Check-in and access this session from the IGF Schedule.

IGF 2018 DC Core Internet Values: Link tax and upload filtering, Friction & Core Values

Room
Salle X
DC

Core Internet Values

Round Table - 90 Min

Theme

Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

Subtheme(s)

Other
Sub-theme description: Link Tax, Legislation, Filtering, Copyrighted information.

Description

This roundtable will build on the discussion paper developed by the Coalition, named "Link tax and upload filtering, Friction & Core Values". The aim of the session is to further develop the analysis of Core Internet Values that were breached as well as to propose some way to track further breaches brought by future legislation.

Organizers

- Olivier Crépin-Leblond, EURALO / ICANN / ISOC UK

Speakers

- Olivier Crépin-Leblond, EURALO / ICANN / ISOC UK - Moderator
- Alejandro Pisanty, UNAM Mexico
- Andrew Sullivan, Internet Society
- Desiree Miloshevic, ISOC UK England
- Diego Naranjo, European Digital Rights (EDRi)

 

Draft Agenda

1. Introduction, Welcome (Olivier Crépin-Leblond) - 5 minutes
2. Brief background on Core Internet Values - what they are, what they are not and how GDPR Legislation breaks Core Internet Values (Alejandro Pisanty) - 8 minutes
3. EU Copyright Legislation and the Directive of  the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market Article 11 - how does this break Core Internet Values (Desiree Miloshevic) - 8  minutes
4. EU Copyright Legislation and the Directive of  the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market Article 13 - how does this break Core Internet Values (Diego Naranjo) - 8 minutes
5. Comment from Technical Community (Andrew Sullivan) - 5 minutes
6. Questions, Discussion - and where do we go from here (all) - 20 minutes
7. AoB - 5 minutes

Reference Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NvZ5HtoN2wAZtEnKLZCPoFGJq89CiOT15MDNodgbA7o/edit?usp=sharing

Presentation
link_tax_and_upload_filtering_-_full_report_igf_2018.pdf
Session Time
Session Report (* deadline 9 January) - click on the ? symbol for instructions
Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):
- Round Table
 
Title:
DC Core Internet Values: Link tax and upload filtering, Friction & Core Values
 
Date & Time:
Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 09:00 to 10:00
 
Organizer(s):
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond - EURALO / ICANN / ISOC UK
 
Chair/Moderator:
- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond - EURALO / ICANN / ISOC UK
 
Rapporteur/Notetaker:
- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond - EURALO / ICANN / ISOC UK
 
List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/transgender male/
transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
- Alejandro Pisanty, UNAM Mexico, Male
- Diego Naranjo, EDRi, Male
- Desiree Miloshevic, ISOC UK, Female
- Andrew Sullivan, Internet Society, Male
 
Theme:
Subtheme:
Link Tax, Legislation, Filtering, Copyrighted information.
 
Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.
1. The legislation prepared by working groups of the European Commission and European Parliament have had a significant impact on Core Internet Values. We focus on two specific processes: General Data Protection Regulation - implemented for several years but recently coming into enforcement and the recent EU Copyright Legislation and the Directive of  the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market. (Specifically Article 11 and Article 13)
 
2. GDPR reinforces Core Internet Value regarding User Centricity whilst introducing borders to a borderless Internet. It therefore does not have a one-sided good or bad influence on the Internet's development. However, how it is implemented will be the defining factor on whether its support of the Core Internet Value of User Centricity outweights its conflict with a borderless Internet.
 
3. Article 11 and 13 break a number of Core Internet Values, The fundamental problem with many of the mechanisms that are being developed is that they are not intended to allow the network to work, but to fix a social problem by messing with the underlying technology. The fundamental problem with many of the mechanisms that are being developed is that they are not intended to allow the network to work, but to fix a social problem by messing with the underlying technology. The fundamental mistake made, a deep technical mistake, is that this is a centralised system that can be directed from above. Whilst the actual problems that need to be resolved are important, the legislation that is being brought forward is actually harmful to the end goal that governments are trying to achieve.
 
- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.
There was broad agreement in the room with the panellist positions. It was also added that such legislation, whether GDPR, Article 11 and Article 13 that might have been originally intended to target large Internet companies, will actually affect smaller players in a much more significant way, as they do not have the resources to address the new requirements.
 
- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Continue the discussion about GDPR, Article 11 and Article 13.
Support GDPR but do not support Article 11 and Article 13.
Work better to inform people that this new legislation is detrimental to the Internet.
Join the "Save Your Internet" campaign.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

A lot more has to be done to communicate the challenges posed by regulation issues that affect end users. Use language that end users actually understand and explain to people the the Internet is not only Facebook or Google. Only if end users feel affected will they join the discussion.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.
There were 40 people in the room and a dozen online.
 
- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
About 40% of participants were women. This might be due to the fact that the topic might have been perceived as technological in scope.
 
- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?
No gender issues were discussed in this session.