigning award in 2010) were expecting a chance to cross-examine Akhmadova’s account.

Akhmadova failed to turn up at court. Zeynalli, held in a steel cage in front of the judges and surrounded by police, lost his temper. He has spent a year away from his family in detention. It was a scene that brought home the real Azerbaijan.

The prosecutor-general claims he has video evidence of Zeynalli threatening to publish defamatory stories about Akhmadova if he is not paid a bribe. However, the video has not been entered into evidence. Neither Zeynalli nor his lawyer have seen it; instead they have been given a written transcript of the alleged conversation. It’s evidence that falls short of judicial norms. When Zeynalli addressed the court, the prosecutor-general told the judge that the journalist was “repeating himself a lot for the internationals here”, referring to Index on Censorship, Human Rights Watch and Article 19, who were monitoring this trial.

The government of Azerbaijan makes much of the fact that local journalists and bloggers including Khadija Ismayilova (the victim of a viscious blackmail attempt) and Emin Milli (a former prisoner of conscience) can attend the IGF and criticise their government.

It’s worth noting that this is not normal. Nine journalists and three human rights defenders are currently in jail — most of their cases can be linked to criticism of Azerbaijan’s leadership. There are serious concerns that while local critics of the government are safe for the moment, when the international audience leaves Baku a series of prosecutions will follow. And it’s unlikely justice will be served.

Mike Harris is Head of Advocacy at Index, he tweets at @mjrharris

More on this story:

You can find more about the human rights situation on Index’s Azerbaijan: Access Denied page

The post Letter from Baku appeared first on Index on Censorship.

More on this story

Azerbaijan’s government locks up its online critics on trumped-up charges. It’s an odd choice to host a giant international forum on internet freedom and Rebecca Vincent asks international visitors to look below the country’s modern veneer

Azerbaijan has a shocking record on free expression. Nine journalists and three human rights defenders are currently in jail — five of these cases are linked to online criticism of authorities. Others have been subject to sustained harassment, including one prominent female journalist who has been the victim of a vicious blackmail attempt.

Yet from 6 to 9 November, more than 1000  representatives of governments, civil society groups, industry and private corporations will descend on the country’s capital, Baku, for the seventh annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a multi-stakeholder talking-shop established by the United Nations in 2006. Participants’ discussions of internet governance will include human rights and freedom of expression.

Any Azerbaijani who dares to exercise their right to free expression in Azerbaijan is taking a big risk. Overstepping the mark on certain taboo subjects online — in particular official corruption and mendacity — has serious repercussions. There has been a string of high-profile cases of punitive action against online government critics.

Earlier this year, Khadija Ismayilova, a journalist with the Azerbaijani arm of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and an avid social networker, was the victim of a crude blackmail attempt. She received an envelope containing pictures of a personal nature and a note saying: “Whore, behave, or you will be defamed.” She refused to be silenced — and a week later a film of her having sex taken by a hidden spy camera was posted online. It transpired, after an investigation conducted  by her lawyer and other journalists, that illegal monitoring of her activities began days after she published an story about Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s family’s businesses.

The regime has also used trumped-up charges to persecute critics. The editor of the website azadxeber.org, Nijat Aliyev, has been in detention since his arrest in May on drugs-related charges, and faces up to three years’ imprisonment. He has no previous convictions for drug use and is not known to friends as a drug-user. Before his arrest he had attacked government policies on religion and LGBT rights and criticised the cost of hosting the Eurovision Song Contest in Baku this year.

Khayal TV executive director, Vugar Gonagov, and editor-in-chief, Zaur Guliyev, are also in detention. Their crime?  They are accused of uploading a YouTube video showing a regional mayor making derogatory comments about local residents. The video sparked protests and led to the mayor’s dismissal. The pair face up to 10 years’ in jail if convicted on charges of organising mass disorder and abuse of office.

Human rights defender Taleh Khasmammadov is serving a four-year prison sentence on hooliganism charges. He was arrested in November 2011 after he posted a series of videos on YouTube containing interviews with victims of crimes committed by a gang in the region, which the victims alleged had connections to local police officers.

Freelance journalist Faramaz Novruzoglu is serving a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence on charges of appealing for mass disorder and crossing the border without proper documentation. Before his arrest, Novruzoglu was outspoken on social networking sites, criticising the authorities and calling for protests.

Searching for Freedom: Online Expression in Azerbaijan, a new report by Azerbaijani free expression groups, concludes that internet freedom is seriously constrained in Azerbaijan — a view shared by US human rights group Freedom House in its Freedom on the Net 2012 report.

Although there are instances of content blocking and data filtering by the state, from a technical standpoint the internet remains largely a free space in Azerbaijan — and in legal terms there are no restrictions applied to online media.

But there are widespread fears that the authorities will impose registration and licensing requirements on online media outlets in the future. Azerbaijan’s Law on Mass Media includes the internet as a form of mass media, meaning requirements applied to other media could be extended to the internet.

Internet regulation is the responsibility not of a politically independent body but of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies. And its “Rules for Using Internet Services” contain provisions for an internet kill-switch plan, which contradict international freedom of expression standards.

Cyber-attacks present a further obstacle to internet freedom, notably mutual denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks between groups of hackers in Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in Azerbaijan and Iran. There have been some reports of the use of DDoS attacks by the state: several attacks against the website of the opposition newspaper Azadliq originated from an IP address registered to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies.

Six months after Eurovision, the IGF will give Azerbaijan another chance to present itself as a modern, outward-looking nation to the rest of the world. But there is more to this story, and delegates should not be fooled.

Rebecca Vincent is a freelance human rights consultant and expert on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan

More on this story:

In March, The International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan, of which Index is a member, published a report on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan. Read it here.

You can find more about the human rights situation on Index’s Azerbaijan: Access Denied page

The post Internet freedom? Not in Azerbaijan appeared first on Index on Censorship.