|

All Comments

Comments on the Pages

  • Developing Unesco’s Internet Universality Indicators (136 comments)

    • Comment by Chris Zielinski on February 3rd, 2018

      “The freedom to seek… information” is not enough. Access to knowledge is essential, and that some knowledge is essential to human development (UNESCO calls for “equitable and affordable access by all citizens to information infrastructure (notably to the Internet) and to information and knowledge essential to collective and individual human development” in its “Recommendation concerning the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace, http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/ifap2003_draft_recommendation.pdf). This shold be referred to in this preamble.

      Comment by Tom Mackenzie on February 5th, 2018

      Here you might also consider the OECD’s list of key ICT indicators

      http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/oecdkeyictindicators.htm

      Comment by Tom Mackenzie on February 5th, 2018

      Would be good to consider the results of the World Internet Project: http://www.worldinternetproject.com/

      ITEMS International has worked in close coordination with the French branch of this international project which could serve as a  model for UNESCO’s Internet Universality Project.

      Comment by Tom Mackenzie on February 5th, 2018

      In 2014 Boston Consulting Group produced report on “Greasing the Wheels of the Internet Economy” which might be worth considering here:

      https://www.bcg.com/publications/2014/technology-industries-public-sector-greasing-wheels-internet-economy.aspx

      Comment by Tom Mackenzie on February 5th, 2018

      The Boston Consulting Groups “Greasing the Wheels of the Internet Economy may be a useful resource here:

      https://www.bcg.com/publications/2014/technology-industries-public-sector-greasing-wheels-internet-economy.aspx

      Comment by Tom Mackenzie on February 5th, 2018

      Consider the (excellent) Global Open Data Index of the UK-based Open Data Foundation:

      https://index.okfn.org/place/

      is there online internet dialogue for peace and reconciliation in South Sudan?

      Comment by Alexandru Frunza-Nicolescu on March 7th, 2018

      Normal
      0

      false
      false
      false

      EN-US
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:10.0pt;
      font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;}

      In relation with the positive obligation by States to protect individuals against crime, here included crimes against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer systems or by means of computer systems, we propose that the following question be added under this theme:

      Normal
      0

      false
      false
      false

      EN-US
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
      mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
      line-height:115%;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:11.0pt;
      font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
      mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
      mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
      mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
      mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

      A.X       Is there a legal framework to protect individuals against offences against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer systems or by means of computer systems?
       
      Indicator:
      ·    Substantive criminal law provisions on cybercrime in line with international standards such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.
      ·        Procedural powers to secure electronic evidence for use in criminal proceedings and subject to rule of law conditions and safeguards in line with international standards such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime

      Comment by Alexandru Frunza-Nicolescu on March 7th, 2018

      Normal
      0

      false
      false
      false

      EN-US
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

      In relation with the positive obligation by States to protect individuals against crime, here included crimes against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer systems or by means of computer systems, we propose that the  following question and indicator are added :

      Normal
      0

      false
      false
      false

      EN-US
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
      mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
      line-height:115%;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:11.0pt;
      font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
      mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
      mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
      mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
      mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

      F.X       Is the Government able to carry out domestic investigations and cooperate internationally on cybercrime and other crimes involving evidence on computer systems?
       
      Indicator:
      ·         Domestic substantive and procedural law on cybercrime and electronic evidence (cross-reference to [proposed] question A.X of Category A/Theme A
      ·         Availability of specialised cybercrime units within police or prosecution services and of computer forensic services.
      ·    Availability of training programmes and other measures to strengthen the capacities of criminal justice authorities (judges, prosecutors, police).
      ·       Membership in international agreements on cybercrime such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.

      Comment by Anonymous on March 8th, 2018

      Normal
      0

      false
      false
      false

      LV
      X-NONE
      X-NONE

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
      mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
      line-height:107%;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:11.0pt;
      font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;
      mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
      mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
      mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
      mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
      mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

      A third indicator could be added under the question E.3 “Are services available which enable citizens to access and use local scripts and languages online?”, namely: Availability of Internet domains and websites in severely and critically endangered languages, if on country’s territory. Alternatively, the question about internet content of and public support to severely and critically endangered languages can be added as a new E.5 question at the end of the theme.

      Comment by Anonymous on March 8th, 2018

      Why in this case, in the context of rights on freedom of expression we do not ask about availability of public spaces with free on-line services?

      Comment by Anonymous on March 8th, 2018

      F.1 must be updated to: “Do school and higher educational curricula include training in ICTs and Internet, focused on effective and safe use, including critical online media literacy, and are these curricula implemented in practice?

      Comment by Anonymous on March 8th, 2018

      First of all, it is theme D and Question shall be D.3, right? Crosscutting indicator D.3 says now: “Have there been significant breaches of cybersecurity in the country within the last three years?”, and the first indicator indicates Number and extent of breaches, and numbers of citizens and businesses affected. It should be clarified does this question and indicator leave outside a situation if a country is facing a cyber-attack, for instance from another country? What if outside forces with massive attack have threatened country’s usually normal cybersecurity? Perhaps the whole question D.3 should be clarified.

      Comment by Augusto Herrmann Batista on March 12th, 2018

      This item, while important, is out of place in this section, as it is not related to “Openness – THEME E – OPEN DATA”. I think it should be moved to “Accessible to all – THEME E – LOCAL CONTENT AND LANGUAGE”, as it will better contextualize it.

      Comment by Augusto Herrmann Batista on March 12th, 2018

      Existence of open data initiatives, backed by a legal framework, in all branches and levels of government

      Comment by Augusto Herrmann Batista on March 12th, 2018

      Number and quantity of dataset are not good measurements for an indicator. Datasets can be easily divided into multiple parts to give the appearance of a higher number. Instead, the indicator should check whether or not data is available in each of a list of prioritized areas, just as the Global Open Data Index and Open Data Barometer do.

       

      Availability of public access facilities to access open data, while a debatable idea in itself (shouldn’t we encourage further usage of open data in existing public facilities and educational institutions instead?), holds more relation to the “Accessible to all” principle than to “Openness”. So, at least, it should be moved there.

      Comment by Augusto Herrmann Batista on March 12th, 2018

      The issue, while important, bears more relation to “Rights – THEME E – PRIVACY” than to “Openness – THEME E – Open Data”. When data is selected for publication as open data, it is supposed to have already have undergone privacy considerations and any personally identifiable information stripped out. It does not make sense to talk about data retention and cross-border policy for data that is already open data, and thus not personally identifiable.

       

      Should be moved to “Rights – THEME E – PRIVACY”.

      Comment by Augusto Herrmann Batista on March 12th, 2018

      Considering that copyright legislation makes everything restrictive by default, the indicator should be more clear in demanding a clear legal provision exempting government data from copyright, or the existence of a default open licensing system.

      See the research report: “Avoiding Data Use Silos“, by Danny Lämmerhirt, an Open Knowledge International research paper.

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Internet freedom indicators (appended to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation (2016)5 on Internet Freedom) (hereafter – CoE Internet Freedom Indicators) could be a valuable source of inspiration and a reference point for Theme A – Policy, Legal and Regulatory Framework (especially indicators contained in section 1 “An enabling environment for internet freedom” and in section 5 “Remedies”).

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add at the end of the sentence “and by other competent authorities”

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      “Accepted in principle” appears to be a very broad wording which might cause serious difficulties in measuring this indicator

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: replace “due process” with “effective remedies”.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add an indicator for availability of information about effective remedies to address violations of rights by state and non-state actors

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: rephrase into “Existence of an established legal framework for effective remedies”.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      CoE Internet Freedom Indicators could be a valuable source of inspiration and a reference point for Theme B – Freedom of Expression (especially indicators contained in section 2 “The right to freedom of expression” and in section 5 “Remedies”).

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add an indicator “Evidence that the freedom of expression, including press/media freedom, is implemented in practice”

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal:

      – add “other” after “or” in the 1st and 2nd indicators;

      – add at the end of the first sentence “and by other competent authorities” (Comment: courts play an important role in ensuring that guarantees of the freedom of expression are respected and implemented)

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      General comments:

       

      The CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (subsection 2.4 “Legality, legitimacy and proportionality of restrictions”) could serve as a reference point for this question and the indicators related to it.

       

      Specific comments:

       

      From the current version it is not clear whether the question seeks to find out (a) if the restrictions applied in practice are “narrowly defined, transparent, …” (that is, refers to implementation issues) or (b) if the restrictions provided for by law are “narrowly defined, transparent, …” (that is, refers to the quality of law).

       

      In the (a) case it would be crucially important to highlight that all restrictions applied in practice must be based on law. The corresponding indicators must therefore make it possible to verify that no restrictions lacking legal basis are imposed on the exercise of the freedom of expression.

      Also, after “in policy and practice” add “based on law, “. Comment: Any existing restrictions on the freedom of expression must be based on law (Article 19 ICCPR)

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal:

      – after the brackets add “and relevant case-law of international courts”;

      – add at the end of the sentence “and by other competent authorities”

       

       

       

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Further elaboration of this question and of the corresponding indicators appears adviseable.

       

      The term “censorship” has no unique definition agreed at the international level. Also, in practice this term would usually be used for restrictions on the freedom of expression exercised by professionals (i.e., academic expression, artistic expression, journalism) and is hardly appropriate for user-generated online content.

       

      Furthermore, in the cases where internet intermediaries apply content restrictions, the question of grounds for such restrictions, and especially of their transparency is of crucial importance, which shall be reflected in the corresponding indicators.

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      The indicator does not cover the second part of the question (grounds for the restrictions).

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      General comment:

      The CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (subsection 2.1 “Freedom to access the internet”) could serve as a reference point for this question and the indicators related to it.

      Specific comments: replace “citizens” with “individuals”. (Comment: states have an obligation to secure human rights and freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction, not to their citizens only.)

       

       

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      General comment:

       

      The CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (subsection 2.4 “Legality, legitimacy and proportionality of restrictions”) could serve as a reference point for the second indicator indicator.

       

      Specific comments:

       

      Information on the existence of legal restrictions as such would not be sufficient for drawing any concrete conclusions. It is necessary that the indicator allows to assess whether the existing restrictions are based on law, pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate to the aim pursued.

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      General comment:

      Possibly it would be best to separate interferences with the exercise of the freedom of expression by journalists and other media actors from interferences with the exercise of the freedom of expression by individuals.

      The CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (subsection 2.3 “Freedom of the media”) could serve as a reference point for this question and the indicators related to it.

      Specific comments:

      – it is proposed to replace “citizens” with “individuals”. Comment: states have an obligation to secure human rights and freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction, not to their citizens only;

      – it is proposed to replace “bloggers” with “other media actors” or “other actors performing “public watchdog” functions”. Such phrasing would also include, for instance, whistleblowers, which are another important category to be taken into account.

       

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      The second indicator does not take into account instances of intimidation, threats and all other possible means of interference with the freedom of expression not involving legal procedures. At the same time, it is these types of interference that are concerningly widespread.

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: replace “citizens” with “individuals”.

      Comment: states have an obligation to secure human rights and freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction, not to their citizens only.

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: replace “bloggers” with “other media actors” or “other actors performing “public watchdog” functions”. Such phrasing would also include, for instance, whistleblowers, which are another important category to be taken into account.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (especially indicators contained in section 2 “The right to freedom of expression” and in section 5 “Remedies”) could be a valuable source of inspiration and a reference point for Theme C – Right to Information.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add “other” after “or”.

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add at the end of the sentence “and by other competent authorities”

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      General comment:

      The CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (subsection 2.2 “Freedom of opinion and the right to receive and impart information”) could serve as a reference point for this question and the indicators related to it.

       

       

      Specific comments: it is proposed to replace “filter” with “restrict”

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      The proposed indicators do not cover the second part of the question regarding the grounds for interference.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposals:

      – replace “citizens” with “individuals”. Comment: states have an obligation to secure human rights and freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction, not to their citizens only;

      – replace “bloggers” with “other media actors” or “other actors performing “public watchdog” functions”. Such phrasing would also include, for instance, whistleblowers, which are another important category to be taken into account.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      The second indicator does not take into account instances of intimidation, threats and all other possible means of interference with the right to information not involving legal procedures. At the same time, it is these types of interference that are the concerningly widespread.

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (especially indicators contained in section 3 “The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” and in section 5 “Remedies”) could be a valuable source of inspiration and a reference point for Theme D – Freedom of Association and the Right to participate in Public Life.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add at the end of the sentence “and by other competent authorities”

      Comment: courts play an important role in ensuring that guarantees of the freedom of expression are respected and implemented

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (especially indicators contained in section 4 “The right to private and family life” and in section 5 “Remedies”) could be a valuable source of inspiration and a reference point for Theme E – Privacy.

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: replace “right to privacy” with “the right to protection of privacy and personal data”

       

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add an indicator “Evidence of the enforcement of these rights”

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposals:

      – in the first sentence after “including” add “data protection principles, data subject’s rights”, also add at the end of the sentence “and by other competent authorities”;

      – in the second indicator, rephrase into “the issue of accountability for the processing of personal data”.

       

       

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: in the second indicator, after “international” add “data security,”

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add “data retention schemes, access to data by law enforcement authorities”

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Would strongly suggest changing “online anonymity” to “online privacy”

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: after “jurisprudence” add “, decisions of the independent supervisory authority”

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add an indicator “Evidence from an efficient external oversight mechanism”

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      It would possibly be more appropriate to use the term “individuals” or “internet users” as participation in cultural activity (as opposed to, i.e., political) is not reserved for citizens only.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: in the third indicator add “other” after “or”.

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: in the second indicator add “privacy” after “data”

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: add an indicator “Evidence that privacy considerations are integrated in the RAA or other relevant service contracts”

       

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: in the firs indicator add “evidence on enforcement”

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Would add: “evidence on enforcement”

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      In the fourth indicator it would be more appropriate to use the term “individuals” as e-government services are not reserved for citizens only

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      General comment:

       

      The CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (subsection 2.4 “Legality, legitimacy and proportionality of restrictions”) could serve as a reference point for the second indicator.

       

      Specific comments:

       

      Information on the existence of legal restrictions as such would not be sufficient for drawing any concrete conclusions. It is necessary that the indicator allows to assess whether the existing restrictions are based on law, pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate to the aim pursued.

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      The CoE Internet Freedom Indicators (subsection 2.1 “Freedom to access the internet”) could serve as a reference point for this section.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      It would be more appropriate to use the term “individuals” instead of “citizens”.

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: after “Constitutional” add “, other legal”

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: replace “consumers” with “internet users”.

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      In the second indicator it appears more appropriate to use the term “individuals” instead of “citizens”.

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      In the question and in the corresponding indicators it would appear more appropriate to refer to “individuals” rather then “citizens”

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: consider adding an indicator revealing restrictions on the use of encryption

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      In the first indicator it would appear more appropriate to refer to “individuals” instead of “citizens”

       

       

      Comment by Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposals:

      – add “or any incitement to it” after “offline”;

      – add “evidence on enforcement” as an indicator

       

       

       

      Comment by Media and Internet Division, Council of Europe on March 12th, 2018

      Proposal: consider adding an indicator revealing the existence of reporting mechanisms

       

       

       

      Comment by Chris Zielinski on March 12th, 2018

      The UNESCO document, “Recommendation concerning the promotion and use of multilingualism and universal access to cyberspace” (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17717&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html), among other things ,calls for “Universal access to cyberspace” which it defines as “equitable and affordable access by all citizens to information infrastructure (notably to the Internet) and to information and knowledge essential to collective and individual human development”.

      The unhindered access of everyone to information and knowledge essential to collective and individual human development is crucial, particularly (and almost by definition) in developing countries. In case anyone is concerned that such “essential information” cannot be defined, note that the Appendix to the Berne Convention carries such a definition.

      This could be included in the indicator currently proposed under item C.1 (my proposed addition is underlined below):

      C.1 Is the right to information guaranteed in law and respected in practice?

      Indicators:

      •  Constitutional or legal guarantee of access to information and knowledge essential to collective and individual human development consistent with international rights agreements (including regional agreements) and evidence that it is respected and enforced by government

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      Realizing that “internet universality” is the terminology already in play for the ROAM principles, I think the use of the word “internet” is too restrictive, backward looking for the scope of the indicators. I propose the use of “digitally networked spaces.” With that in mind, I think the indicators shouldn’t be “to assess the Internet in any country” but rather to assess digitally networked spaces as an enabling environment. JJD (signing comments this way)

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      Would be good to add these indicators to the diagram, perhaps as a long bar underneath everything at the bottom.

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      How can a national level snapshot ethnic, religious minorities be included? I also propose that indicators on refugees and migrant workers also be included because of the importance of digital networks to both these populations and the importance of these populations to the picture of any given country.

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      Is there a relevant indicator about war/armed conflict that could be included here?

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      Would it make sense to have an indicator on media development, given that the internet universality indicators are meant to be a next step?

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      I would break this an indicators like it into two pieces. One would rely on the law. The other would most likely rely on the caselaw or other reports.

      I would also consider including accessibility of the law, both availability and clarity, as an indicator.

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      I think implementation in practice is very difficult to prove and that the idea–especially–of equivalence is contested, since how human rights are interpreted in online spaces is still very much in flux. I would leave it at accepted in principle.

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      Perhaps an additional indicator here or above could address this recognition in states of emergency. As a colleague has pointed out to me recently, internet violations are more likely to occur when there is political upheaval and states of emergency, so perhaps analyzing whether the law provides for the suspension of the constitution in a state of emergency would be an indicator that online rights could also be suspended under such circumstances.

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      A general question about the proposed indictors: When they are finalized, will there be examples given of what sources might be used to satisfy them?

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      Agree with the above in the sense that we also would need separate indicators to differentiate between censorship imposed by governments vs content restrictions of intermediaries and/or content takedowns as a result of overly broad copyright.

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      This indicator to me seems more a mark of access than of level of free expression. For example, in some countries engagement and use of social media may be very high although free speech is very restricted.

      Comment by Jessica Dheere on March 15th, 2018

      I think another indicator here could reference whether free expression is specifically restricted in other laws such as anti-cybercrime or anti-terror or other national security laws.

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      Since I do not think I have seen this elsewhere, I would also add:

      Evidence of network disruptions and internet shutdowns, and

      Stated grounds for network disruptions and networks shutdowns

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      I would suggest to an indicator about independence of online media (diversity and plurality are not always indicators of independence)

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      Echoing others, please change citizens to individuals (to include migrant workers, refugees, and other non-citizen residents and visitors who may be dependent on the state in question)

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      Add to possible indicators: Transparency of websites with regard to terms of service and privacy policies

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      Propose D5: Can charities and civil society organizations easily establish themselves and receive and raise funds easily online?

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      Yes, I think this indicator must address communications privacy and data protection, including metadata specifically

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      I would differentiate between targeted and mass surveillance, and perhaps use the term “lawful interception of data”

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      Expanding on the evidence portion, another indicator might be an independent oversight mechanism for lawful interception of data

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      Assuming data protection principles mentioned in other comments, need to address data storage, transfer, retention

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      online anonymity should be online privacy, otherwise, it violates the statement at the beginning saying that each question deals with a specific issue.

      also, online anonymity could be encompassed in online identity of E.6

      Comment by Jessica Dheere SMEX on March 15th, 2018

      Per similar questions, there should be an indicator for evidence that the law is implemented as stated.

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      I suggest “governance” is included in the first para, as follows:  Internet Universality’s second principle is that the Internet and its governance should be open for all to develop, participate in it or take advantage of its resources and opportunities in whatever ways seem most appropriate or valuable to them.

      The rationale for the suggestion above is that limiting the conceptualisation of this principle to open government poses the risk to also confining decision making processes related to technical issues, markets, content, trust in the internet and internet-enabled services to closed circles of the ones who hold political and economic power. For the multistakeholder approach to be effectively adopted and implemented and contribute to reinforce the public and open nature of the internet, it has to be integrated at all levels.

       

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      The public interest principle/aspect should be emphasised here.  I suggest adding it as follows:  An appropriate policy, legal and regulatory framework – including research support, standardisation and multistakeholder governance structures – is necessary to support an evidence-based, transparent and forward-looking policymaking process that will preserve the Internet as an open, public and universal resource.

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      When it has to do with innovations and the legal, regulatory and policy framework, it would be important to include an indicator related to the arrangements to allow consistency between protecting the interests of creators and the right of people to freely participate in scientific, technological and knowledge flows.

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      Maybe better to use “public policy and practice” instead of “government policy and practice”.

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      – Extent to which FOSS is used in the public education system/institutions.

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      Apart from the legal and regulatory arrangements, it would be useful to include and indicator on perceptions of arrangements for management of spectrum, domain names (particularly the ccTLD) and IP addresses.

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      The first indicator should perhaps be complemented with ones on:
      – the existence of specific initiatives and projects on access to knowledge and open content
      – perceptions of level of effectiveness of public policies and practices on access to knowledge

      In addition, there is an immense amount of knowledge that is produced with private funds but that is clearly of public interest and that should be publicly accessed. This is a critical issue in developing countries or emerging economies in which the bulk of knowledge is NOT generated with public funds because of various reasons, including low levels of  research capacity or because the financial resources allocated to research and knowledge production is limited.

      It would be good to include an indicator that addresses the extent to which knowledge generated with private funds  that is of public interest  is freely/openly accessible.

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      Regulatory arrangements and practice concerning net neutrality.

      Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      Is it deliberate that only this question refers to ‘other public stakeholders’ while there is no mention to them in the rest?

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      When talking about groups of ppl women are usually lumped with children which has an infantalising effect on women. The cross-cuts appropriately examine the issue of gender rather than women – why not start with children as the only group described and move gender to issues such as sustainable development, gender, trust, etc. to break away from this protectionist practice.
       

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

       
      Is this beyond the control of national governments to monitor – as it is written it seems to be referring to the ToS of internet intermediaries?  Certainly report and redress mechanisms for internet services – social media and otherwise – are an important factor to measure. However,  availability and awareness of efficient reporting mechanisms to government/police authorities, who in turn should be equipped with training and protocols (including appropriate digital documentation to serve as legal proof) and capacity for swift coordination with II following due process to request take down or other data would seem more appropriate aspects of indicators here.
       

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Agree with above proposal from council of europe.  Also, hopefully national “due process” frameworks in general  would only allow for very restricted access regarding the types of authorities whose competency might include obtaining data or requesting takedowns by internet intermediaries.  In some countries the legal framework exists but grants such access to information to a broad range of government representatives, or  is so cumbersome as to be impossible to implement in a timely fashion. Therefore, just having a legal framework on due process is insufficient.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Agree with Jessica Dheere’s comment above. Indicator offered looks at access more than content generation – internet use would mean both information consumption and creation. Minimally an indicator of active users (versus passive consumers) would be available nationally and geographically.  Quanitity of content produced quantified by issue or by who is producing the content may be more complex information to obtain from II but would be relevant here.  Even terms like blogger and microblogger will rapidly be outdated, you may want to consider content generators or some other more generic term.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Phrase could be read that the abuse is being practied by  women etc. rather than online censorship. Would be relevant to include other marginalised populations such as LGBTQI or ppl subject to racial discrimination to fully understand if and how vastly self-censorship is employed bu ppl who frequently face more attack.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Strongly agree with above observation from Council of Europe, intimidation comes in many ways – from bots to death and rape threats  – would one indicator be a reporting mechanism for this type of intimidation? Would a further indicator in this section link to national gov’t respect of the rights to encryption and to anonymity? (also relevant to 182)  c.2 refers to accessing information, should we not look at defamation and other charges for publishing such information?

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Without examining UNDESA’s indices, any government policy for e-government and e-participation would necessarily need to be fully intersectional – and gender, geographic, age and race sensitive.  Do e-governmnet policies contemplate generating active participation  from an intersectional point of view?

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      This indicator would be stronger if it repeated/reflected the emphasis of neccessary and proportionate above, otherwise it could be interpreted  that the indicator requires having name registration on such services, that no registration required is not an option.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Should indicators in this section also reflect absence of internet and  communications shut downs?

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      legal framework around encryption and privacy, or add encryption alongside VPNs?

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Having the proportion of adult citizens information aggregated and disaggregated  – ie by geographic location, age, ethnicity, gender, etc.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      This indicator only established that there is government responsibility but guarantees no will or actual effective implementation of functional public access points – it in no way guarantees availability as implied in A.5  This is linked to 352, as well  – an indicator reflecting monitoring and evaluation practices to understand intersectional use especially use by those traditionally excluded from the internet such as older people or those who face discrimination when they occupy the internet.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      This seems to be a repeat of 352

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      These perceptions should be examined fro an intersectional perspective, including perceptions of women and men, rural households

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Important that the disaggregated information, in addition to taking gender into consideration as cited in the cross cuts, should look at geographic and age distribution of skillsets. STEM and higher education students information should also be disaggregated.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      I believe my comment on 426 was applied to a section above. The importance of disaggregate information also reflecting age and geographic location, and ensuring that STEM and education data is disaggregated.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Regarding existence of national mechanisms for monitoring, in general monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are important indicators missing in several sections. This particular mention focusses only on access and use and not governance or decision-making.  Noting too that policy making regarding the internet does not only happen in govenrment spaces.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      The final indicator would also be appropriate for A1. How to include the importance of intersectional gender disaggregation?  Barriers and value will differ depending on ethnicity, geographic location age, etc.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      These indicators reflect access and consumer use but not necessarily differentiated use. Imporatnt to understand content production and possibly social media influence achieved.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      I find this statement offensive. It seems to put rights in as balance and assumes that to address women’s right to live free of gender-based violence as something that should be subsumed to other (implicitly more important) rights. Rather it is important to know if there are proper redress mechanisms and remedies – legal and otherwise – for online gender based violence. indicators sought could emphasise a a necessary and proportionate response, and one that is not protectionist. APC’s report to the SR on VAW regarding gender-based violence may provide insight for these indicators.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Not clear why it is necessary to separate harassment and violence as harrassment is a form of violence. An indicator on the existence of reporting mechanisms for online GBV could be relevant here.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Is it possible to add and sexuality or sexual identity after sexual health?  In the indicators it may be easier to expect monitoring of extent of the access to this type of information, rather than the extent of use (as ell as ease of access).

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      Ease and extent of access? Rather than ease of access and extent of use.

      Comment by Erika Smith on March 16th, 2018

      An indicator on having a reporting mechanism also relevant here? May be important to explicitly include LGBTQI people. HRD and journalists are main targets for abuse although they may not identify as political activists.

      Comment by Sana El Harbi on March 20th, 2018

      My suggestion is to add the following indicators
      E-government development index(EGDI)  and
      E-participation index
      https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/reports/un-e-government-survey-2016
      It is an indicator constructed by the division of public administration development management of the UN depart of economic and social affairs

      Comment by Sana El Harbi on March 20th, 2018

      My suggestion is to add the following indicator
      Open data barometer indicator
      https://opendatabarometer.org/data-explorer/?_year=2015&indicator=ODB
       

      Comment by Sana El Harbi on March 20th, 2018

      My suggestion is to add the following indicator
      Voice and accountability ( source worldwide  governance indicators)
      http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home

      Comment by Sana El Harbi on March 20th, 2018

      My suggestion is to add” Is there an online legal service in the country”

      Comment by Sana El Harbi on March 20th, 2018

      My suggestion is to add the following indicator
      Estimate of the average time to due process

Comments on the Blog

  • РАЗРАБОТКА ЮНЕСКО ПОКАЗАТЕЛЕЙ УНИВЕРСАЛЬНОСТИ ИНТЕРНЕТА: ОКАЗАНИЕ СОДЕЙСТВИЯ ЮНЕСКО В ПРОВЕДЕНИИ ОЦЕНКИ И СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИИ ИНТЕРНЕТА (11 comments)

    • Comment by Сергей Карпов on March 2nd, 2018

      В документе [48] ошибки перевода. Например категории:

      А. availability of professional media training переведено как доступность профессионального образования в области СМИ. Речь здесь идет о повышении квалификации.

      B. Availability of Academic Courses in media practice переведено как доступность курсов обучения в практике СМИ. Речь идет об академическом образовании.

       

      Свобода выражения мнений гарантирована Конституцией РК, статья 20, п 1.2. Данное право реализуется гражданами Казахстана в полной мере, если это не противоречит законодательству.

      Согласно статье 20  пункты 2-3 Конституции РК, каждый имеет право свободно получать и распространять информацию любым, не запрещенным законом способом. Перечень сведений, составляющих государственные секреты Республики Казахстан, определяется законом. Не допускаются пропаганда или агитация насильственного изменения конституционного строя, нарушения целостности Республики, подрыва безопасности государства, войны, социального, расового, национального, религиозного, сословного и родового превосходства, а также культа жестокости и насилия.

       

      Согласно статье 20, пункту 1 Конституции РК цензура в стране запрещена. Процесс добывания и распространения информации регулируется действующим законодательством.  Например, Конституцией РК, статья 20, пункты 2-3, Закон о гос.секретах, глава 3., Закон о СМИ и др.

      Это зависит от степени охвата населения Интернетом

      Вопрос не изучен в должной мере, но судя по материалам конференции “Информационное пространство в Казахстане: практики и эффекты”, которая прошла в университете “Туран” 2 марта 2018 года, в Казахстане онлайновые платформы и поставщики онлайн сервисов не несут ответственность за размещение информации(контента), хотя в ряде стран такая практика существует

      В основном казахстанцы пользуются иностранными онлайн сервисами:
      ü  Vkontakte
      ü  WhatsApp
      ü  Telegram
      ü  Facebook

      В законодательстве такое наказание не предусмотрено.

      Среди журналистов и граждан РК распространена практика саморегуляции в интернете. Как правило это обусловлено троллингом со стороны анонимных пользователей. 

      Согласно статье 20 п.1 Цензура запрещается. Вся информация в интернете регулируется с точки зрения законодательства РК.

      Конституция РК предоставляет право каждому иметь право свободно получать и распространять информацию любым, не запрещенным законом способом (статья 20, п.2). Перечень сведений, составляющих государственные секреты Республики Казахстан, определяется Законом о гос.секретах (глава 3)
      Согласно Конституции не допускаются пропаганда или агитация насильственного изменения конституционного строя, нарушения целостности Республики, подрыва безопасности государства, войны, социального, расового, национального, религиозного, сословного и родового превосходства, а также культа жестокости и насилия (статья 20, п.3)
      .
      2.1 Закон о гос. секретах РК глава 3.
      2.2. Вопрос соответствия перечня гос. секретов международному законодательству нуждается в изучении.

  • DÉVELOPPER DES INDICATEURS DE L’UNESCO SUR L’UNIVERSALITÉ DE L’INTERNET : AIDER L’UNESCO À ÉVALUER ET AMÉLIORER L’INTERNET (5 comments)

    • Comment by Emna Chaabane on March 26th, 2018

      Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      FR
      X-NONE
      AR-SA

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Tableau Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:10.0pt;
      font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;
      mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

      Le chiffrement est un moyen, parmi d’autres, qui sert à assurer la confidentialité des données. Les trois principaux critères de cybersécurité qui doivent être prise en considération pour s’assurer de la sécurité des données et des services de gouvernement en ligne, et hors ligne sont :
      La confidentialité, l’intégrité et la disponibilité.
      Proposition de modification du deuxième et troisième indicateur de la catégorie D.4 :
      –          Les mesures prises pour s’assurer de l’intégrité et de la confidentialité des données des sites du gouvernement en ligne : chiffrement, mesure pour la sécurité des données, protection anti-DDoS ….
      –          Rapport crédible d’évaluation, par rapport à une norme ou à un standard, relatif au niveau de sécurité des sites et des services du gouvernement (par exemple, utilisation de https, rapport d’audit de la sécurité par rapport à des normes et des standards internationaux …)

      Comment by Emna Chaabane on March 26th, 2018

      Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      FR
      X-NONE
      AR-SA

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Tableau Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:10.0pt;
      font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;
      mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

      On propose d’ajouter un indicateur sur le nombre des jeunes / enfants victimes des crimes sur Internet, harcèlement, manipulation, jeux dangereux (tel que Blue Fish Game …)

      Comment by Emna Chaabane on March 26th, 2018

      Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      FR
      X-NONE
      AR-SA

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Tableau Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:10.0pt;
      font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;
      mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

      – Existence d’un ERUI (ou CERT , CSIRT, CIRT …) national, gouvernemental et sectoriel, avec reconnaissance internationale/ régionale, et données confirmant son efficacité.
      – Le niveau de coopération internationale en matière de cybersécurité

      Comment by Emna Chaabane on March 26th, 2018

      Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      FR
      X-NONE
      AR-SA

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Tableau Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:10.0pt;
      font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;
      mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

      –  Concernant l’indicateur « Nombre et ampleur des brèches, et nombre de citoyens et d’entreprises affectées » : ce sont des données sensibles et il y a une réticence à partager ce type de données pour des raisons de sécurité

      –      Concernant le 3ème indicateur: Dispositions et données sur le hameçonnage, les spams, les programmes automatiques, ransomware et DDoS 

      Comment by Emna Chaabane on March 26th, 2018

      le 3ème indicateur:

      Normal
      0

      21

      false
      false
      false

      FR
      X-NONE
      AR-SA

      /* Style Definitions */
      table.MsoNormalTable
      {mso-style-name:”Tableau Normal”;
      mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
      mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
      mso-style-noshow:yes;
      mso-style-priority:99;
      mso-style-parent:””;
      mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
      mso-para-margin:0cm;
      mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
      mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
      font-size:10.0pt;
      font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”;
      mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

      Mesure dans laquelle les services de chiffrement sont utilisés par les citoyens et les entreprises, par exemple, le nombre de certificat électronique, la signature électronique, infrastructure PKI

  • DESARROLLO DE INDICADORES DE UNIVERSALIDAD DE INTERNET DE UNESCO: AYUDE A UNESCO A EVALUAR Y MEJORAR INTERNET (1 comment)

    • Comment by Valeria Betancourt on March 15th, 2018

      Sugiero añadir  el asunto de la gobernanza en la primera frase:  El segundo principio de universalidad de internet es que internet y su gobernanza deberían ser abiertas para que toda persona pueda desarrollarla, participar en ella, o aprovechar sus recursos y oportunidades en la forma en que le parezca más adecuada y valiosa.

Source: http://internetuniversality.apc.org/index.php/all-comments/