Internet standards and human rights | IGF 2023 WS #460

Report

The discussion centers around the lack of diversity in internet standards bodies, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It is reported that only around 10% of members in the IETF are female, highlighting a significant gender disparity within the organization.

Additionally, there is underrepresentation in terms of geography, ethnicity, and age, indicating a lack of diversity on multiple axes.

The lack of diversity in standards bodies is viewed negatively as it undermines the development of inclusive and comprehensive standards.

Having a limited range of perspectives and experiences poses a risk of overlooking important considerations and requirements. The current situation emphasizes the need for greater representation and inclusion in the decision-making processes of these bodies.

In addition to the gender disparity, there is a noted lack of involvement from governments and their agencies, including the European Commission and European Member States.

This results in a narrow viewpoint driving the development of standards, potentially leading to biased or inadequate outcomes. The low engagement of these stakeholders further limits the diversity of perspectives and expertise in shaping internet standards.

To address these issues, it is argued that there is a need to integrate multiple stakeholders into the standards process.

By involving a broader range of voices and expertise, the resulting standards can be more comprehensive, inclusive, and representative of the global population. Embedding diversity and inclusion principles into the decision-making processes of standards bodies can lead to better standards that meet the needs of a wide range of users.

It is suggested that better diversity and inclusion would lead to improved standards.

By incorporating a wider range of perspectives and experiences, standards can become more robust, adaptable, and responsive to the diverse needs and requirements of users. This aligns with the goals of SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, which aim to promote equal opportunities and inclusive societies.

In conclusion, the lack of diversity in internet standards bodies, such as the IETF, is a significant concern.

The underrepresentation of women, diverse ethnicities, different geographical backgrounds, and various age groups highlights the need for greater diversity and inclusion in these bodies. By integrating multiple stakeholders into the standards process, better standards can be developed that are more inclusive and representative of the global population.

Achieving this would not only address the current disparities but also contribute to the goals of gender equality and reduced inequalities.

Report

Colin Perkins, an academic with extensive experience in standard development, highlights the primary challenge faced by individuals in participating in this field: funding. Perkins argues that the lack of financial resources presents a significant barrier for those who wish to contribute to standard development.

This observation reflects a negative sentiment towards the current state of funding in this area.

To address this issue, Perkins suggests that remote participation, facilitated through video conferencing and email discussions, can be a cost-effective and efficient alternative for those unable to attend standard development events in person.

While he acknowledges that remote participation may not be as effective as physical presence, he asserts that it is better than no participation at all. This perspective demonstrates a positive outlook on the potential of remote participation in overcoming the challenges associated with physical presence constraints.

Regarding diversity in standard development organizations (SDOs), Perkins notes that diversity has significantly increased over time.

He highlights the shift from 75% of Request for Comments (RFCs) originating from North America 20 years ago to the current figure of 40%. Additionally, Perkins points out that the number of RFCs from Europe and Asia has doubled in the past two decades.

However, he acknowledges that participation from South America, Africa, and women remains inadequate. This mixed sentiment underscores the growth of diversity while recognizing the need for further progress in achieving greater inclusivity.

Lastly, Perkins asserts that engagement in standard development requires time, effort, and expertise.

He emphasizes that gaining the necessary expertise is not an instantaneous process, underscoring the importance of investing in education and continuous learning. This neutral sentiment highlights the commitment and dedication necessary for effective engagement in standard development.

In summary, Colin Perkins emphasizes the significant funding challenge faced by individuals interested in participating in standard development.

He also highlights the potential of remote participation as an alternative for those unable to attend in person, while acknowledging its limitations. Perkins acknowledges the progress in diversity within SDOs but notes the need for increased participation from underrepresented groups.

Lastly, he emphasizes the importance of time, effort, and expertise in engaging in standard development. These insights provide valuable considerations for addressing the current limitations and future directions in the field of standard development.

Report

The UK government has a strong track record of engaging in international technical standards, supporting a multi-stakeholder and industry-led system that promotes inclusivity and participation. They have recently embedded standards in the G7 agreements, highlighting their dedication to global cooperation.

The government also prioritizes the promotion of human rights within technical standards, recognizing potential infringements on privacy and personal liberties. They emphasize the importance of ethics in developing standards for emerging technologies like AI. Meaningful engagement between human rights experts and standards bodies is crucial, as is investment in organizational development and collaboration.

When it is not feasible to involve all civil society organizations directly, working with proxies can ensure their presence. The government supports collective action and knowledge-sharing among organizations to address challenges effectively. By prioritizing these principles, the UK government fosters innovation and progress in the development and implementation of technical standards.

Report

The process of standardization for technical standards is becoming more complex, involving a wider range of stakeholders and taking approximately three years from the initial draft to publication. This increasing complexity is attributed to the participation of a larger number of areas, people, countries, and companies.

The expansion of technical standards highlights the need for continuous updates and enhancements to meet the evolving requirements of industries, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

However, although many Internet Standard Bodies are open, accessibility to these standards remains a significant challenge.

It has been observed that accessibility is limited to individuals who have a technical background, understand the standards, and have the time and energy to engage with them. This lack of accessibility contradicts the principle that open standards should be accessible to everyone.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities can only be achieved when accessibility is inclusive, enabling everyone to benefit from and contribute to technical standards.

Another hindrance to engaging with technical standard bodies is the requirement of a technical background. While this may seem obvious, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all participants in the standardization process possess the necessary technical expertise.

This limitation can potentially exclude valuable perspectives and hinder the development of more inclusive and comprehensive standards. Recognizing and addressing this issue is essential for achieving the collaborative and cooperative goals outlined in SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships.

To address the challenge of accessibility and promote inclusivity within technical standard bodies, further research is needed.

One proposed approach is the analysis of standardization processes, which has the potential to bridge the gaps and make standards more accessible to individuals without a technical background. A research group led by an expert in this field is actively examining standardization processes within the International Research Task Force (IRTF).

This research aims to provide insights and recommendations for making standard bodies more accessible to a wider audience.

In conclusion, the standardization process for technical standards is becoming more complex, requiring the involvement of more stakeholders and an extended timeframe for development.

However, accessibility to these standards remains limited to individuals with a technical background, creating barriers to inclusivity. Engaging with technical standard bodies demands technical expertise, but acknowledging the need for inclusivity without such expertise is crucial. Further research into analyzing standardization processes can contribute to addressing accessibility challenges and making technical standard bodies accessible to all.

Report

CSO participation in standard setting processes is hindered by various challenges, including the resource-intensive nature of these processes and the requirement for long-lasting and consistent engagement. The costs associated with travel, membership, and participation make it difficult for civil society organisations (CSOs) to actively participate in these processes.

Additionally, continuous engagement is vital for meaningful participation and influencing outcomes.

On the other hand, government agencies can provide access to standard-setting processes, such as those facilitated by organisations like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

However, there is a significant challenge in terms of inconsistent engagement from government agencies. Fluctuating leadership and changing priorities often lead to varying levels of commitment and involvement, which can impact the effectiveness of CSO participation enabled through government agencies.

To address these challenges and ensure a more inclusive and effective standard-setting process, it is suggested that a multi-stakeholder approach be adopted.

This approach emphasises the involvement of various stakeholders, including CSOs, government agencies, and other relevant actors, in decision-making processes. The recommendation is to commence this multi-stakeholder process at the national level first before expanding it globally.

One reason for starting at the national level is that government interest and commitment to international standards-setting processes can fluctuate over time.

By establishing a strong foundation at the national level, the multi-stakeholder approach can better handle any changes in government priorities or leadership. Currently, the Philippines serves as an example, as it has not had a representative in the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for over a decade.

This lack of representation highlights the importance of having consistent engagement and a multi-stakeholder process that can ensure sustained involvement and influence in global standard setting.

In conclusion, CSO participation in standard-setting processes is challenging due to the resource-intensive nature and the need for consistent engagement.

While government agencies can enable access to these processes, their level of involvement tends to be inconsistent. Adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, beginning at the national level, can help overcome these challenges and ensure a more inclusive and effective standard-setting process.

Report

The discussion focused on the significance of internet standards in shaping our lives and the exercise of human rights in the digital age. It was emphasised that the growing dependence on the internet and digital technologies makes the role of internet standards crucial.

The Office for the Human Rights Commissioner published a report that aimed to provide an understanding of how technical standards intersect with human rights.

The report highlighted the need to comprehend the impact of new and emerging technologies on human rights. It encouraged the integration of human rights perspectives in technical standard-setting organisations. The report also underlined the importance of sharing experiences to foster a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges associated with engagement in standard-setting forums.

There was a consensus that a wider range of stakeholders should be involved in standards development to enhance inclusivity and comprehensiveness.

It was acknowledged that involving diverse perspectives is necessary to ensure that the standards reflect a broader range of interests and considerations.

Challenges faced at standard forums were discussed, and there was an emphasis on finding ways to overcome these challenges to represent diverse perspectives effectively.

Moderator Sheetal Kumar appreciated the panel’s input and highlighted the need to address the identified challenges.

One notable observation was that technical standards are deemed complex and difficult to monitor. This highlights the need for improved accessibility and understanding of these standards for a broader audience beyond those who possess technical expertise.

It was recognised that efforts should be made to encourage and engage communities that want to participate in technical standards, even if they do not have a technical background.

The session emphasised the importance of fostering collaboration between technical and non-technical communities.

The session also discussed the progress being made to make internet standards more accessible and human rights-oriented. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group were mentioned as organisations that have already started working towards this goal.

Recommendations from the OHCHR report, as well as the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, can serve as frameworks to ensure proper human rights due diligence in standards organisations.

Overall, the session recognised the challenges and complexities involved in standards development and implementation.

However, there was a consensus on the need for change and a strong desire to implement the shared ideas and recommendations. The session concluded by looking forward to seeing the implementation of these ideas and recommendations to create standards that are more inclusive, responsive to diverse perspectives, and uphold human rights.

Report

The analysis explores the issue of inequality in the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights experts in standard-setting bodies related to internet governance. It highlights that the limited participation of such organisations is due to the lack of resources and technical capacity.

This inequality raises concerns about the inclusivity and representativeness of standard-setting processes.

Data Privacy Brazil emphasizes the need for standard-setting bodies to incorporate discussions on human rights. Their submission to the Human Rights Office call for inputs underscores the importance of integrating human rights considerations into the development of technical standards.

By incorporating human rights discussions, standard-setting bodies can ensure that their processes align with principles such as freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination.

On a positive note, advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach has the potential to improve dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights considerations.

By involving multiple stakeholders, including CSOs and human rights experts, in the standard-setting processes, a broader range of perspectives and expertise can be integrated. This approach ensures that human rights considerations are taken into account and that the resulting standards are more inclusive and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) acts as a space that provides opportunities for CSOs to participate in international standard-setting processes.

It is described as an open and multi-stakeholder platform where discussions on technical and human rights issues can take place. The IGF not only allows CSOs to contribute to the development of standards but also facilitates capacity-building activities that enable participants to deepen their understanding of internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the inequality in the participation of CSOs and human rights experts in standard-setting bodies related to internet governance.

It emphasizes the importance of incorporating human rights discussions into the development of technical standards. Advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach is presented as a means to improve dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights considerations. The IGF is identified as a platform that enables CSOs to actively participate and contribute to international standard-setting processes while promoting capacity-building and discussions on technical and human rights issues.

This enhanced understanding of the issue provides valuable insights into the need for more inclusive and rights-based approaches in the development of internet governance standards.

Report

The landscape of standard-setting bodies in relation to human rights in digital governance processes is characterised by diversity and complexity, presenting various challenges that need to be addressed. One of the key issues lies in the lack of meaningful participation and transparency in the standard-setting processes.

This hampers the ability of stakeholders to actively contribute and shape the standards, leading to potential biases and imbalances in their development. Moreover, financial, cultural, and language barriers further exacerbate the problem by excluding certain groups from participating effectively.

Furthermore, there is a pressing need for equal access and inclusion in standard-setting bodies, particularly for civil society, academia, marginalised voices, women, youth, and voices from global majority.

Despite the doors being seemingly open, obstacles continue to hinder their engagement in these processes. This indicates that more efforts are required to ensure that these bodies become genuinely inclusive and reflect a broader range of perspectives and experiences. Additionally, it is worth noting that these standard-setting processes are often dominated by large companies due to their greater resources, which can perpetuate power imbalances.

However, there is a positive development in the form of a strong appetite from standard-setting bodies to improve their engagement with communities affected by digital technologies.

They recognise that their credibility and effectiveness depend on incorporating the insights and concerns of these communities. This acknowledgement suggests a growing recognition of the importance of inclusive decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the landscape of standard-setting bodies in the context of human rights in digital governance processes presents a complex and diverse picture.

The challenges that need to be addressed include the lack of meaningful participation, transparency, financial, cultural, and language barriers, and the dominance of large companies. Nonetheless, there is a growing awareness of the need for equal access and inclusion, and an appetite among standard-setting bodies to engage more effectively with affected communities.

These insights highlight the importance of enhancing participation, inclusivity, and transparency within standard-setting processes to ensure the development of fair and effective digital governance standards.

Report

The report raises concerns about certain technical standard proposals that have the potential to undermine the use of the internet while respecting human rights. These proposals, if implemented, could have severe implications for privacy and may even lead to the fragmentation of the internet.

This is particularly worrisome as the internet is meant to be a platform that respects fundamental rights as outlined in various charters.

On a positive note, the close cooperation and dialogue between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are appreciated.

This collaboration shows a commitment to addressing the challenges posed by digital standard setting and ensuring that human rights are protected in this context.

The importance of involving various stakeholders in technical environments is highlighted. The complex nature of these environments calls for a diverse range of perspectives and expertise.

It is hoped that more stakeholders will gradually be involved in these discussions to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive decision-making process.

Furthermore, the European Commission has announced new cooperation with OHCHR in the field of human rights and standard setting.

This demonstrates a commitment to reinforcing the links between human rights and the establishment of standards. This collaboration has the potential to create a positive impact and promote human rights considerations in the development of technical standards.

In conclusion, the report brings attention to the potential risks and challenges associated with certain technical standard proposals.

It underscores the need for ongoing collaboration, dialogue, and the involvement of various stakeholders in the decision-making processes related to standard setting. The newly announced cooperation between OHCHR and the European Commission presents an opportunity to strengthen the protection of human rights in this domain.

One noteworthy observation from the analysis is the focus on the Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and Goal 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

These goals align with the discussions around human rights, standard setting, and the involvement of various stakeholders. This highlights the broader context of the report and its implications for global efforts to achieve sustainable development.

Report

Standards play a significant role in our lives, impacting how we live and communicate. They shape various aspects of our daily lives, from the products we use to the services we rely on. However, standardization processes are often not representative of all regions, particularly the Global South.

This underrepresentation leads to inequalities and hinders the inclusion of diverse perspectives.

Furthermore, the development of standards often fails to consider the needs of every demographic, resulting in potential harm to certain groups. For example, seatbelts that do not prioritize women’s safety can pose risks to female passengers.

It is crucial for standards to be inclusive and prioritize the needs and safety of all individuals.

The role of standards has evolved with the emergence of new technologies and changing demands. This evolution necessitates a shift in how we approach processes and organizations to effectively address these changes.

Stakeholder engagement is vital in the standardization process.

Engaging all parties, including academia, fosters a more diverse and inclusive discussion. The inclusion of academia in sessions addressing standardization within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an important step towards incorporating their expertise and perspectives.

Brazil serves as an example of a country that actively involves diverse stakeholders in its national standardization processes.

With an open and plural organization, Brazil encourages discussion and participation from multiple perspectives.

Digital technologies have a significant impact on our lives, and their regulatory standards require comprehensive discussions. The rapid development and adoption of emerging technologies call for proactive and thorough debates to ensure that the standards effectively address associated risks and opportunities.

While some standard organizations strive for openness, it does not guarantee universal engagement in discussions.

Openness must be accompanied by active efforts to involve different stakeholders to ensure a truly inclusive standardization process.

It is essential for standard organizations to embed human rights considerations in their processes. Discussions surrounding standards should include a focus on upholding human rights principles to ensure ethical outcomes.

Civil society plays a crucial role in the standardization process, and its engagement with national governments is key to participation in standard organizations.

The Philippines and Brazil serve as examples of countries where national delegations provide platforms for civil society engagement.

However, barriers, such as membership fees associated with standard organizations, hinder civil society participation. These fees limit involvement and perpetuate inequalities.

Efforts should be made to address these barriers and promote equal participation.

In conclusion, standards have a significant impact on our lives and require an inclusive and diverse approach. Addressing the underrepresentation of the Global South and considering the needs of every demographic are essential to avoid harm.

Stakeholder engagement, including academia and civil society, is vital for a comprehensive and equitable standardization process. Openness and the inclusion of human rights considerations should be embedded in the processes of standard organizations. Additionally, barriers that limit civil society participation, such as membership fees, should be addressed to promote equal engagement.

Report

The summary highlights the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the need to identify standards for the realization of these rights. It emphasizes the importance of accessibility, specifically in terms of online access, for addressing issues related to information and rights.

The lack of implementation of standards is also addressed, noting the need for practical examples to guide developers and policymakers. Furthermore, the negative impact of limited accessibility on individuals’ ability to access the justice system is discussed. Overall, the summary emphasizes the importance of standards and accessibility in promoting equal access to information and justice.

Report

The analysis covers three speakers and their perspectives on various topics.

Vittorio, who was involved in designing the multi-stakeholder model 20-25 years ago, supports the application of this model to standard-setting organizations. This indicates his positive sentiment towards a multi-stakeholder approach.

Concerning the standardisation process for the internet, Vittorio holds a negative sentiment.

He believes that the current process is always playing catch-up due to its deployment-first nature. In his view, technology is first invented and deployed on the internet, and only then standardised. This perspective suggests that Vittorio sees the current standardisation process as problematic and in need of improvement.

Turning to the HRPC (Human Rights, Privacy, and Conditions) committee, it is noted that the current perspective is predominantly focused on freedom of expression, with a lack of representation from the Global South.

Vittorio argues that in order to address this issue, it is necessary to create more diversity in perspectives within the committee. This highlights the importance of including voices from different regions to ensure a balanced and inclusive approach to human rights.

Overall, the analysis showcases Vittorio’s support for a multi-stakeholder model in standard-setting organizations, his concerns about the deployment-first nature of the standardisation process for the internet, and his belief in the necessity of diversity in perspectives on the HRPC committee.

These viewpoints shed light on the need for more inclusive and collaborative approaches in these areas.

Report

This analysis explores the critical role of funding in enhancing the participation of the global South in standardization organizations. It emphasizes the need for continuous financial support, rather than one-time contributions, to ensure meaningful engagement. To achieve a well-rounded representation, the interests of the broader community should be considered, rather than solely focusing on government agendas.

The study highlights the importance of physical presence during discussions and decision-making processes within these organizations.

This active involvement requires substantial financial backing for travel expenses, accommodation, and related costs. By securing adequate funding, organizations can enable representatives from the global South to contribute significantly and have their voices heard on standardization matters, promoting diverse perspectives and reducing inequalities.

Additionally, the analysis stresses the importance of sourcing funding in line with the interests of the broader community.

It points out that certain programs, such as those implemented by the Indian government, often send representatives who primarily prioritize government interests. However, for effective representation, funding decisions should consider the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders, including civil society organizations, academia, and industry.

Moreover, the analysis calls for increased awareness among social science researchers about their role in the standardization domain.

By actively engaging with this field, researchers can better understand the actions and impacts of standardization processes on socio-economic aspects. This knowledge can inform policymaking, encourage innovative solutions, and contribute to achieving SDG 9 on Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

In conclusion, this analysis highlights the critical link between funding and increased participation of the global South in standardization organizations.

It advocates for continuous financial support and a community-focused approach. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of social science researchers contributing their expertise to the standardization domain. By addressing these considerations, a more inclusive and equitable standardization landscape can be fostered, supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.