Flickr Creative Commons | United Nations Information Service - Geneva

Originally featured by Elisa Massimino on Human Rights First blog on March 31, 2011.  Elisa Massimino is CEO and President of Human Rights First, a leading human rights advocacy organization in the US.  The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Yahoo! Inc.

Recent press stories about the Global Network Initiative (GNI) paint a distorted picture, judging the Initiative’s effectiveness and impact based primarily on the number of companies that have joined the effort to date.  That’s the wrong yardstick.  While the GNI seeks to secure a sector-wide commitment to uphold basic principles of privacy and free expression and to provide companies with framework for decision-making that will deliver on these commitments, the real measure of success (and, ultimately, the key to attracting more companies to join) will be whether corporate members—to date, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!—are making business decisions that uphold their commitments.

Human Rights First joined the GNI because we believe that it has the potential to address the human rights impacts of global business operations. The GNI brought together highly independent companies—each of which had faced challenges in resisting government demands for censorship of content and disclosure of user information—under a single multi-stakeholder initiative with a common goal—to identify ways to resist government demands that limit freedom of expression and privacy and to improve business decision-making to better protect these rights.

The GNI provides member companies with access to expertise and information about how global operations impact free expression and privacy rights, and space for discussion and learning about strategies for protecting them.  For us, as a human rights organization, the effectiveness of the GNI will be demonstrated through independent assessments of member companies’ efforts to adopt and implement policies and procedures to implement the GNI’s guidelines and uphold the principles to which member companies committed themselves at the outset.  Shared learning has value—companies that go it alone in this space are likely to make costly mistakes–but it is independent assessment that distinguishes GNI from a trade association, coalition or public policy forum. Independent assessment will help to ensure that GNI member companies are publicly accountable for their commitments, and that the GNI can demonstrate progress in promoting freedom of expression and privacy in the internet and telecommunications sector.  The first round of assessments have not yet been made — they are tentatively scheduled to begin this summer — and the GNI is still in the process of making key decisions that will determine how thorough and independent those assessments will be.

The GNI is often asked why no additional companies have joined yet.  Some have suggested that the GNI charter requirement that member companies open their human rights compliance system to independent inspection makes some companies nervous. It’s true that GNI member companies have signed up for a rigorous verification mechanism as part of their membership.  But that is because we founding members—companies, NGOs, investors and academics—understood that independent assessment is the key to GNI’s credibility.

Companies outside the GNI can claim that they are working to promote freedom of expression and privacy, and that they’ve adopted policies and procedures along the lines of GNI requirements. Some have made these claims.  And while pledges to uphold free expression and privacy are welcome, without an outside, independent assessment, the public has no way of verifying that these pledges are being implemented consistently, or whether they are effective in addressing threats to freedom of expression and privacy.  This independent assessment is what the GNI is designed to do and on which its success, or failure, should be judged.

Of course membership in the GNI does not guarantee that a company’s policies on Internet freedom will ultimately produce the right result in every case.  Governments intent on violating users’ human rights are innovative and relentless.  But, because of GNI’s system of independent assessment, member companies—and the public—can be assured that company decision-making will be transparent, and assessed against a common and credible standard. That credibility will create pressure from users on other companies to join the GNI, and will demonstrate the value of the initiative to skeptics in the private sector.  Our ultimate goal is a realistic one:  not perfection, but demonstrated, reasonable steps– independently verified and assessed–to anticipate, prepare for, and resist pressure from governments to infringe on human rights.  At the end of the day, if those criteria are met, the GNI should be judged a success.

Flickr Creative Commons | Mario Werder

By Verne G. Kopytoff | New York Times | March 6, 2011 

SAN FRANCISCO — When Google, Yahoo and Microsoft signed a code of conduct intended to protect online free speech and privacy in restrictive countries, the debate over censorship by China was raging, and Internet companies operating there were under fire for putting profit ahead of principle. 

It seemed the perfect rallying moment for a core cause, and the companies hoped that other technology firms would follow their lead. 

But three years later, the effort known as the Global Network Initiative has failed to attract any corporate members beyond the original three, limiting its impact and raising questions about its potential as a viable force for change. 

At the same time, the recent Middle East uprisings have highlighted the crucial role technology can play in the world’s most closed societies, which leaders of the initiative say makes their efforts even more important. 

“Recent events really show that the issues of freedom of expression and privacy are relevant to companies across the board in the technology sector,” said Susan Morgan, executive director of the initiative. “Things really seem to be accelerating.” 

But the global initiative is not. All of the participating companies are American. Also,Facebook and Twitter are notably absent despite their large audience and wide use by activists, in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

Bennett Freeman, senior vice president of the mutual fund company Calvert Investments and a G.N.I. board member, pointed out that the three current members were among the biggest Internet companies, but acknowledged that “we are going to have to add some new companies soon to be truly influential.” 

The biggest test yet for the initiative comes later this year, when member companies are judged on whether they have adequate policies in place to address privacy and free speech issues. Independent auditors will issue a report after examining whether the companies narrowly interpret government demands for user information and whether they store users’ data in countries where free speech is protected, for example. 

Next year, the companies are to undergo a more thorough review of whether they lived up to code of conduct’s principles. 

The initiative was created in 2008 after human rights groups and politicians condemned the top Internet companies for complying with China’s restrictive laws rather than jeopardizing their business interests by challenging them. 

Yahoo had turned over data that led to the imprisonment of several Chinese activists. Microsoft had shut down a blog by a Chinese journalist who worked for The New York Times. Meanwhile, Google had introduced a censored search engine in China (although the company has since shut down that site). 

The initiative is modeled on previous voluntary efforts aimed at eradicating sweatshops in the apparel industry and stopping corruption in the oil, natural gas and mining industries. As with those efforts at self-regulation, this one came at a time when Internet companies were seeking to polish their image and potentially ward off legislation. 

The code of conduct says that companies must try “to avoid or minimize the impact of government restrictions on freedom of expression” and protect user privacy when demands by government “compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards.” 

In practice, however, the code offers flexibility. Companies that go along with a country’s censorship requirements can remain in compliance as long as they disclose it, as Microsoft does with its censored search results in China. 

A number of participants, which also include human rights groups, academics and firms specializing in socially responsible investing, agree that the initiative started slowly. Much of the focus since its founding has been on getting organized and hiring. 

Originally, the membership was supposed to include the entire spectrum of software, hardware and telecommunications firms along with Internet companies. The idea was that a bigger roster would mean greater influence and credibility. 

But recruiting efforts have been fruitless. Some companies have cited the auditing process as being too onerous, according to Global Network Initiative participants who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to discourage companies from joining in the future. Other companies do not see any financial benefit or think they can do it alone. 

Andrew Noyes, a spokesman for Facebook, declined to address why Facebook had not joined. But he said that his company took seriously the issue of user trust and was in regular contact with governments and human rights groups. 

“As Facebook grows, we’ll continue to expand our outreach and participation, but it’s important to remember that our global operations are still small, with offices in only a handful of countries,” Mr. Noyes said. 

Twitter declined to comment. 

Where the initiative has been most effective so far is in creating a forum for companies to easily get advice and share ideas. For instance, as the initiative’s participants were creating the code of conduct, human rights groups contacted Google after it removed videos in 2007 from YouTube showing police abuse in Egypt because of guidelines prohibiting violence. Google ultimately decided to restore the videos and adjust its policy to allow such clips. 

Some human rights groups said the initiative’s code of conduct was weaker than they would have liked. Getting companies to sign on would have been impossible otherwise, they acknowledged, describing the code’s final version as the best that could be hoped for at the time. 

Even with the code of conduct to help guide them, companies will inevitably come across issues that have no easy answers, said Rebecca MacKinnon, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who specializes in online privacy and is a participant in the initiative. 

“Most of these issues aren’t black and white,” Ms. MacKinnon said. “The idea is to help them do the right thing rather than play ‘gotcha’ after they mess up.”

Susan Morgan, GNI Executive Director

One day after a strong January snowstorm pummeled Washington D.C., the Yahoo! Business & Human Rights Program welcomed the Global Network Initiative’s (GNI) new Independent Chair, Jermyn Brooks, and Executive Director, Susan Morgan with a reception at Yahoo!’s Washington, D.C. office.  The sudden wintry changes outside aptly illustrated the ever-shifting global landscape that Information & Communications Technology (ICT) companies face today.

With representatives from a number of companies, academic institutions, investor groups, U.S. government agencies, and NGOs attending, the topics of conversation flowed from Internet freedom to the recent events in Tunisia and Egypt.  A highlight from this lively gathering included brief remarks from both Susan Morgan and Jermyn Brooks, who infused their passion for human rights with the vision of strengthening partnerships within the ICT sector.

The engaging discussions around the Yahoo! office that evening illustrated the strength of an emerging organization like GNI, and the reception highlighted the power of bringing stakeholders from various backgrounds and sectors to one table to create a dialogue.  On a more personal note, this intimate gathering supported the Hollywood-inspired notion that important decisions may be presented in a boardroom but are often formed in the hallways, starting from ideas jotted onto a cocktail napkin or coaster.

Flickr Creative Commons | NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Secretary Clinton’s landmark speech from last year called for global protection of the freedom to connect combining the freedoms of expression, assembly and association online.  In her recent remarks, Clinton notes that there is “no silver bullet in the struggle against Internet repression” which makes a commitment to principles and dialogue even more compelling.

Clinton’s proposal for a serious discussion about the guiding principles and relevant rules and behaviors mirrors the ongoing efforts of Information & Communication Technology (ICT) companies like Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google through the Global Network Initiative (GNI).  GNI responded to Secretary Clinton’s speech the next day, welcoming the collaborative approach among civil society groups, governments, and ICT companies.

See here for a full transcript & video of Secretary Clinton’s remarks.

Flickr Creative Commons | Bruce Irving

By Dustan Allison Hope | BSR Blog | July 9, 2010

I didn’t know it at the time, but it was a phone call that would change my life. It was November 2005, and a group of internet companies wanted BSR and Harvard’s Berkman Center to help explore the human rights to privacy and freedom of expression that were of growing risk in many markets around the world.

It’s now July 2010, and I’ve just facilitated my final meeting of the Global Network Initiative (GNI). I’ve completed a handover to the young organization’s new executive director, Susan Morgan. In the intervening four and half years, BSR joined forces with the Center for Democracy and Technology to run a consensus-building process that culminated, in October 2008, with the launch of the GNI and the publication of new Principles and Implementation Guidelines on Freedom of Expression and Privacy.

During this time, I’ve helped run 22 in-person multi-stakeholder meetings, drafted and re-drafted hundreds of documents, and spent thousands of hours on the phone. Considering the hours invested by other participants, this adds up to human time and effort on a gigantic scale.

This got me wondering: Was it worth it? What does the experience of the last four and a half years tell us about the significance of multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the GNI?

Looking back to late 2005, it is striking how much has changed:

* First, new standards have emerged where previously there were none. The Principles and Implementation Guidelines offer valuable direction to companies in the communications industry on what to do when faced with demands from governments that may lead to violations of user rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

* Second, whole new avenues of collaboration on human rights issues among companies, NGOs, academics, and investors have opened up. In the face of increasingly significant policy- and regulatory-based moves around the world that threaten user-generated content and privacy, a new coalition of networked and informed advocates has been created.

* Third, and significantly, two new communities have emerged: communities of people inside internet companies who are now much more familiar with human rights, and communities of people inside human rights organizations who now have a much better understanding of the implications of new technology. With communications technology increasingly pervasive in our modern lives—and with growing challenges to individuals’ human rights—this development is not one to be underestimated.

There is still, of course, much more to do, and no one should be under any illusions that a multi-stakeholder initiative on its own will lead to the type of systemic change that we all want to see. In particular, I’d highlight three challenges, all of which are very well known to the GNI:

* First, much greater participation from all parts of the information and communications technology ecosystem—not just internet companies—is required if future IT networks are to be designed to protect human rights.

* Second, much greater participation is required from companies, NGOs, and academics from outside the United States and northern Europe if the impact of the GNI is to be truly global.

* And finally, a huge challenge remains to engage and influence the government entities that are increasingly pulling the private sector (usually unwillingly) into violations of freedom of expression and privacy.

The GNI has brought together a diverse group of determined and driven individuals and organizations that have the opportunity to play a significant role in the protection of human rights in the internet age. It won’t succeed in protecting human rights alone; but neither are we likely to protect freedom of expression and privacy without it. It is my assumption that this same conclusion—that a multi-stakeholder initiative is a necessary but not sufficient driver of change—can be made for other similar efforts.

Dunstan Allison Hope is coauthor of Big Business, Big Responsibilities (Palgrave Macmillan 2010). This book considers the impact of corporate responsibility over the past decade and includes a chapter analyzing the emergence of the Global Network Initiative.

Christine Bader and Sarah Labowitz | Vasanth Rakasi

Guest Post, by Christine Bader, Advisor to the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on business and human rights

(See here for video highlights of the Summit, here for photos of the Summit, and here for the 2010 Flickr Gallery!)

As I pored over my notes on the flight home from Tuesday’s second annual Yahoo! Business & Human Rights summit, three themes emerged — context, scale, and education — as did a few reflections about this moment in the tech industry’s history.

Many speakers at the summit urged us to consider technology’s intersection with free expression and privacy in its broader context.  Kum Hong Siew, former member of Singapore’s parliament, stressed the importance of understanding the offline regulatory situation in a country before honing in on the government’s approach to the internet and social media.  Kathleen Reen from Internews reminded us that we’re not discussing mere technical issues, but challenges that are situated within human rights and the rule of law.

Context is critical at both macro and micro levels.  Scott Rubin from Google discussed the difficulty in deciding whether to take down YouTube content, which requires assessing the intention of the uploader.  For example, violent footage could be taken down in accordance with a site’s Terms of Service, but might be critical if revealing excessive force by police.

Scale was considered from a number of perspectives:  global vs local, mass market vs niche, small vs big.  Companies grapple with how to reconcile global policies with local laws and norms; national governments struggle to manage companies’ international reach and content.

Elia Varela Serra believes that demand will grow for niche products like Maneno, the blogging platform she co-founded for sub-Saharan Africa, which enables local language content and easy uploading for areas with poor connectivity.  On the other hand, Sameer Padania of Witness.org tried to build a video sharing hub for human rights activists but found that many of them used YouTube, so switched his focus to ensuring appropriate space for human rights-related content in mass market tools.

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) has forged personal relationships that have proved invaluable when crises occur.  But the GNI won’t always be comprised of the same founding individuals, and aims to grow in terms of membership and the number of people its members touch.  Companies currently take a case-by-case approach to the human rights challenges they face — but that can’t be sustainable for a business like YouTube, to which users upload 24 hours of video every minute.

All of the panels emphasized the importance of education:  about human rights, about the risks of online life and activism, and about the tools that can protect them like UltraReach and AnchorFree.  Kim Pham of AccessNow, Reen of InterNews and Sarah Labowitz of the U.S. State Department were among those who discussed their initiatives to educate constituencies, from activists to journalists to foreign service officers respectively.

I’ve observed and advised GNI since its inception, so have seen firsthand the tech industry’s coming to terms with its impacts on human rights.

The industry is exceptionally dynamic in terms of its products and services, the ways in which its offerings are employed by a wildly diverse population, and its relationships with other companies, governments, and civil society.

But its experience with regard to human rights is not unique.  Many other sectors, most notably extractives and apparel, have gone through a similar process of

1. realizing their impacts on human rights, positive and negative;
2. taking responsibility for those impacts;
3. recognizing that they’ll be more effective collaborating with peers and stakeholders than going it alone;
4. piloting solutions and discussing how to scale them up; and
5. understanding that respecting human rights is a necessary and permanent requirement, but one that will take countless twists and turns — so prioritizing relationships and principles rather than specific prescriptions.

By this time next year, the industry will no doubt be grappling with new technologies employed in new ways by new users, new regulatory and social expectations, new players and different incarnations of old ones.  The Global Network Initiative and Tuesday’s event are terrific examples of that fifth stage above, that I hope and expect will support ongoing collaboration and effective solutions.  Watch this space.

Christine Bader is Advisor to the U.N. Secretary-General’s Special Representative on business and human rights.

Flickr Creative Commons | Tomeppy

March 9, 2010 – The Global Network Initiative (GNI) is pleased to announce the appointment of Susan Morgan as its first Executive Director.

As Executive Director, Ms. Morgan will be responsible for continuing to make GNI a leading voice in defending and promoting freedom of expression and privacy in the information and communications technology industry worldwide. Ms. Morgan comes to GNI at a pivotal time and will be focused on advancing GNI’s goals, including increasing membership, encouraging collective action, overseeing the learning and accountability framework, and acting as a public advocate and spokesperson for GNI.

“Technology has the potential to dramatically increase access to information and protect personal privacy. However, increasing demands from governments to limit content, restrict freedom of expression and monitor users represent a worrying threat to human rights,” said Ms. Morgan.

“GNI can lead the way in helping companies make thoughtful and responsible decisions that protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Internet and communications technology users around the world,” Ms. Morgan said. “I am delighted to join GNI and look forward to building its global leadership role as we encourage more companies and their stakeholders to join us in this multi-stakeholder effort to protect freedom of expression and privacy worldwide.”

Ms. Morgan expects to begin her role at GNI in May of this year, joining from British Telecommunications (BT), where she was head of corporate responsibility (CR) strategy, policy and business planning.  She played a key role in BT’s approach to external reporting and corporate accountability.  She also led work on assessing corporate responsibility risk and opportunity.  Ms. Morgan has more than fifteen years of experience in both the for-profit and non-profit sectors.

Today, GNI also announces the formation of its Board of Directors. The GNI Board of Directors consists of eight representatives from companies, four from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), two from the academic community, two from investment firms, and an independent Chair.  All the NGO, academic and investor seats on the Board are filled, and five company seats remain open for companies that join GNI.

Finally, GNI has published on its website a Governance Charter that establishes a formal decision-making and accountability structure for GNI.  The Charter describes how GNI will be governed in order to ensure integrity, accountability and effectiveness.

The Global Network Initiative is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics dedicated to protecting and advancing freedom of expression and privacy in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector.  To learn more, visit our website at http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org

For media inquiries, please contact GNI at press@globalnetworkinitiative.org
About Susan Morgan: http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/staff/index.php
GNI Board of Directors: http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/board/index.php
GNI Governance Charter: http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/charter/index.php

Flickr Creative Commons | DW212

by Bonnie Boglioli-Randall | Examiner.com | March 3, 2010

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law convened for part II of its “Global Internet Freedom and Rule of Law” hearing. Among those testifying was Google’s Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Nicole Wong. More conspicuously absent, however, were the many Silicon Valley tech companies that rejected offers to participate in the hearing.

On the heels of the latest internet privacy and human rights issues including Google in China and internet censorship, Senator Richard (Dick) Durbin (D- IL) chaired the meeting to discuss the role of the Global Network Initiative in human rights.  The Global Network Initiative , founded in 2008, seeks to collaborate with ICT companies, human rights organizations, academics and others to promote the freedoms of expression and privacy online. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! are currently the only major participants in the initiative- a subject which the hearing sought to address.

“I’m disappointed that a year and a half after the GNI started and no new companies have joined,” Sen. Durbin candidly told the committee. “Many companies told me that the GNI is not relevant to their companies’ business. The last two years have demonstrated that is simply not true.”

The start of 2010 has seen numerous internet issues come to light, including the recent case in Italy that convicted four Google executives for a video posted by a user on Youtube (and later taken offline). That case, along with the recent cyber attacks emanating out of China, has many wondering what the broader implications will be for Internet companies and privacy rights.

Wong told the Subcommittee that the number of governments engaging in censorship has risen to 40, citing targeted surveillance and malware as just a few tactics most often utilized. More than 25 governments have blocked Google services, including the blockage of Youtube in countries such as Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia, Morocco and others. “This growing problem was underscored by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her recent speech on Internet freedom,” Wong said. “It is imperative for governments, companies, and individuals to do more to ensure that the Internet continues to be a powerful medium for expressing political opinions, religious views and other core speech without restriction.”

Today, Google urged the Obama Administration to take China’s Internet censorship all the way to the WTO, with some suggesting a new Cold War era for the Internet while others are quick to point out the profound relevance of public diplomacy in the Internet Age. The need for common principles governing the Internet seems to be coming to a head, making some like Sen. Durbin question the lack of participation within the GNI.

“The explosive growth of social networking services like Twitter and Facebook has helped human rights activists organize and publicize human rights violations in Iran and other places in the world,” Sen. Durbin said in his lead address yesterday. “However, repressive governments can use these same tools to monitor and crack down on advocates.”

Singling out numerous Silicon Valley ICT companies unwilling to participate in congressional hearings and the GNI, Durbin named Twitter, Facebook, HP and Apple among others who declined his invitation to appear before the Senate subcommittee. “With a few notable exceptions, the technology industry seems unwilling to regulate itself and unwilling even to engage in a dialogue with Congress about the serious human rights challenges the industry faces,” Durbin said.

In a letter addressed to Senator Durbin in response to the invitation, Facebook’s Director of Public Policy Timothy Sparapani cited Facebook’s lack of involvement in China as its key factor for not involving itself in the Global Internet Freedom Hearing and contributed the following:

(At the same time), we recognize that social norms around information sharing, connection, openness, and privacy vary form country to country and culture to culture. As our business grows internationally, we work hard to offer tools and services that empower users while recognizing the importance of respecting local conditions, traditons and legal requirements… We are carefully watching the experience of similarly situated, but longer tenured companies, and trying to learn from their experience.

-       (Senator Durbin’s Website features this letter and others, dated February 19, 2010)

Ebay and others also noted their decline to participate (in letters addressed to Sen. Durbin on his website) based upon its lack of impact during the Chinese cyber attacks on Google and others earlier this year.

For its part in the Hearing, the Global Network Initiative stated that a “shared, public, credible committment by all companies is essential to protecting the rights of freedom of expression and privacy.” Its delivered statement also read, “We invite all ICT companies to participate in the GNI and draw upon the guidance and insights provided by the GNI’s principles and guidelines in creating a responsible approach to business decisions.”

To ensure American companies are not complicit in violating human rights, Sen. Durbin announced at the hearing that he will introduce legislation to require Internet companies to protect human rights or possibly face civil and criminal consequences.

The complete audio file for Senator Durbin’s remarks and the hearing are available on his U.S. Senate website.

Flickr Creative Commons | Uros Velickovic

By Jeff Bliss | Bloomberg | March 2, 2010

An Italian judge’s conviction last month of two managers and a former executive of Google Inc. for privacy violations may set a precedent that could restrict the flow of Internet information, U.S. officials said today.

“We are clearly concerned about the ramifications of” the court’s decision “if it were to spread out across the globe,” said Michael Posner, assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor at the Department of State.

Milan judge Oscar Magi ruled on Feb. 24 that the two managers and the former executive shared responsibility for a clip uploaded to Google Video in 2006 by a group of Turin school students, who filmed themselves bullying an autistic classmate.

David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president of corporate development, Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel, and George Reyes, a former chief financial officer, were sentenced to six- month terms, which were suspended.

The defendants denied any wrongdoing.

David Weitzner, an associate administrator at the Commerce Department, said requiring Internet companies to police content would slow the Web’s growth.

“The Internet really would grind to a halt,” he said.

Weitzner and Posner testified today before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Internet censorship. While siding with Mountain View, California-based Google against the Italian court’s decision, senators said Internet companies, in general, need to do more to ensure they’re not carrying out a country’s censorship agenda.

Durbin Measure

Senator Richard Durbin, the subcommittee’s chairman, said he would introduce legislation requiring Web companies to “take reasonable steps” to protect human rights under threat of civil or criminal penalties.

“With a few notable exceptions, the technology industry seems unwilling to regulate itself and unwilling even to engage in a dialogue with Congress about the serious human rights challenges that the industry faces,” he said.

Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, said more companies need to join the Global Network Initiative, or GNI, a voluntary set of standards for ensuring Internet users’ human rights. He said few companies have followed the lead of Google, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. to be involved with GNI.

Congress has a “responsibility to ensure that American companies are not complicit in violating freedom of expression,” he said.

Hosted by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the event was led by Professor John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative for human rights and trans-national corporations, who held a lively ‘town hall’ meeting in the morning, giving participants an opportunity to engage in direct dialogue on the practical implementation of his policy framework: Protect, Respect, Remedy.  Later in the day, the Special Representative praised the Global Network Initiative, which Yahoo! co-founded, and called for European ICT companies to sign up as members.

Yahoo!’s BHRP participated alongside Microsoft and Google in a panel session in the afternoon on the topic of “which approaches can be taken when national legislation is incompatible with internationally recognised human rights”.  After keynotes from the highly respected speakers Lene Wendland, Officer of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Sharon Hom of Human Rights in China, the companies shared their experiences and approach to addressing the challenges of incompatibility between national laws and human rights.

I outlined how Yahoo!’s BHRP is integrating human rights issues into the way we make business decisions across our organisation and gave some examples of how that integration has already paid dividends for the promotion of free expression and privacy, e.g. our human rights impact assessment in Vietnam, which resulted in our decision to manage and operate Yahoo!’s Vietnamese language services out of Singapore so the services would be governed by laws with stronger protections than in Vietnam today.

I also contended that it would be a mistake to focus only on countries with a poor record on human rights, as is illustrated by a recent Belgian court judgment against Yahoo!, and that such cases show the importance of implementing practices, such as those recommended by the GNI, consistently, throughout an organization, not just vis-à-vis certain countries.

The panel took questions ranging from Google’s recent China announcement, to the practical difficulties of respecting local content standards in the context of global products such as YouTube and Flickr, to the question of corporate accountability, which panel member Alexis Krajeski of F&C Management Ltd. explained was an important focus area for the GNI.

It was a privilege to contribute to the debate and to have the opportunity to learn and share ideas.  Yahoo!’s BHRP looks forward to continued efforts on these topics and to a positive outcome of the Special Representative’s mandate.

To share your views, please comment below, or join the debate on the Special Representative’s forum, at http://www.srsgconsultation.org.

by Jen Swallow| Legal Director EMEA | Product Compliance