{"id":6322,"date":"2012-11-20T13:11:59","date_gmt":"2012-11-20T13:11:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hiig.de\/?p=6322"},"modified":"2018-07-10T12:21:18","modified_gmt":"2018-07-10T10:21:18","slug":"the-last-runner-internet-ethics-at-the-internet-governance-forum-2012-in-baku","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hiig.de\/en\/the-last-runner-internet-ethics-at-the-internet-governance-forum-2012-in-baku\/","title":{"rendered":"The last runner – Internet ethics at the Internet Governance Forum 2012 in Baku"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Theresa Z\u00fcger<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Luciano Floridi, Unesco Chair for Information and Computer ethics, gives the role of ethics in proceeding media evolution a suiting allegory. It is like a competition of three runners: at forefront is technology, followed by law and the third runner in the field is ethics. Floridis metaphor can be observed every day: in the constantly modernizing information technologies, the struggle for adequate jurisdiction and the belated efforts to understand a changed world. Just as reviewed under a microscope, the same paradigm showed at the Internet Governance Forum<\/a> in Baku this year.<\/p>\n

The IGF was established by the UN in 2006 and is an annual meeting for open dialogue\u00a0about development, design and regulation of the Internet. The participants of the forum\u00a0represent governments, the private sector and civil society. Something special about the\u00a0Internet is, that it is not controlled by one of these groups of actors solemnly. Therefore,\u00a0all participants of the IGF participate in this muli-stakeholder dialogue equally.\u00a0Nevertheless, the IGF has no mandate to control or to develop binding principles; it\u00a0cannot come to resolutions but could develop recommendations.<\/p>\n

The IGF is mainly about politics, economy and civil interests and finally about the\u00a0question of power over the Internet. How could one come to look for ethics in this\u00a0context? The main questions of ethics since Aristotle is asking for the good, succeeding and satisfying life for the individual, groups and society. From this first one, new\u00a0questions arise: What is a \u201cgood\u201d life and how to get there? No matter how different the\u00a0answers on this question may be and even if they seem insolvable: Since the internet\u00a0influences with great impact the life of individuals and communities these questions\u00a0belong in the discourse about the present and future of the internet. If ethics is the\u00a0argument about good life and Internet becomes a decisive part of this life, then ethics\u00a0must in conclusion as well reflect on the internet \u2013 and in my opinion the IGF might be\u00a0a good space for this. In my understanding, the IGF has an ethical basic idea by design,\u00a0since the participants come together to discuss what a preferable future of the Internet\u00a0is.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, ethics are not quite visible at the IGF. Exactly one workshop had the\u00a0word \u201eethics\u201c in its title. It dealt mainly with the work of the UNESCO that engages in\u00a0the subject of information and computer ethics<\/a> on an international level. At the same\u00a0time, the catchwords \u201chuman rights\u201d and \u201cfreedom\u201d are omnipresent. They could be found be in\u00a0many workshop titles. In the discussions themselves, human rights, however, were\u00a0barely touched. Instead they are assumed as a common idea from which the workshops\u00a0tried to establish action plans for specific problems. This way human rights remain as an\u00a0abstract ledger. In principle this is quite eligible but the debate is loosing credibility due\u00a0to a lack space of reflection and also by ignoring the point, that there is no such thing as\u00a0a universal understanding of human rights.<\/p>\n

One could ask: Ethics, human rights? Where is the difference? Doesn\u2019t human rights have\u00a0a great deal to do with ethics? Right, they are a very important ethical issue. But besides\u00a0the question how the Internet can be designed, it is a major goal of ethics to understand\u00a0the preconditions of our action in digital space and to provide a reflected meta-level\u00a0of our digital being in everyday life as a basis for our decisions. Therefore it is not only\u00a0important that we talk about human rights, but also how we discuss them and also what\u00a0intentions hide beneath.<\/p>\n

An impression about this could be gained in the \u201cdynamic coalition of internet rights and\u00a0principles\u201d. This is a working group that consists of participants from the IGF several\u00a0years ago which proposed a Charta of \u201cInternet Rights and Principles\u201d as well as a\u00a0compacted version of 10 core principles (see therefore http:\/\/irpcharter.org\/<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The speaker of the meeting stressed regarding the outcome, that this coalition is one of\u00a0the success stories of the IGF. Regarding the productivity this might be true. But it was\u00a0a simple observation that made me wonder how a working group was able to tackle\u00a0such a difficult task, to identify common rights and values of all net users and produce a\u00a0written outcome – in such a short period of time. In the room were almost exceptionally\u00a0white people from (presumably) mostly western countries. This might be a distorted\u00a0picture or a snapshot, the cooperation with the council of Europe, thus strengthens the\u00a0impression of a too one-sided participation.<\/p>\n

For sure the reasons for this one-sided participation are multiple. A participant\u00a0noted: \u201cTo agree on principles is easy, to put them into action is the hard part\u201d. In fact, to\u00a0put principles into action is a big challenge. Nonetheless one could question if the search\u00a0for common principles is per se the easier task. The experienced ease could also be a\u00a0sign, that there is no real and coequal argument about principles and values and that one\u00a0only gathers the approval of those who agree in the first place \u2013 definitely with the best\u00a0intentions but maybe by the wrong means.<\/p>\n

There is no doubt: The IGF as a Forum oft he UN is unique. It gathers stakeholders from\u00a0governments, the private sector and civil society and therefore has a remarkable and\u00a0valuable atmosphere of versatile participation. Nevertheless, particularly the IGF might\u00a0hold a special responsibility to ensure a reflected and controversial debate on human\u00a0rights issues and information ethics, since it combines two chances: The Internet creates\u00a0the fact of an (not all-embracing but possibly) entirely connected world. Therefore\u00a0all visitors of the IGF have good reason and a high level of motivation to talk to each\u00a0other about problems, possibilities, synergies and controversies. The second chance for\u00a0ethics comes with the fact that the IGF has no mandate for decisions. This might \u2013 after\u00a0seven years of debates – be a reasonable deficit for participants from the private and\u00a0governmental sectors but in terms of ethics it is a big opportunity. It sets the possibility\u00a0to articulate differences, to debate them, bear them and deeper understand them.\u00a0The openness of the IGF and the focus on pluralistic dialog is, to my mind, the urgent\u00a0invitation to the philosophers of this world to contribute to the argument what the\u00a0Internet should look like for the best of all humans. My impression is, that one of the\u00a0greatest strengths of the IGF is, that productive dialogue between very different actors is\u00a0actually taking place.<\/p>\n

Coming back to the picture of the three runners, the challenge for Internet ethics at\u00a0conferences like the IGF is not to loose connection, but to be a strong combatant. To run\u00a0on a par in the field of Internet Governance, the next step in the discourse about human\u00a0rights could be to agitate for inviting particularly those stakeholders to the dialog, from\u00a0whom no consensus is to be expected \u2013 to listen to them, embrace the controversy in\u00a0order to grow with it.<\/p>\n