Centre for Internet and Society

An Evidence based Intermediary Liability Policy Framework: Workshop at IGF

jyoti — 2014-07-04T06:41:10Z

CIS is organising a workshop at the Internet Governance Forum 2014. The workshop will be an opportunity to present and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition of intermediaries and their responsibilities across jurisdictions and technologies and contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.

The Centre for Internet and Society, India and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School, USA, will be organising a workshop to analyse the role of intermediary platforms in relation to freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of association at the Internet Governance Forum 2014. The aim of the workshop is to highlight the increasing importance of digital rights and broad legal protections of stakeholders in an increasingly knowledge-based economy. The workshop will discuss public policy issues associated with Internet intermediaries, in particular their roles, legal responsibilities and related liability limitations in context of the evolving nature and role of intermediaries in the Internet ecosystem. distinct

Online Intermediaries: Setting the context

The Internet has facilitated unprecedented access to information and amplified avenues for expression and engagement by removing the limits of geographic boundaries and enabling diverse sources of information and online communities to coexist. Against the backdrop of a broadening base of users, the role of intermediaries that enable economic, social and political interactions between users in a global networked communication is ubiquitous. Intermediaries are essential to the functioning of the Internet as many producers and consumers of content on the internet rely on the action of some third party–the so called intermediary. Such intermediation ranges from the mere provision of connectivity, to more advanced services such as providing online storage spaces for data, acting as platforms for storage and sharing of user generated content (UGC), or platforms that provides links to other internet content.

Online intermediaries enhance economic activity by reducing costs, inducing competition by lowering the barriers for participation in the knowledge economy and fuelling innovation through their contribution to the wider ICT sector as well as through their key role in operating and maintaining Internet infrastructure to meet the network capacity demands of new applications and of an expanding base of users.

Intermediary platforms also provide social benefits, by empowering users and improving choice through social and participative networks, or web services that enable creativity and collaboration amongst individuals. By enabling platforms for self-expression and cooperation, intermediaries also play a critical role in establishing digital trust, protection of human rights such as freedom of speech and expression, privacy and upholding fundamental values such as freedom and democracy.

However, the economic and social benefits of online intermediaries are conditional to a framework for protection of intermediaries against legal liability for the communication and distribution of content which they enable.

Intermediary Liability

Over the last decade, right holders, service providers and Internet users have been locked in a debate on the potential liability of online intermediaries. The debate has raised global concerns on issues such as, the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be held responsible for content produced by third parties using their Internet infrastructure and how the resultant liability would affect online innovation and the free flow of knowledge in the information economy?

Given the impact of their services on communications, intermediaries find themselves as either directly liable for their actions, or indirectly (or “secondarily”) liable for the actions of their users. Requiring intermediaries to monitor the legality of the online content poses an insurmountable task. Even if monitoring the legality of content by intermediaries against all applicable legislations were possible, the costs of doing so would be prohibitively high. Therefore, placing liability on intermediaries can deter their willingness and ability to provide services, hindering the development of the internet itself.

Economics of intermediaries are dependent on scale and evaluating the legality of an individual post exceeds the profit from hosting the speech, and in the absence of judicial oversight can lead to a private censorship regime. Intermediaries that are liable for content or face legal exposure, have powerful incentives, to police content and limit user activity to protect themselves. The result is curtailing of legitimate expression especially where obligations related to and definition of illegal content is vague. Content policing mandates impose significant compliance costs limiting the innovation and competiveness of such platforms.

More importantly, placing liability on intermediaries has a chilling effect on freedom of expression online. Gate keeping obligations by service providers threaten democratic participation and expression of views online, limiting the potential of individuals and restricting freedoms. Imposing liability can also indirectly lead to the death of anonymity and pseudonymity, pervasive surveillance of users' activities, extensive collection of users' data and ultimately would undermine the digital trust between stakeholders.

Thus effectively, imposing liability for intermediaries creates a chilling effect on Internet activity and speech, create new barriers to innovation and stifles the Internet's potential to promote broader economic and social gains. To avoid these issues, legislators have defined 'safe harbours', limiting the liability of intermediaries under specific circumstances.

Online intermediaries do not have direct control of what information is or information are exchanged via their platform and might not be aware of illegal content per se. A key framework for online intermediaries, such limited liability regimes provide exceptions for third party intermediaries from liability rules to address this asymmetry of information that exists between content producers and intermediaries.

However, it is important to note, that significant differences exist concerning the subjects of these limitations, their scope of provisions and procedures and modes of operation. The 'notice and takedown' procedures are at the heart of the safe harbour model and can be subdivided into two approaches:

a. Vertical approach where liability regime applies to specific types of content exemplified in the US Digital Copyright Millennium Act

b. Horizontal approach based on the E-Commerce Directive (ECD) where different levels of immunity are granted depending on the type of activity at issue

Current framework

Globally, three broad but distinct models of liability for intermediaries have emerged within the Internet ecosystem:

1. Strict liability model under which intermediaries are liable for third party content used in countries such as China and Thailand

2. Safe harbour model granting intermediaries immunity, provided their compliance on certain requirements

3. Broad immunity model that grants intermediaries broad or conditional immunity from liability for third party content and exempts them from any general requirement to monitor content.

While the models described above can provide useful guidance for the drafting or the improvement of the current legislation, they are limited in their scope and application as they fail to account for the different roles and functions of intermediaries. Legislators and courts are facing increasing difficulties, in interpreting these regulations and adapting them to a new economic and technical landscape that involves unprecedented levels user generated content and new kinds of and online intermediaries.

The nature and role of intermediaries change considerably across jurisdictions, and in relation to the social, economic and technical contexts. In addition to the dynamic nature of intermediaries the different categories of Internet intermediaries‘ are frequently not clear-cut, with actors often playing more than one intermediation role. Several of these intermediaries offer a variety of products and services and may have number of roles, and conversely, several of these intermediaries perform the same function. For example , blogs, video services and social media platforms are considered to be 'hosts'. Search engine providers have been treated as 'hosts' and 'technical providers'.

This limitations of existing models in recognising that different types of intermediaries perform different functions or roles and therefore should have different liability, poses an interesting area for research and global deliberation. Establishing classification of intermediaries, will also help analyse existing patterns of influence in relation to content for example when the removal of content by upstream intermediaries results in undue over-blocking.

Distinguishing intermediaries on the basis of their roles and functions in the Internet ecosystem is critical to ensuring a balanced system of liability and addressing concerns for freedom of expression. Rather than the highly abstracted view of intermediaries as providing a single unified service of connecting third parties, the definition of intermediaries must expand to include the specific role and function they have in relation to users' rights. A successful intermediary liability regime must balance the needs of producers, consumers, affected parties and law enforcement, address the risk of abuses for political or commercial purposes, safeguard human rights and contribute to the evolution of uniform principles and safeguards.

Towards an evidence based intermediary liability policy framework

This workshop aims to bring together leading representatives from a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups to discuss liability related issues and ways to enhance Internet users’ trust.

Questions to address at the panel include:

1. What are the varying definitions of intermediaries across jurisdictions?

2. What are the specific roles and functions that allow for classification of intermediaries?

3. How can we ensure the legal framework keeps pace with technological advances and the changing roles of intermediaries?

4. What are the gaps in existing models in balancing innovation, economic growth and human rights?

5. What could be the respective role of law and industry self-regulation in enhancing trust?

6. How can we enhance multi-stakeholder cooperation in this space?

Confirmed Panel:

Technical Community: Malcolm Hutty: Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA)
Civil Society: Gabrielle Guillemin: Article19
Academic: Nicolo Zingales: Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University
Intergovernmental: Rebecca Mackinnon: Consent of the Networked, UNESCO project
Civil Society: Anriette Esterhuysen: Association for Progressive Communication (APC)
Civil Society: Francisco Vera: Advocacy Director: Derechos Digitale
Private Sector: Titi Akinsanmi: Policy and Government Relations Manager, Google Sub-Saharan Africa
Legal: Martin Husovec: MaxPlanck Institute

Moderator(s): Giancarlo Frosio, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Remote Moderator: Anubha Sinha, New Delhi

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/igf-workshop-an-evidence-based-intermediary-liability-policy-framework

Address delivered during the IGF Closing Ceremony

radha — 2011-08-02T07:18:36Z

This address was delivered by Dr. Anja Kovacs, as a representative of civil society, to the IGF during its closing ceremony.

Good evening, Mr Chairperson and all the distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this opportunity to address this assembly on behalf of civil society, it is a real honour. And thank you also to the organisers and to the government of Egypt, for the wonderful arrangements and for creating such a excellent environment for us to work in.

I would like to use this opportunity to celebrate, together with you, two very important achievements in particular that we have made collectively during the four days of our intensive deliberations together.

The first one is the progress we are making in terms of recognising the importance of attention for human rights in ensuring a people-centred, development-oriented, non-discriminatory information society. Thus, for example, in the main session on security, openness and privacy, speakers across stakeholder groups couched the debate not any more in terms of security vs. privacy, but in terms of security and privacy. Security or other concerns, it was consistently argued, while obviously deserving our attention, should not be used to justify curtailing longstanding gains made in terms of human rights; rather, it is an improved implementation of already agreed on human rights instruments that we need to reach our goal of an inclusive, people-centred information society. The growing recognition of this fact is an evolution that civil society welcomes with open arms.

Another very hopeful evolution during this IGF was the central attention devoted to the question of where we stand in terms of promoting a people-centred, development-oriented information society more generally. The message that came out of the main session on “Internet governance in the light of the WSIS principles” clearly confirmed the urgent need to pay greater attention to this important issue, and several suggestions were made to address this concern. These include devoting devoting a main session solely to the topic of Internet governance for development in next next year's IGF, and I sincerely hope that these suggestions will be taken up.

While we thus have important reason to celebrate, challenges of course remain. Throughout the existence of the IGF, and perhaps increasingly so, the value of the multistakeholder model has been recognised and stressed by all stakeholder groups. However, at the same time, it has also been acknowledged that we need to continue to work to further strengthen participation from currently underrepresented countries and groups. I would like to note, however, that it is important that we do not restrict our efforts in this regard to capacity building, significant as that may be. Perhaps even more crucial is that the agenda of the IGF consistently talks to the concerns of actors in the developing parts of the world as well.

The reconfirmation of the importance of a development agenda that we have seen in this IGF is thus a very important step forward indeed. At the same time, within this larger development agenda, it is crucial that we also as soon as possible start to discuss some of the specific issues that require our attention on an urgent basis. For example, within the IGF as elsewhere, it is generally acknowledged that access to knowledge is central to development processes; yet the IGF so far has not paid systematic attention to the ways in which the amazing possibilities that the Internet offers in this regard are increasingly threatened by new policies that seem to make intellectual property regimes more stringent day by day. From a developing country perspective, finding a balanced solution that can address these concerns is an urgent priority. Starting the debate on how this can be achieved here, in the IGF, is certain to attract a larger number of developing country participants, including from governments.

Going by the experience of the past years as well as this particular meeting, I have no doubt that if given the opportunity, we will measure up to the challenges before us. Without wanting to preclude the Under-Secretary General's report, the proceedings during this IGF have made clear time and again its crucial significance in Internet governance processes. I hope with all my heart that we will continue to get the opportunity to work together on addressing these important issues and on resolving tensions and contradictions as they emerge, with the support of an independent secretariat that can ensure an environment genuinely inclusive of all stakeholders. Only when such open, inclusive conditions govern our own processes, may we in turn, together be able to create a genuinely inclusive information society which will indeed create opportunities for all.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/address-igf-closing-ceremony

A Dialogue on "Zero Rating" and Network Neutrality

praskrishna — 2015-11-08T04:21:26Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. The workshop on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality will be held on November 12, 2015 at IGF 2015. Pranesh Prakash will be speaking at this event.

This was published on the IGF website. Read here the details.

Overview:
The objective of this session is to provide the global Internet community, and policymakers in particular, with an informed and balanced dialogue on the complex Internet policy issue of “zero-rating.”

The purpose of the session is to help others, in their respective countries and locales, in their own analyses of Zero-Rating (ZR). The session will promote access to expert insight and multistakeholder community discussion. We encourage remote and in-person participation and aim for complete diversity across stakeholder groups and perspectives. As a main session, translation will be available in the official UN languages.

There are many different viewpoints on ZR, with some stakeholders being completely against the practice to others being fully supportive. In the open discussion leading up to this session, it has become apparent that some stakeholder approaches to ZR are more nuanced and varied than “for or against.” The session will consider the full spectrum of views.

In the case where ZR is advanced as a means to drive Internet access and narrow the digital divide, this session will also explore alternative approaches, such as the use of community networks.

Agenda:

The agenda is currently being developed between organizers and moderators. Based upon list discussion to date, the session will involve the following elements:

Introduction and Opening - After a brief introduction by the session organizers, the lead moderator will ask expert speakers to provide a brief description of how they view ZR.

Multistakeholder, expert dialogue - A moderated discussion on zero-rating amongst experts holding different positions and perspectives. The discussion will be based upon policy questions contributed from the community.

Community questions and discussion - Remote and in-person participants will be invited to pose questions to the experts, as well as to engage in guided discussion on topics raised.

Alternatives - Alternatives to zero-rating as a means to advance access, such as community networks, will be explained and illustrated.

Contributions from relevant IGF workshops - A handful of workshops at this year’s IGF will consider zero-rating. Organisers or participants from these workshops will be invited to contribute a readout to the session.

Policy Questions:

Based upon submissions from the community, below are examples of the policy questions that will be addressed during the session:

Please describe ZR as you see it in 90 seconds.
Under what circumstances are there benefits of ZR? What are the benefits? Under what circumstances are there detriments from ZR? What are the detriments?
Is all zero-rating bad? Or are there business models of ZR that are good? Should the bad models be regulated? should the good models be regulated? How?
Is ZR an anti-competitive business practice, or does ZR enhance competition?
Does a focus on Zero-Rated Internet access in developing countries divert government attention and investment away from other efforts to enhance access?
In those countries which have banned zero rating, what has been the impact?
Does ZR limit or skew end-user behavior? If so, how? Is this effect different from that of other free offerings over the Internet?
1. What are your thoughts,, for example, the following hypothetical: Imagine that Developer says to Consumer, "Send me your Internet bill at the end of the month. If you are being charged $Y/MB, and you consume Z MB of our service, we will send you a check for $Y*Z or simply reduce your bill with us by that amount.
How should regulators / governments address the potential tension between expanding Internet connectivity and the desire for “pure net neutrality?”

Host Country Chair: Mr. Nivaldo Cleto, Owner at Classico Consultoria, Advisor to the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee of Brazil (CGI.br) and Board member of the Board of Trade of Sao Paulo (JUCESP), as a Representative of the Union.

Moderators:

The role of the moderators is to keep the discussion focused, self-referencing, fluid, friendly, and on time.

Lead/expert moderator: Robert Pepper, VP, Global Technology Policy, Cisco
Remote moderator: Ginger Paque, Director, Internet Governance Programmes, Diplo
Floor and Readout moderator: Carolina Rossini, VP, International Policy, Public Knowledge
Floor and Readout moderator: Vladimir Radunovic, Director, E-diplomacy and Cybersecurity Programmes, Diplo

Expert speakers: (confirmed as of 29 October 2015)

Jochai Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA
Eduardo Bertoni, Professor, Universidad de Palermo, Argentina
Igor Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil
Dušan Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of Slovenia
Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics, UK/Peru
Belinda Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK
Bob Frankston, Computer Scientist, USA
Helani Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka
Anka Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Kevin Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Center for Internet and Society, India
Steve Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada
Dhanaraj Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West Indies
Christopher Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Plan for online interaction:

This session will include a remote panelist who will be prepared to speak from a remote hub.

Both in situ and remote interventions are being carefully coordinated to maximise a diversity of views in the available time.

This session will treat online participants on equal footing with in situ attendees, and will monitor remote attendees specifically to ensure that their requests to ask questions will be noted. Participant interventions in the session will consist of questions, at two structured points in the session. Floor moderators will collect the questions, and will consult with the panel remote moderator to ensure that remote questions are considered, as the moderators select for stakeholder balance and remote representation. Remote participant questions will be read into the session in English or Spanish by the remote moderator, to avoid 'transaction cost' (time and possible connection difficulties).

‘Feeder’ workshops and/or connections with other sessions:

We have identified the following workshops and other sessions as relevant. Each shall provide a 1-2 minute readout or preview from their session.

Workshop No. 156: Zero-rating and neutrality policies in developing countries
Workshop No. 79: Zero-rating, Open Internet, and Freedom of Expression
Workshop No. 21: SIDS Roundtable: “Free Internet” - Bane or Boon?
Dynamic Coalition Session: Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality
Access/PROTESTE event on Zero-Rating

Desired results/output:

As explained above, our desired result is to provide the global Internet community with a well-rounded and insightful dialogue on the Internet policy issue of zero-rating. The discussion is an output in and of itself, from which policymakers around the world should benefit. In accordance with the IGF reporting requirement, a rapporteur shall produce a neutral report of the session, which will not draw conclusions on the topic, but rather will summarise the main points discussed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality