New parliamentary panel at #IGF2020.
Likewise, this lack of self-criticism seems to be replicated in the section on “Trust in Parliamentarians,” as it fails to highlight how the behavior of parliamentarians themselves and the lack of transparency in legislative mechanisms in various countries have affected citizens’ trust (or lack thereof) in them. Finally, while we commend the inclusion of the annual high-level segment, we believe it would be extremely important to invite civil society organizations to participate in that segment so that the discussion is not incomplete and is truly multistakeholder.
As part of the 2020 Internet Governance Forum, the parliamentary roundtable took place on November 10. The topic discussed during the session was “Building Trust in the Time of the COVID-19 Response and Post-COVID-19 Recovery” (Parliamentary Roundtable: Building trust in a time of COVID-19 response and post-COVID-19 recovery - own translation -). During the meeting, a draft resolution prepared by DESA, the IPU, and the IGF Secretariat in collaboration with the 2019 and 2020 IGF hosts (Germany and Poland) was presented and opened for comment. Here you can view the list of registered parliamentarians. This draft is based on and builds upon the document titled Jimmy Schulz Call (1), drafted by the first group of parliamentarians representing 56 countries at the 2019 IGF. That document included a series of recommendations addressed to national parliaments. This year’s document notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical role the Internet plays in sustaining basic economic processes, social interactions, and a minimum level of cultural life in the face of isolation. Now more than ever, it is necessary to guarantee Internet access, promote sound digital policies, strengthen multisectoral Internet governance, and foster trust in public officials and information. Furthermore, it emphasizes the responsibility that parliamentarians have to actively contribute to creating regulatory frameworks that promote an accessible, open, and secure Internet for users of this generation and future generations. It also highlights the need to address the gender gap and the digital divide so that everyone can reap the enormous benefits that digital technologies offer for sustainable development. It also mentions the drawbacks that the “infodemic” (a term coined by the WHO) on social media has caused in the fight against the pandemic and the importance of addressing the problem of misinformation from a systemic perspective rather than a purely legislative one. Finally, the document expresses the need to promote the active participation of parliamentarians in three distinct areas: Public Trust in the Internet Parliaments play a key role in helping to improve public trust in the Internet by:
Promoting good digital technology practices that support sustainable development.
Advocating for meaningful access for their citizens through multistakeholder partnerships and initiatives.
Encouraging the incorporation of digital literacy into education curricula.
Actively participating in raising awareness and supporting capacity-building to combat disinformation (the original English document uses the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation,” distinguishing between them by noting that the latter involves a deliberate intent to misinform).
Promote a new culture of cybersecurity and comprehensive cyber hygiene in the daily use of the Internet, as well as the stability of cyberspace and its infrastructure, protecting, in particular, the public Internet core. Public Trust in Legislators Trust is crucial to success in political life. The document states that the trust the public places in its representatives is based on what society consumes in the media, both formal and informal. It emphasizes that, currently, parliaments and parliamentarians “are using the Internet to raise public awareness, improve their public image, and help shape public opinion” (own translation). Under this heading, the following recommendations are made to parliaments:
Actively promote best practices regarding online safety.
Enhance the public image of parliaments through social media platforms that citizens use to build familiarity and trust.
Actively increase public exposure of their work through open data.
Engage more people in their work through digital participation initiatives and multistakeholder dialogues, particularly regarding Internet-related legislation.
Improve communication and consultation with the technical community regarding all Internet-related legislation to deepen mutual understanding of the interrelationship between law and coding in the digital age.
Take proactive measures to mitigate the impact of misinformation and prevent the spread of misinformation by promoting open standards, open data, and awareness-raising through multistakeholder engagement and inclusive digital literacy. Open Discussion The document states that an ongoing, transparent, inclusive, and multistakeholder discussion on the development of digital public policies is essential to build trust in digital technologies, introduce effective policies, and foster confidence in the work of parliaments. Based on Goal 9 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, they recommend that the IGF:
Incorporate as a permanent practice an annual high-level segment and ministerial and parliamentary tracks, ensuring more achievable outcomes.
Promote the formation of an informal, standing IGF Group of Parliamentarians with the aim of facilitating the exchange of information and best practices among members of national parliaments regarding the preparation, adoption, and implementation of public policies related to the Internet.
Investigate the feasibility of creating a global repository that includes national legislation related to the development of public policies on the Internet, as well as regulatory frameworks governing the development and use of digital technologies. So far, we have summarized the proposals included in the document. The three proposed pillars and the lines of action included within them appear to be readily acceptable, and it would be surprising if there were no consensus around them. It is worth noting that the parliamentary track was only introduced in 2019 and that, prior to that date, parliamentary participation had been limited or virtually nonexistent. For this reason, we welcome the group’s continued existence and the broad participation of parliamentarians to date. At the same time, we welcome the call for greater participation by legislative bodies and the focus and attention given to what can and should be done by parliaments. We also welcome the emphasis placed on officials’ obligations regarding some of the most relevant issues in the context of the current pandemic, such as access to information, disinformation, open government, and digital capabilities, among others. We also welcome the call for the formation of a permanent, informal group of parliamentarians aimed at sharing best practices, as well as the inclusion of an annual high-level meeting involving parliamentarians and members of the executive branch. Notwithstanding these positive steps and the emphasis placed on the importance of the Internet as a medium for dissemination and a platform for engagement, what stands out is the lack of self-criticism or acknowledgment that, in many cases, it is the states themselves (through representatives of all their branches) that have played a central role in the proliferation of disinformation and problematic discourse—a fact that has even been highlighted during this pandemic. Likewise, this lack of self-criticism appears to be replicated in the section on “Trust in Parliamentarians,” which says nothing about how the behavior of parliamentarians themselves—and the lack of transparency in many legislative mechanisms across different countries—has affected citizens’ trust (or lack thereof). Finally, while we welcome the inclusion of the annual high-level segment, we believe it would be extremely important to invite civil society organizations to participate in that segment so that the discussion is not limited and is truly multistakeholder. Note (1): The document was named in memory of Jimmy Schulz, a member of the German Bundestag, who initiated the participation of parliamentarians in the 2019 IGF and passed away in November of that same year. Article by: Matias Gonzalez @thaumatropo, Agustina Del Campo @agustinadelcamp Photo Credit: @jeffsundstrom