The following is a first sequel to what I wrote on 1 December 2012: “The World Conference on International Telecommunications – and the Freedom of Communication.”
I was interesting to read about wide discussions for example in Bangla Desh about the present conference in Dubai – and how it may affect the freedom of communication in their country. And ISOC members in some countries – also a member of the ISOC Chapter Board in Egypt – were invited to join the delegation of their country. Different in Cambodia. There was hardly any critical analysis or even reference in the press.
But I received also a note saying “I hope to hear more about what comes out of the world gathering!”
Well, here are some voices. It is useful to read them on the background of the Internet Society – Cambodia Chapter resolutions from our Annual General Meeting in September: “…the Chapter should concentrate on the social implications of our slogan: The Internet is for everyone.”
While the International Telecommunication Union – ITU – conference in Dubai is supposedly about technical questions, their narrow or wide definition and application has obviously a lot of social implications.
The content of the following is just reproducing three reports, from well known opinion leaders, relating to the first day of the conference, running from 3 to 14 December 2012. The following three messages show some aspects of the beginning – foreshadowing the sharp conflicts that will have to be dealt with.
Sally Wentworth is Senior Manager of Public Policy of the Internet Society. As such she is responsible for liaising with governments and decision makers on critical policy issues regarding online access. She wrote from Dubai:
As you well know by now, the WCIT officially began today in Dubai. There are over 1000 people registered for WCIT from over 130 countries. At the opening ceremony, the ITU Secretary General spoke along with a recorded speech from the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, the WCIT Chairman, Mohamed Nasser Al-Ghanim, and ICANN CEO, Fadi Chehadé.
Speeches from the opening ceremony may be read here.
Of particular note was a repeated theme throughout the ITU Secretary General’s remarks (he spoke at the opening ceremony and then at the opening plenary) that this conference is not about an ITU takeover of the Internet, but about the need to work together with the Internet community, the need to reach consensus and the need to address the very real concerns of developing countries.
The ICANN Chief Executive Officer Fadi Chehadé emphasized the importance of engagement and the commitment of the Internet community to cooperate with the ITU while also respecting our distinct roles.
In the afternoon, we moved to the opening plenary which was largely (but not exclusively) a procedural and organizational discussion. The conference will have 5 committees – the bulk of the substantive work will happen in Committee 5 which will be chaired by Ghana. Committee 5 will be broken into 2 Working Groups.
Working Group 1 of Committee 5: Articles 2, 6 and 9 and related matters: chaired by Trinidad & Tobago (Vice-Chairs from Japan and Saudi Arabia)
Working Group 2 of Committee 5: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and related matters: chaired by Italy (Vice-Chair from Côte d’Ivoire)
After a lot of procedural discussion, there was a brief debate over whether the International Telecommunication Regulations – ITRs – should apply to Recognized Operating Agencies (ROA) or to Operating Agencies (OA). This issue wasn’t resolved and will be considered further tomorrow in plenary. We also expect issues related to scope to come up in plenary prior to moving to committee work. Both Canada and the USA, with support of several delegations, have urged the conference to address these issues prior to moving ahead with other topics.
We’ll keep you posted!
Explanation: The difference between a ROA and an OS is basically the difference between an agency appointed by a government and an independently working business or non-government agency. The following are the official ITU definitions – and they make it clear that so far idependent “OA”s – which were the main developers and promoters of the Internet – were not under ITU control; some want to change this.
The term Recognized Operating Agency is defined at number 1008 of the Annex to the ITU Constitution as:
Any operating agency, as defined above, which operates a public correspondence or broadcasting service and upon which the obligations provided for in Article 6 of this Constitution are imposed by the Member State in whose territory the head office of the agency is situated, or by the Member State which has authorized this operating agency to establish and operate a telecommunication service on its territory.
The term Operating Agency is defined at number 1007 of the Annex to the ITU Constitution as:
Any individual, company, corporation or governmental agency which operates a telecommunication installation intended for an international telecommunication service or capable of causing harmful interference with such a service.
Vint Cerf, often referred to as the Fathers of the Internet (together with Bob Kahn), had been instrumental in creating ICANN and was later Chairperson of the Board of ICANN, before he became vice president of Google. He made a strong critical statement in response to the ITU Secretary General, accusing him of reaching out towards control of the content of Internet communication, while for many years it was the general understanding that ITU does not control content that is being transmitted according to technical specifications and standards for which ITU is responsible.
[ITU’s Secretary General] Dr. Hamadoun Touré continues to say that WCIT is not about Internet governance while he then goes on to speak about security, spam, etc. These are APPLICATIONS of the Internet. These are NOT functions of the underlying carriage system. He must think we are naive or stupid. These statements are self-contradictory and are indicative of the mindset that is leading to pernicious proposals to invade Internet space with regulations aligned with authoritarian government objectives.
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch, working at the National Autonomous University of Mexico,
a former member of the Board of ICANN, and the Chair of the Board of the Mexico Chapter of the Internet Society, supported the critical analysis of Vint Cerf, elaborating further with markedly sharp words on the conflicting positions stated:
I’ve read Dr. Touré’s speeches in the opening and first plenary of WCIT. I found the level of fallacy and double-speak amazing.
The statement that WCIT is not dealing with Internet Governance is plainly a lie. Spam and security are not only applications of the Internet, as you correctly state; they are clearly identified as Internet Governance issues in the WGIG report, which for the ITU has to be a reference as mandatory as the WSIS agreements.
The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) was a United Nations multistakeholder Working group initiated after the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society – WSIS.
His way around this lie is that he says the WCIT is not dealing with Internet Governance because it will not deal with the identifiers under ICANN’s purview. This is a compounded cheat because it would mean that now, and for convenience, the ITU would be claiming that Internet Governance is only related to the management of those identifiers, while over the years it has made claims to all other 40 issues identified by WGIG.
He has been very smart in using Fadi Chehadé’s good disposition and call for engagement instead of a fight. This feeds the media and many governmental participants’ view that those opposing the Internet-damaging measures are “crazy”, “radical”, “acting in bad faith”, “stooges”, etc.
However the conference retains a high potential to engender damage to the Internet and we cannot wait passively for the Internet to route around it. We need to engage, intelligently and with solid information.
All praise and encouragement to the team led by Sally and the 50 or so ISOC related persons in Dubai. Let us know what we can do and also give us feedback if in our interviews, blogs, tweets and other public interventions we mis-align badly with your strategy.
The Cambodian public is hardly informed about all this. So far a report from Dubai said that only one person from the Cambodia government delegation arrived – an Under-Secretary of State from the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. Different from the preparatory process in some other countries, as far as I know, in Cambodia no invitation was extended by government agencies to the business or to the civil society sections – the non-government sectors in “multi-stakeholder” arrangements – suggested since more than 10 years by a vote in the UN General Assembly to be followed when dealing with the future of the information society.
More reports are to come soon.
Member of the Executive Committee
ISOC Cambodia Chapter
Dear Members of the ISOC Cambodia Chapter,
the Minutes of our Annual General Meeting from 15 September 2012 say at the end:
A special concern for the coming months should be to work on creating and promoting awareness of developments affecting the future of the communicating society in Cambodia (access to information, new discussions on international access arrangements, inter-ministerial decree on video surveillance of Internet access etc.). Technicalities and training are fairly well covered by other organizations where many of our members are also involved. Therefore the Chapter should concentrate on the social implications of our slogan: The Internet is for everyone.
The International Telecommunications Union – ITU – an organ of the United Nations – is convening a World Conference on International Telecommunications – WCIT – in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from 3-14 December 2012.
Preparations have been made by the governments of many countries during the last couple of months. The governments of some countries – like for example Bulgaria – have shared some of the related documents and discussions with the public, as the results of the conference in Dubai will affect its citizens; some other countries’ governments have involved business and civil society not only to discuss and plan together – but have even included members of the civil society into their delegations traveling to the Dubai ITU conference.
As far as I know there has not been any similar outreach by the authorities in Cambodia, preparing their position they are going to present in Dubai. And in spite of some sharp controversies about the principle of the freedom of expression in Cambodia, no studies or public statements on the relation of this principle, and its operation, affected by regulations of the electric and electronic media have been undertaken and brought to publicly attention. The Inter-Ministerial Circular on Management of Telecommunications Service, Use, and Corporation, issued on 28 February 2012 by the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Post and Telecommunications, has hardly received any public attention.
Internationally, the preparation for the ITU World Conference on International Telecommunications has generated a lot of discussion. I make here access available to a collection of some of such voices:
All things Internet and Law – A look at current events around the Internet, its governance, its user values, and its security.
This is a selection of different perspectives – one has to take quite some time to get familiar with all the proposals, arguments, and concerns – it is a complicated and difficult issue. But all the voices collected here are more or less united in one aspect: They all express some concern for the freedom of expression. I quote some headlines:
- Why we must fight for its freedom
- Greenpeace and the Inernatioinal Trade Union Confederation warn of government control over Internet
- UNESCO: new internet regulations could ‘threaten freedom of expression’
- Why Internet governance matters for press freedom
- A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet
- But not all governments support the free and open Internet
Not all governments – but also not all business models support a free and open Internet for all.
Obviously, so far it has been difficult to see much interest in Cambodia focusing on related affairs, along the attitude: “My e-mail works, and as long as only some ISPs block the access to some web sites, and other ISPs do not block, the situation is not too bad.”
Yes, it is not so bad – but in a democratic society, the freedoms enjoyed in society depend on the people who care that these freedoms are respected and fostered to be maintained, and where necessary, be expanded and protected.
The Cambodia Chapter of the Internet Society will regularly share more of what is going on in other countries, and on the international level – and invite that we discuss the implications for the society where we live.
Member of the Executive Committee of the
Internet Society – Cambodia Chapter
General Information on the Internet Society is here:
Contact: Be Chantra, Secretary, ISOC-KH
The international Internet Society and it’s New York Chapter announced to host an Open Forum Discussion on a new Copyright Alert System aimed at warning Internet users about illegally downloaded content. This system has been developed by the Center for Copyright Information, an association of business organizations in the USA, with a membership of the associations of big movie and music sellers in the USA, as well as different Internet Access Providers for such products: Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.
From the announcement:
The Copyright Alert System is a collaborative effort between content creators in the USA and five leading US Internet Service Providers. According to this system, if copyright infringement is detected after a final warning, the ISPs are required to implement penalties, including bandwidth throttling and disconnection of Internet service.
The Internet Society, bringing together for the first time several representatives and members of the Center for Copyright Information along with a broad range of industry organizations and public interest advocates, hopes to initiate a robust dialogue regarding the effectiveness of this new mechanism.
’The Internet Society supports the development of a robust digital content environment that will foster the continued growth and development of an open, global Internet,’ said Paul Brigner, Internet Society Regional Bureau Director, North America [and a former Chief Technical Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America]. ‘The launch of the new Copyright Alert System has generated a great deal of discussion, and the Internet Society and its New York Chapter felt it was important to convene these panels to discuss this important topic. This event will give participants the opportunity to join in the dialogue and to reflect on the effectiveness of the Copyright Alert System. The event will seek to provide information and exchange ideas regarding the operation of Copyright Alert System, its strengths, weaknesses, and the challenges that lie ahead.’
It is not surprising that representatives of the involved industry are interested to convene such an event. It is also not surprising that the Internet Society is assisting a public exchange of related information and ideas.
What is really surprising is that a number of related basic problems are not addressed at all in an event announcement which is “to discuss strengths and weaknesses” – with a stated goal “to reflect on the effectiveness of the Copyright Alert System” – which looks similar to an automatic law enforcement system – without any reference to the international discussions going on since several years relating to the present system of copyrights, its history in the pre-Internet age, and its problems. And while “several representatives and members of the Center for Copyright Information along with a broad range of industry organizations” are identified, it is not clear who the participating “public interest advocates” might be.
In the wider context considering copyrights, the following references point to fundamental challenges beyond the simple enforcement of laws and regulations.
Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright and Neighboring Rights in the Digital Environment: An International Library Perspective
The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions represents the interests of libraries and information services as well as the users of such services worldwide.
Libraries are major purchasers of information in print, analogue and digital formats and wish to ensure lawful, equitable access to knowledge contained in such works.
IFLA believes that the economic rights of information providers must be balanced with society’s need to gain access to knowledge and that libraries play a pivotal role in this balance.
The digital environment has the potential to support access for all members of society, especially those in developing countries and in disadvantaged groups, but this will not happen unless intellectual property laws continue to be balanced with effective limitations and exceptions.
IFLA believes that exceptions and limitations to copyright, which exist for the public good, are being jeopardized by the increased use of technological protection measures and licensing restrictions.
The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO – has dealt repeatedly with the role of traditional copyright regimes and related problems.
Also the World Intellectual Property Association – WIPO – has agreed that “balance between various stakeholders’ interests needs to be recalibrated” – “its debate has been focused mainly on three groups of beneficiaries or activities in relation to exceptions and limitations – on educational activities, on libraries and archives, and on disabled persons, particularly visually impaired persons.” From a WIPO statement:
Limitations and Exceptions
In order to maintain an appropriate balance between the interests of rightholders and users of protected works, copyright laws allow certain limitations on economic rights, that is, cases in which protected works may be used without the authorization of the rightholder and with or without payment of compensation. Limitations and exceptions to copyright and related rights vary from country to country due to particular social, economic and historical conditions. International treaties acknowledge this diversity by providing general conditions for the application of exceptions and limitations and leaving to national legislators to decide if a particular exception or limitation is to be applied and, if it is the case, to determine its exact scope. Due to the development of new technologies and the ever-increasing worldwide use of the Internet, it has been considered that the above balance between various stakeholders’ interests needs to be recalibrated.
It will therefore be interesting to see how the international Internet Society – “The Internet is for Everyone” – will handle this discussion, which, according to the announcement, will give participants only the opportunity discus the effectiveness of the Copyright Alert System, which even gives business the position to make legal judgments on content downloaded by users and subsequently to limit or discontinue their services – something that in a number of countries could be done only based on the judgment of a court.
As affairs in the USA often have an effect on other countries, we are of course extremely interested also in Cambodia – where, it is estimated, that around 80 % of software in use is shared without having been licensed.
In order not to be misunderstood as if these considerations were a call “to break the law” I would like to add a number of historical reflections, why a call to “legality” is not sufficient in a context where other overriding questions of the situation of a country also have to be considered.
It may be interesting to remember here that the United States of America has for a long time rejected to recognize international copyright protection – insisting that to use for free what they, as a developing country, needed from England. It is surprising that these historical facts are hardly ever remembered in the present discussions and negotiations relating to “pirated” software. Pirates kill when they cannot get what they want. In spite of the fact that not legally paid for software is in use in Cambodia – “pirated” software – the original producers were neither violently attacked, nor do they seem to be suffering much, as they are still among the biggest companies in the world.
Roberto Verzola, a social activist from the Philippines, has written a book Towards a Political Economy of Information, from which I quote some sections related to the history of refusing international copyrights in the USA in various ways – even up to as late as 1989, when the USA finally acceded to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
The United States of America, at the time when it was a developing country, “wanted the freedom to borrow literature as well as technology from any quarter of the globe” and therefore publicly and officially rejected international copyright protection for a long time. Now the USA is an economic superpower, and those who want the same as the USA wanted in the 19th century, are called illegal “pirates.”
International organizations like UNESCO and even WIPO start to recognize the problematic social justice implications when imposing the same rules on the rich and the poor. The Internet Society’s New York meeting is focused on the situation within the USA.
Whatever the outcome, it probably will have implications for many Internet users also outside of the USA.
Some quotes from Roberto Verzola’s book (the full text is made available here as a PDF file of 1.3 MB)
Towards a Political Economy of Information
U.S. Piracy in the 19th Century
Nineteenth century America was a major center of piracy. The principal target of U.S. pirates was the rich variety of British books and periodicals. The U.S. was a perennial headache among British authors and publishers, because foreign authors had no rights in America. American publishers and printers, led by Harpers of New York and Careys of Philadelphia, routinely violated British copyright and “reprinted a very wide range of British publications.”
James Barnes, who wrote an excellent book on this subject, said that the Americans were “suspicious about international copyright,” and were afraid that recognizing international copyright meant “exploitation and domination of their book trade.”
Barnes noted that “as a young nation, the United States wanted the freedom to borrow literature as well as technology from any quarter of the globe, and it was not until 1891 that Congress finally recognized America’s literary independence by authorizing reciprocal copyright agreements with foreign powers.”
Throughout the 19th century, a group of American authors and Anglophiles led a persistent but futile campaign to get a copyright treaty between the U.S. and Britain ratified. But their efforts were overcome by a much stronger lobby for free access to British publications. Authors like Noah Webster of the U.S. and Charles Dickens of Britain campaigned vigorously, but time and again, the U.S. Senate rejected proposed laws or treaties that would have granted copyright to foreign authors in the U.S.
Indeed, strong laws existed for the protection of local authors, but foreign authors had no rights in the U.S., and all foreign works were fair game for American publishers and printers. As Barnes put it, “If Americans thought of the topic [i.e., copyrights] at all they were concerned with protecting domestic copyright and not the rights of foreigners. As a country, nineteenthcentury America was akin to a presentday underdeveloped nation which recognizes its dependence on those more commercially and technologically advanced, and desires the fruits of civilization in the cheapest and most convenient ways.”
Barnes continued: “In 1831, ‘An Act to Amend the Several Acts Respecting Copyrights’ was signed… But not a word on international copyright. In fact, foreign authors were explicitly barred from protection, which in essence safeguarded reprints.”
Even the U.S. president at that time, John Quincy Adams, was himself “strongly opposed to international copyright.”
In 1837, Senator Henry Clay introduced a copyright bill before the U.S. Senate. Within days, “a flood of negative memorials reached Washington,” and objections deluged both houses of Congress. The U.S. Senate’s Patent Committee rejected “the intention of the measure,” its reasons sounding very much like the justification today of Third World countries for their liberal attitude towards intellectual property…
Thus, overwhelming opposition from various quarters,… continued to block any effort that would have granted copyrights to foreign authors in America. Not even the hired services of topnotch Washington lobbyists, as well as attempts in 1852 to bribe members of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. press, could get an AngloAmerican copyright treaty passed…
Several bills were introduced in 1870, 1871 and again in 1872, but they were all opposed by American publishers and the printing unions, because they would… “permanently injure the interests of book manufacturers.”…
And so it went. In the early 1880’s, the copyrights movement gained more strength, but not quite enough to overcome the more powerful forces that benefited from free and unrestricted access to foreign publications. By this time, however, the U.S. had already accumulated a wealth of American-authored works which were themselves widely reprinted abroad. American books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin became quite popular in England. Also, U.S. authors and their publishers had acquired considerable political clout. The U.S. was ready to “protect” foreign authors, so that it could in turn demand protection for American authors abroad.
In July 1891, the U.S. Congress adopted the Chace International Copyright Act of 1891, establishing a framework for bilateral copyright agreements based on reciprocity.,, it also set very difficult conditions, reflecting the interests of the U.S. publishing industry:
- 1. A foreign book had to be published in the U.S. not later than its publication in its home country.
- 2. All manufacturing of books, photos, chromos and lithographs had to be done in the U.S. (This is the socalled “manufacturing clause”, which is today protested by the U.S., when Third World governments adopt it to ensure that a technology is actually worked in their own country.)…
- 4. Foreign works published before 1 July 1891 may not be copyrighted.
In 1952, the U.S. joined the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), but not the Berne Convention, which was considered the “premier instrument of international copyright.” Under the UCC, the U.S. retained such protectionist measures as the requirement of manufacture in the United States.
In the meantime, the U.S. had been exerting tremendous pressures against Third World governments to adopt strict intellectual property laws and to strengthen their enforcement. By the late 1980’s, a number of governments, including Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea in Asia, had finally succumbed to U.S. pressure.
And so in 1989, the U.S. finally and belatedly acceded to the Berne copyrights convention.
1989 – a really surprising date.
Member of the Executive Committee
ISOC Cambodia Chapter
Enter a title here
23 September 2012
The Internet Society – Cambodia Chapter
presented by Norbert Klein
ISOC-KH President 2010 – 2012
Internet Society – http://www.isoc.org
ISOC Cambodia Chapter – http://www.isoc-kh.org
based on ISOC documentation, relating it to our situation in Cambodia.
The text is longer than what could be presented during the time available,
while also leaving some minutes for questions and answers, as well as for discussion.)
The Internet Society (ISOC), created in 1992, is an international professional membership society, with more than 55,000 members and nearly 90 Chapters around the world. The following presents the basic value orientation of the Internet Society (abbreviated and updated, here.
Emphasis is added in some cases to highlight content by using boldface characters
Ethics and Human Rights in the Information Society
presented at the Council of Europe/UNESCO, at a meeting on 13 – 14 September 2007
by Matthew Shears (in 2005 appointed as ISOC Director of Public Policy to advocate ISOC core values for an open and accessible Internet) and
by Constance Bommelaer (in 2006 appointed as ISOC Senior Manager of Public Policy)
Since its inception in 1992, the Internet Society has promoted the evolution and growth of the Internet as a global communications infrastructure, provided support for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF – http://www.ietf.org), and encouraged the responsible and effective use of the Internet through education, discussion and advice to public policy makers. The Internet Society’s activities – particularly in developing countries – help expand the reach of the Internet and bring benefits to people around the world.
The Internet Society works with governments, national and international organizations, Civil Society, and the private sector to pursue its objectives in a collaborative and inclusive manner. Operating at both the local level and in the global arena, the Internet Society works to make the Internet accessible for everyone, to safeguard the integrity and continuity of Internet development and operations, to support and contribute to the evolution of the Internet as an open, decentralized platform for innovation, creativity and economic opportunity.
The Internet Society has been guided by a primary principle that stresses the inclusive dimension of all its activities: “The Internet is for everyone.” This is no trivial matter and remains as powerful a statement today as it was when the Internet Society was created. “…for everyone” commits the Internet Society to a set of key drivers or core values that are principle driven and rights based…
The Internet is now a global resource, used around the world by people of all nationalities to benefit themselves and others. Unlike so many of the resources we struggle to manage in a globally sensitive way, the Internet is precious, but not exhaustible. The more who use it, the more powerful it becomes for all of us.
At the Internet Society, we believe that that global success of the Internet reflects the importance of a series of considerations that emerged from developing the technology and the protocols that enabled it… In promoting the Internet and access to it across the world, we seek to promote those values. Our vision of “The Internet is for everyone” is based upon the following core values:
- The quality of life for people in all parts of the world is enhanced by their ability to enjoy the benefits of an open and global Internet,
- Well informed individuals make up the foundation of an open and global Internet society,
- The Internet’s open and decentralized nature is the prerequisite for it to continue being a platform for innovation and creativity,
- Promoting the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of all implies a combination of global initiatives and the local engagement of people in their home regions,
- Technical standards and Internet operating procedures should be developed and asserted through open and transparent processes, with access to information and incentives to participate for everyone,
- The social, political, and economic benefits of the Internet are substantially diminished by excessively restrictive government or private controls on computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure or Internet content, but constantly affirmed and promoted by an ethical information society.
These core values are based upon the principles that underpin the evolution of the Internet itself. For example, from the early days of the Internet there has been a commitment to a powerful, user driven notion, that of bottom-up processes, in which individuals come together and solve problems and identify opportunities through a process of common agreement and understanding. This is an empowering notion, encouraging knowledge-sharing and community building.
The Internet Society’s core values embrace principles that are essential to progress, enlightenment, and the bettering of human welfare. These principles include: openness, transparency, education, freedom to information and freedom to create and innovate, etc. These are not new principles; rather they have been agreed and committed to by individuals, communities and governments around the globe. They are enshrined in a range of conventions, charters, constitutions and other documents that reflect and guide the tenets of society and individuals such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights…
Note: Both documents mentioned above need to be considered in Cambodia:
Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Article 31: “The Kingdom of Cambodia shall recognize and respect human rights as stipulated in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of human Rights, the covenants and conventions related to human rights, women’s and children’s rights.”
Cambodia signed the Covenant on 17 Oct 1980 and acceded to it on 26 May 1992.
The Internet Society believes that the Internet thrives best when these fundamental principles underpin its deployment and evolution…
The Internet Society also promotes a set of user-related abilities that echo and illustrate these fundamental principles:
- The Ability to Connect. The edge-dominant end-to-end architecture of the Internet is essential to its utility as a platform for innovation, creativity, and economic opportunity. To preserve this quality, we will oppose efforts to establish standards or practices that would make it difficult or impossible for some users of the Internet to use the full range of Internet applications of all kinds.
- The Ability to Speak. The Internet is a powerful mass medium for self-expression which depends on the ability of its users to speak freely. We believe that the Internet must support private – and, where appropriate, anonymous – means of communication and collaboration among individuals and groups, and will oppose efforts to restrict the type or content of information exchanged on the Internet.
- The Ability to Innovate. The remarkable growth of the Internet and the limitless variety of Internet applications follow directly from the open model of Internet connectivity and standards development…
- The Ability to Share. The many-to-many architecture of the Internet makes it a powerful tool for sharing, education, and collaboration. It has enabled the global open source community to develop and enhance many of the key components of the Internet…
- The Ability to Choose. Government regulation and the economic power of incumbent telecommunication monopolies can delay or prevent the growth of the Internet by limiting the ability of competitors to provide new, better, cheaper, or more innovative Internet-related services. We advocate policies that promote competition in telecommunications, Internet services, Internet-related software, and e-commerce applications.
- The Ability to Trust. Everyone’s ability to connect, speak, innovate, share, and choose depends on the Internet’s ability to support trustworthy internetworking – ensuring the security, reliability, and stability of increasingly critical and pervasive applications and services.
The issue may be not that we need new rights because of the Internet, but that we need to reinforce existing rights because the Internet has shown how fragile they can be when new technologies or new economic models are introduced.
The Internet challenges typically hierarchical structures, whether they are societal, economic, or political in their nature. It is a tool that has evolved through empowered users and communities – its very existence encourages empowerment and its success is dependent upon it…
The Internet is about opportunity, empowerment, knowledge and freedom. It has been built on these principles and its future success is dependent upon them. Basic and fundamental rights underpin these principles and the vision that The Internet is for everyone. We wholeheartedly support a more consistent application of these rights and do not support or condone any activity that restricts or abuses human rights in any context, on the Internet or otherwise. The future of the Internet, and the future of those who will use the Internet, depends on our communal effort to ensure these rights are respected.
The full text is available here
The Internet Society – Cambodia Chapter is part of this global network – located in our particular situation. Actually, there are links way back in history.
In 1996, now the Director General of the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications, Mr. Mao Chakrya and I – after I had started the first public connection to the Internet from Cambodia in 1994 – were invited by the Internet Society in 1996 for a two weeks training workshop in Montreal/Canada “for persons from countries in the early stages of inter-networking.”
According to The Cambodia Daily of 21 September 2012, Mr. Mao Chakrya has just now been appointed as Chairperson of the newly created Telecommunications Regulator of Cambodia. We do not yet know what this will bring, as he is quoted to have said that the Telecommunications Regulator of Cambodia would for now only deal with the licensing of telecommunication operators, until a proposed telecommunications law takes effect, now being drafted and at the Council of Ministers.
But there is also the Inter-Ministerial Circular on Management of Telecommunications Service Use and Corporation from 28 February 2012, signed by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Sar Kheng [Ministry of Interior] and Minister So Khun [Ministry of Post and Telecommunications], which affects the access and use of the Internet in the country. I quote some sections, from a non-official English translation, saying at the end that all affected institutions “shall collaborate in effectively implementing this circular after the date of signature” – that means these regulations are now already in power. The Circular says among others:
4) All telecommunications operators, sales outlets and distributors are obliged to take responsibilities of controlling copied National Identity Cards, identity cards or monk’s identity cards of any subscriber and ensure used data recording techniques for 6 months.
5) All telecommunications operators, sales outlets and distributors are obliged to provide necessary documents including users’ Identity Cards and used data as requested by the competent authorities for purposes of investigation of any offense which is involved in issues of national security, safety and social order. All telecommunications operators, sales outlets and distributors who are involved shall provide sufficient documents, the competent authorities have requested, at the earliest time; despite days-off, national and international holidays, there shall be any staff permanently on duty to fulfill the obligation.
6) The Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Post Telecommunications will task officials to permanently work with all telecommunication operators; in the meantime, shall task officials to collaborate with all sales outlets and distributors who are involved in order to conduct timely investigation of data documents.
Context Reflection: The Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia – and the Law
There is no reference that “investigation of data documents,” which may involve the privacy of persons, shall be done based on decisions by a court, as is standard in many other countries. – The Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia from 1993 (when the Internet was not a reality in the country) protects the privacy of other forms of communication, and it may be argued by analogy that this should also relate to the Internet. The Constitution says:
Cambodia is a Kingdom with a King who shall rule according to the Constitution and to the principles of liberal democracy and pluralism
The right to privacy of residence and to the secrecy of correspondence by mail, telegram, fax, telex, and telephone shall be guaranteed.
Any search of the house, material and body shall be in accordance with the law.
This Inter-Ministerial Circular is not a law – it was not passed by the National Assembly, but it can be applied already.
10) The Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Post and Telecommunications request all telecommunications operators, sales outlets and distributors as well as telecommunications service subscribers to collaborate in effectively implementing the Inter-Ministerial Circularâ€™s spirit in order to contribute to protection of social security, safety and order.
If any telecommunications operators, sales outlets and distributors do not collaborate in implementing this Inter-Ministerial Circular, the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications will take measures of withdrawing the corporation licenses.
In case any telecommunications operators, sales outlets and distributors do not collaborate in implementing this Inter-Ministerial Circular, thus becoming a cause of offense, the Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Post and Telecommunications will collaborate in collecting information and sending the case to court for legal action.
Are we all aware that these regulations exist and can be investigated and enforced any time now? Even if we did not know them, we are still under the last paragraph above: if we do not comply, our case can go to court for legal action.
While ISOC was in its early years – in a way more narrowly – technologically oriented, the fields of concern have expanded more recently. This important re-orientation happened after the technology and infrastructure aspects of the Internet were much more settled than in 1992. The Internet became, in many countries, an indispensable tool for life in the modern sectors of society, and so the social implications of having such an instrument of fast, worldwide, and relatively cheap means of communication was more and more recognized as posing also social and political questions.
Following on the creation of the position of an ISOC Director of Public Policy, and a first appointment in 2005, in 2011, Markus Kummer, an internationally recognized leader in a broad range of Internet policy issues, was appointed by the Internet Society as Vice President of Public Policy, to promote the core values of the Internet.
In general, the Internet Society works according to the so called “multi-stakeholder principle.” This principle started to be recognized by a majority of the governments of the world through a decision by the UN General Assembly in 2001, stating that for the 2003 and 2005 UN World Summits on the Information Society, governments should cooperate with “intergovernmental organizations, including international and regional institutions, non-governmental organizations, civil society and the private sector to contribute to, and actively participate in, the intergovernmental preparatory process of the Summit and the Summit itself.”
This principle has been maintained also in the follow-up processes on the World Summits.
It was demonstrated at the meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in February 2012, on the Right to the Freedom of expression on the Internet: Internet Society Welcomes Decision by the 18th Human Rights Council for the Creation of a Multi-Stakeholder Panel on Freedom of Expression on the Internet.
I deal with these issues here more in detail, because the conflictive differences of opinion, which showed up at that UN event, reflect also some aspects of discussions in Cambodia.
I had written in my personal blog about this UN Human Rights Council session on 4 March 2012 under the heading “The Freedom of Expression – China and Cambodia – and the Internet.” I had written at that time:
I share this information here, because Mr. Xia Jingge, representing China [at the UN Human Rights Council], stated that he is not only presenting the position of his government on the issue of the Freedom of Expression on the Internet, but that he is also speaking on behalf of Cambodia, and of some other countries.
A non official translation of a transcript of the Statement makes it possible to see in which way the concerns expressed in the Concept Note to “identify positive and practical steps that Member States can take to respect, protect and promote the right to freedom of expression on the Internet” are implemented; Mr. Xia Jingge – 夏經閣 – stated:
I am honored to deliver a joint statement on behalf of the following countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Peoples Republic of [North] Korea, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zimbabwe and China.
The Internet has become an indispensable tool of our daily lives and plays an important role in human development. The right to freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights and should be respected and protected. Free expression of opinion, receipt and dissemination of useful information through different media, including the Internet, can further the promotion of mutual understanding and common development of the peoples.
However, freedom of expression is not absolute and should be exercised in strict accordance with the international laws, especially with respect to Article 19, 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Neither should it be used as a pretext for activities in violation or even destruction of human rights and elements of freedom, the absence and abuse of freedom of expression on the Internet in particular, can encroach on the rights and dignity of other individuals and social stability and security and even national security.
The Internet is often used to propagate terrorism, extremism and racism, xenophobia even ideas of toppling legitimate authorities. Moreover, the Internet is used by some groups to distort fact, exaggerate situation and provoke violence in an attempt to acetate tension it appears and gain political benefits and is also used by criminals for outlawed activities and have access to facilities. The Internet has also been used to disseminate pornographic and violent information that corrupts people’s mind, affront their cultural values and induce them to be involved in criminal activities, in this regards, children are most vulnerable and frequently become active victims. The digital divide has prevented people from developing countries from access to information through the Internet. we affirm the importance of using the Internet in compliance with Intellectual Property rights protection. At the same time, we believe any technical impediment to restrict access to the Internet in the name of intellectual property rights should not be used. We call on the international community, to cooperate to promote access to the Internet and new technology in the developing countries.
Mr. Moderator, all stakeholder of the Internet should make concerted efforts to prevent and combat the abuse of Freedom of Expression on the Internet. Internet users of all countries should respect the right and dignity of others; contribute to maintaining social stability and safeguarding national security. The Internet industry should act to foster a crime free, reliable and secure cyberspace, Governments should strengthen legislation in efforts of Internet regulation and law enforcement activities, with the aim of combating criminal activities. All countries should start as soon as possible to discussion on effective ways to promote international cooperation on Internet regulation for building safety and confidence on the Internet. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.
It was not explained which Ministries of the Kingdom of Cambodia were involved in proposing to join the Statement presented by the representative of China also on behalf of Cambodia.
The Internet Society presented our position that the success of the internet “is based on an open and collaborative approach to technology development… The core values of the internet pioneers are deeply rooted in the belief that the human condition can be enhanced through the reduction of communication and information barriers,” ISOC Vice-President for Public Policy Markus Kummer, said. “These unique enabling qualities of the internet should be preserved. – Governments have the responsibility to enforce the laws that are in place. However, they also have the obligation to guarantee fundamental rights. There have been many examples of technological measures used to restrict access to content deemed undesirable, without due regard to the potential impact on individuals’ capacity to exercise their fundamental rights.”
At the Annual General Meeting of Internet Society – Cambodia Chapter, on 15 September 2012, the importance of being aware and sharing such awareness of these core values was discussed and considered as one of the most important fields for our work during our activities.
13 September 2012
The Marco Civil da Internet = Internet Bill of Rights aims to guarantee basic protections for internet users. In development since 2009, the civil regulatory framework was created through public consultation and has undergone many changes, eventually reaching the Brazilian Chamber this year. The bill has catapulted Brazil to a progressive position in digital policymaking, potentially serving as a model for other countries trying to balance user rights against interests of online companies and law enforcement. The crucial vote will take place in Brazil’s Congress on 19 September.
“The report was prepared after listening to experts in several public hearings throughout Brazil, offering the opportunity for all segments to demonstrate about the use of the internet,” President of the Special Committee of Marco Civil, João Arruda said. He continued: “The important thing is that our legislation will ensure the basic rights of internet users, such as freedom of expression, privacy and network neutrality.”
“[Users will know] that their personal data will be protected, their privacy will not be violated, what they will be free to browse and that they will not see their connection degraded (with a slow speed) without justification,” adds Guilherme Varella, a lawyer with the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC). “Net neutrality becomes a basic principle, providing equal conditions for navigation.” Indeed, if the bill is adopted, Brazil will be one of the first countries to guarantee net neutrality in South America, protecting the right of consumers to access content, applications, services and hardware of their choice without restrictions imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or governments.
“It also ensures freedom of expression,” Varella says. “It stipulates competently responsibility of the users and providers of content posting and removal, brings more transparency to this dynamic (…) For all that, the Marco Civil is essential and should be approved, as soon as possible, by the Federal Congress.”
“[It] will work in Brazil as a kind of constitution for the internet,” Alessandro Molon, Rapporteur of the Special Committee of Marco Civil, said: “A sort of bill of rights and duties, principles and guarantees of the internet as a whole. That is why I am working hard so that the vote takes place as soon as possible and Brazilians may have this bill of rights protecting the essential features of the internet, so that it remains what it is and what it should be: free, open, democratic, decentralized and so on.”
On 24 August 2011, the Marco Civil was sent by the President to the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Brazil’s Congress before which bills are laid.
A brief controversy arose over the bill’s wording, notably its implications for net neutrality, and local telecommunications companies have strongly opposed elements of the framework. However recent changes to the bill made clear measures to protect users’ personal data and to require ISPs to inform the public of content removal.
What makes the Marco Civil unique is the way Brazilian civil society has mobilized to get it approved and worked together to galvanise public support. During the Second Forum on the Internet, activists drafted and handed a letter of approval and 30 Brazilian and 18 international organizations came out in support.
The importance of the internet freedom movement was highlighted when we realized that the government is prioritizing a vote on cybercrime laws over Marco Civil. The cybercrimes bill, created as an alternative to PL84/99 (the Brazilian version of SOPA), will face a vote on 19 September, the same day as the Marco Civil vote. Despite a survey by Mega Não showing cybercrime affected only 0.44 per cent of internet users in Brazil last year, the current government favors of corporate interests over digital freedom.
This agenda is not unique to Brazil: similar battles are due to take place at the end of the year at the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai. Yet the internet is too important to be subjugated to government or economic interests.
Molon believes that the bill “is making an important contribution not only to protect the internet in Brazil, but also to protect the future of network worldwide.”
19 September will see if that contribution will become a reality.
João Carlos Caribé is an internet activist in Brazil and leader of the Mega Não campaign against internet censorship. He tweets at @caribe
NOTE (4 October 2012):
In the meantime it has been reported that the discussion and decision has been postponed.
The original text of the bill, in Portuguese, is here:
This posting is to share information from another Chapter in Asia – from Nepal. http://www.isoc.net.np/ They organized recently a meeting together with the Digital Media Committee of the Federation of Nepali Journalists on “Freedom of Expression” and Internet …!”
The Chapters of the Internet Society are not uniform allover the world, but according to the interests of its member, who want to deal with specific issues in society, their programs show a wide variety – either by organizing their own programs, or by cooperating with others on common concerns.
Showing here a report from Nepal is also to invite members of our Chapter to suggest what you would like our Chapter to take up.
Our Annual General Meeting, scheduled to be held on Saturday, 15 September at 14:00, will provide a special opportunity to report about the past year, to share, to discuss, and to plan ahead. Please consider what you want to have considered – and attend our most important annual event.
President – ISOC Cambodia Chapter
But now have a look here:
“Freedom of Expression” and Internet …!”
By RayZnews – 12 August 2012
Kathmandu Nepal: The Digital Media Committee (DMC) of the Fedaration of Nepali Journalists(FNJ) and the Internet Society Nepal organized a program on freedom of expression and its pros and cons in internet world of World Wide Web. Highlighting the concept and use of internet as a modern day tool of freedom of expression, different journalist, online activists, reporters, bloggers, experts etc opined their experiences and thoughts.
Baburam Aryal president of ISOC Nepal and a law expert said, “Freedom of expression is a constitutional right. It has many technical aspect of judgment but it should not be a means any legal action. It should not be criminalized but it should have a legitimate restriction. Our system is rigid and it holds many loop holes which needs to be timely updated and addressed.”
Speaking on the issue, Om Sharma, General Secretary of FNJ said, “The federation has been working towards making the journalists aware about their rights. Freedom of expression and the use of Internet is very dynamic in every sense of its operation and use where we all are aware and we are working towards making it a powerful tool.”
“Today internet has evolved as a concept of multi-stakeholders where its reach and definition is changing accordingly. In saying this, the reach and concept of internet has been dynamic to its use, where DMC is working raising awareness of its use in journalists and are further planning to expand the horizon. We believe that internet is a tool and it should be use more effective and efficiently in facilitating a journalist,” said Ujjwal Acharya, Committee Leader DMC.
Internet Governance – governments, the private sector, and civil society all can state their interest
[Apologies again for the late publication - My computer problems are not yet all solved.]
In 2003 and 2005 the United Nations convened two World Summits for the Information Society – WSIS 1 and WSIS 2 – based on a decision by the United Nations General Assembly, in a new way not usual until that time: the preparation and the Summits were “multi-stakeholder” events, where government representatives, the private business sector, and civil society all had their opportunities to contribute.
The follow-up was entrusted to an Internet Governance Forum – IGF – again a multi-stakeholder forum for policy dialogue on issues of Internet Governance. It brings together all stakeholders in the internet governance debate, whether they represent governments, the private sector, or civil society, on an equal basis and through an open and inclusive process.
To further bring this process closer to the ongoing developments, regional and national IGF initiatives were started, following the principles and practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and multi-stakeholder participation.
Though these events do not have decision making power, their suggestions get wide distribution. To which extent they lead to decisions, depends mainly on the local interest and response. It is therefore that parts of the following is also shared in our Monthly Letter for the Month of August 2012.
We are, of course, interested to get feedback and comments – maybe also suggestions towards our Annual General Meeting scheduled for 15 September 2012.
President, ISOC Cambodia Chapter
= = =
Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to the
2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes in the Region
We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18 to 20 July 2012 in Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum.
We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organized two panel discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and Information” and “Civil Society in Internet Governance/Policymaking” during the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights concerns in relation to the Internet:
Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression
The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards.
In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of reprisals from the government or its agents.
We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3) of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds… any limitation to freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of governments or intermediaries…
… While we recognize the need to address cybercrime and legitimate national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or sharing legitimate social or political critique…
Software? No problem as long as it works?
[Apologies for the late publication - I hope my computer problems are now solved for a while.]
We all use software when we use computers – for work or for fun. And in Phnom Penh software is available all over town for the price of one, or maybe up to four dollars per disk, programs that would cost hundreds of dollars in other countries. There must be some problem – and the Internet Society is one of the interested platforms to look into the matter and maybe to also get involved in finding responses – or even solutions.
What is behind this vast gap in software prices? Legally registered commercial software is expensive, as it is covered by copyright – but if it is copied without a license, it is cheap. And there is also Open Source software, which is legally free from license fees.
When Cambodia had overcome the fatal experience of the Khmer Rouge period, the country continued to be internationally isolated by boycotts and embargoes – until the UNTAC intervention 1992/1993 ushered in a new era, leading to the present Constitution and the Kingdom of Cambodia; since then, new international contacts started to expand.
As one step of this re-entering into the worldwide community of nations, Cambodia applied to join the World Trade Organization in 1994 – “The WTO is a rules-based, member-driven organization. All decisions are made by the member governments, and the rules are the outcome of negotiations among members.” But getting these benefits of membership entails also obligations.
It was only in 2003, after lengthy negotiations, that the WTO decided the following, based on the agreements achieved, and the commitments expressed by the Cambodian side:
The Kingdom of Cambodia may accede to the WTO Agreement on the terms and conditions set out in the Protocol annexed to this Decision.
Minutes of these negotiations were published in an 83 pages document. I quote here only a few of the many sections which are related to the protection of intellectual property: movies and videos, books, music, industrial products of special trademark protected designs, and, of course, computer software.
The document is with a click here; then select the Cambodia line, and there WT/ACC/KHM/21 for download.
WTO – Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Cambodia
15 August 2003
4. The representative of Cambodia said that Cambodia had embarked on a process of fundamental political and economic reforms since the adoption of a new Constitution in 1993…
5. His Government had developed a “triangle strategy”, aimed at restoring peace, ensuring sustainable development, and integrating Cambodia into the world community. Reforms had been implemented simultaneously in many areas, including administrative reform; legal and judicial reform of the financial, economic and trade regime; and military reform.
6. Accession to the WTO was one of the highest priorities of his Government. Closer integration into the world economy was seen as a powerful instrument to alleviate poverty and the main driving force for socio-economic development…
7. Implementation of WTO requirements was, however, a lengthy and difficult process. In view of the difficulties his country was facing, and bearing in mind Cambodia’s status as a least-developed economy, the representative of Cambodia called on members of the Working Party to be flexible in the negotiations to establish Cambodia’s WTO commitments and to extend special and differential treatment…
176. The representative of Cambodia said that a new Law on Copyright and Related Rights had been adopted by the Council of Ministers in March 2002, and ratified by the National Assembly and the Senate on 21 January 2003.
But even so, Cambodia negotiated a delay for the need to enforce copyright protection until 2007. And in 2007 the terms were re-negotiated to be extended to 2013.
Now, on 21 June 2012, The Cambodia Daily reported that the Var Roth San, Director of the Intellectual Property Department of the Ministry of Commerce, said:
“We want our country to implement this law properly in a prompt manner, but we are still poor and do not have the ability to do that right now.”
He said that due to a lack of knowledge in the country’s courts about copyright laws, and the inability of police to enforce them, Cambodia will likely ask the WTO for another extension.
This is definitely a surprising statement about Cambodia’s courts and law enforcement authorities.
Equally surprising is that the quoted statement does not refer at all to the critical international discussion about traditional copyrights at all, considered to be imbalanced and favoring the rich more than the public. The Internet Society has been actively involved internationally, and concerned members of national chapters in different countries nationally, in this debate.
And the statement from the Ministry of Commerce does also not refer to the Master Plan for Information and Communication Technology in Education (2009 – 2013) of the Ministry of Education, which has set out clear policy guidelines how the high cost of legally registered commercial software is being avoided by using and teaching the use of Open Source software in the Ministry, the Teachers Training Colleges, the Provincial Departments of Education, and in many educational institutions.
The Master Plan can be found with a click here, in English.
And here in Khmer.
The members of the Internet Society can play an important role in clarifying the situation related to software copyright, and to promote the use of legally free Open Source software. How to download related information and programs is on our web site, down on the left margin:
ISOC Cambodia member relations
KhmerOS – English – http://www.khmeros.info/drupal612/en/
KhmerOS – Khmer – http://www.khmeros.info/drupal612/km/
ISOC Cambodia Chapter
Dear Members of the Internet Society – Cambodia Chapter,
the Asia Pacific Network Network Information Center – APNIC – will hold the APNIC 34 Conference in Cambodia from 21 to 31 August 2012, bringing together Internet and networking experts from around the Asia Pacific region to network with colleagues, attend plenaries and tutorials, and discuss policies. More details about the conference are here; the link to APNIC is always on our website at the right side column under the The international information context
In the following you will find the announcement of Fellowships to participate in the APNIC 34 Conference. As the text says, it is aiming at a participants especially involved in technical networking issues – and in this year with a special emphasis on the new networking protocol IPv6.
Please let me know if you apply.
ISOC Cambodia Chapter
APNIC 34 Fellowship Now Open
At APNIC, we understand that it may be difficult for our Members and stakeholders from developing economies to attend APNIC Conferences.
In response, APNIC provides several Fellowship awards to enable people >from these developing economies to attend the APNIC Conference free of charge.
Benefits of APNIC Fellowships
– Acquire hands-on experience in IPv6 transition and deployment strategies
– Attend all workshops and tutorials at the APNIC 34 Conference
– Participate in policy discussions that will affect how your organization accesses Internet number resources
– Meet a wide range of people in the Internet industry from around the world
APNIC promotes gender equality and creates opportunities for all. The APNIC Fellowship program encourages women in ICT to participate and contribute to the APNIC policy development process.
For more information about the Fellowship award packages, selection process, and submissions, please visit our website:
The deadline for submissions is Wednesday, 30 May 2012 at 17:30 (UTC +10).
APNIC Secretariat firstname.lastname@example.org
Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC) Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD http://www.apnic.net
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
The Internet Society Expresses Concern About Cybersecurity Legislation Currently Under Consideration in the USA
After plans in the USA for the legislative projects of a Stop Online Piracy Act – SOPA and a Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – ACTA – had been given up in view of widespread – also international – criticism, a Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act – CISPA – is now under consideration, introduced in the US House of Representatives as by Mike Rogers (Republican) on 30 November 2011. It is reported that President Obama has stated that the bill lacks confidentiality and civil liberties’ safeguards, and he may veto it.
The – international – Internet Society took up these plans. We had reported about ISOC’s earlier responses issued here (19.1.2012) with the words of Leslie Daigle, chief internet technology officer of the Internet Society:
Beyond SOPA: Why ‘Easy’ Solutions Don’t Stop Net Crime
CISPA has received positive comments and support from certain industries, such as Microsoft, Facebook, and the Chamber of Commerce of the USA, that see it as an effective handle against cyber threats. But CISPA has also been criticized by advocates of internet privacy and civil liberties, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation – EFF, and the American Civil Liberties Union. They argue that CISPA is not clear about the limits and legal regulations how and when the government may supervise private individual’s internet use. Such powers could be used to monitor the general public rather than to focus on criminal acts.
And there is now a new Statement about CISPA, issued by ISOC on 7.5.2012, reprinted down here.
It is taken up because obviously whatever happens in the USA in Internet affairs, in most cases has also an impact on the rest of the communicating world, either directly by way of exercising some influence on the flow of information, or indirectly by being taken as an example for legislative action in other countries.
It is interesting that the Microsoft company has changed its position: Originally (30.11.2011) they supported CISPA: “This bill is an important first step towards addressing significant problems in cyber security.”
More recently, Microsoft’s position has changed, they want to: ”ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy.”
Therefore, the expression of concern by the international Internet Society is also of concern for its Chapters. The following is the text of the original statement:
The Internet Society (ISOC) is concerned about cybersecurity legislation currently under consideration in the United States. The proposed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) was passed last week by the House of Representatives and cybersecurity legislation may go to the Senate floor this month. CISPA aims to provide more effective channels of communication across different federal agencies and private entities in relation to online threats.
While the Internet Society recognizes the need for national security, it is concerned about the potentially broad scope of CISPA and the consequent impact this legislation might have on users’ rights, especially in relation to online privacy. We are also concerned that the draft bill might bypass existing legal and private contractual obligations to protect Internet users’ privacy, and lacks judicial oversight. Furthermore, placing burdensome security roles on intermediaries may, as an unintended consequence, have a negative impact on innovation, service delivery, and, ultimately, future investment and economic growth.
Lastly, we are also concerned that the United States, given its leadership role in Internet technology, may give the wrong signal to other governments and invite them to adopt measures or pass legislation that could harm the open and free Internet.
The Internet Society expresses its hope that the U.S. Senate will address privacy considerations and protect citizens’ rights and civil liberties in any future cybersecurity legislation.