The following is a slightly edited version of Nica Dumlao’s contribution as one of the panellists at Workshop 157 entitled "Crowdsourcing a Magna Carta for the Web We Want", held during the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey on 4 September 2014. Nica is the internet rights coordinator of the Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA), an APC member organisation in the Philippines.
The emerging Philippine movement for internet freedom
Magandang Umaga! Good morning to all!
Two years ago, in September 2012, the president of the Republic of the Philippines signed an Anti-Cybercrime Prevention Act which was widely criticised domestically and abroad for its restriction of online freedoms and its adverse impact on human rights.
The silver lining of this problematic law is that it galvanised the emergence of what can now be considered the broadest popular movement for internet freedom in the Philippines. This movement converged many actors and stakeholders – both old human rights and ICT policy advocates, and a new generation of active netizens who had come to value the internet space – around the basic premise that human rights in cyberspace should be respected and therefore defended.
The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom
It is this internet rights movement that also brought to life the recent initiative for a Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom or MCPIF – a proposed comprehensive legislative bill that tackles not only internet rights, but also important issues such as ICT infrastructure development, internet governance, and cyber security. What distinguished this proposed legislation from others was how it was produced: it employed primarily a crowdsourcing strategy using everyday online tools, such as email, Facebook and Google Docs, where proposals were gathered and collated. An open online process solicited comments on a rolling draft consolidated by its initiators, who were mainly ordinary citizens who wanted to do something to counter the aforementioned anti-cybercrime law.
What is the status of this innovative bill? At present, the MCPIF has gained enough traction and support for it to be sponsored by a number of young legislators in both houses of the Philippine Congress. So this crowdsourced bill has indeed been filed in both our Senate and our House of Representatives, which is a significant milestone in itself. In truth, though, the bill is moving a bit slowly through the Philippine legislative mill, but that is true for almost all bills filed. In addition, however, the comprehensiveness of this effort and its broad output presented some challenges as well – both in terms of the scope of the draft legislation, and the correct legal strategy to take in order to ensure some level of actual victory in this arena.
But regardless of the final outcome of the bill in this 16th Congress, what we have seen is how Filipino netizens’ growing awareness of and demand for rights protection are now gaining ground even in the legislature. In addition, we now have internet freedom champions in Congress that can help promote a deeper conversation on rights-based internet policy legislation.
A local legislator, for example, after learning of how the Magna Carta initiative gained initial success, even proposed his own Crowdsourcing Bill to encourage citizen participation in the policy-making process – both online and offline. How this will be concretely put into practice has not been finalised yet and we know there is still much work to be done.
Who is the "we" in the "Web We Want"?
Since our workshop today is entitled "Crowdsourcing a Magna Carta for the Web We Want" I feel it is crucial to ask the important question: Who is the "we" in the Web We Want? Do we just see this "we" as those of us who are already connected to the internet and who already enjoy its possibilities? Remember that many, many peoples around the world, especially in the global South, are still "disconnected" from the so-called "information societies".
So from the outset, we do believe that a true "crowdsourced" Magna Carta should be a process that includes everyone, for a "Web We (truly) Want" is this: it democratises the web’s opportunities and benefits, not just for those who already can afford to be connected, but precisely for the those who are disconnected, either by poverty or neglect, or political persecution, or gender and racial difference. The Web We Want should fight for the rights especially of those who are marginalised and oppressed.
In the Philippines, which has made many gains in online advocacy and ICT for development, the reality is that only 34 million out of our population of 100 million are internet users. So however innovative a crowdsourced Magna Carta emerged in our country, it will not be as powerful unless we go beyond focusing on existing online communities, and put more effort and energy in offline outreach, even as we continue to work for universal and affordable access to a free and open internet.
The role of multi-stakeholder policy development: "Internet Governance We Want"
This is where the role of truly participative and inclusive internet governance comes in. Indeed, the holding of this very panel within the Istanbul IGF points to the clear underpinning of inclusion and multi-stakeholder participation in any and all discussions about ICT policy or internet governance. It is our web, our internet, and therefore it should be governed by those who own it – not merely states and governments; not merely powerful internet companies who currently rule cyberspace.
We have increasingly seen our work as internet rights advocates as not just about supporting internet freedom, whether legislated in the Congress or not. We now see as part of our work to consistently push for inclusive multi-stakeholder processes, in local, national, regional and global spaces. A true crowdsourcing process involves not only a few netizens, but that is a good start. However, we still have some ways to go in building more constituencies in the communities we work with, a critical mass.
What next: United struggle for internet freedom
One small fact I need to share with you in all honesty.
To tell you the truth, many traditional human rights organisations in the Philippines were not able to participate in the crowdsourced drafting of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom. It is ironic that those of us who had fought consistently for basic human rights were – for some reason or another – not able to participate in the new terrains opened up by crowdsourcing. This merely implies that we still have not yet converged the various internet rights constituencies fully. Thus we believe that MCPIF is still a work in progress, for we still need to build the needed united fronts to push for it, in order for all groups to benefit from its passage within their own advocacies and constituencies. So there is still a long ways to go, but I would like to think that with the strides we have made, we will get there.
On the local front, there will be another national election in 2016. In the Philippines, the campaign period takes over the legislative agendas even a year prior to an election, so we do not know if the MCPIF bill will pass at all before the campaign season commences next year. And after that, there will probably be another set of legislators elected, and surely a new president. If the MCPIF bill does not pass by next year (a distinct possibility we should accept), we will need to strategise how we are to proceed in the event of a new administration coming to power.
This may be another setback with another silver lining. For maybe we can learn from this battle and allow ourselves another chance for finding new ways of crowdsourcing and participative consultations, of pushing access and strategic knowledge to more and more people. For we have to ensure that as many people as possible, especially grassroots leaders and the still unconnected masses, will be able to participate and challenge the status quo. We, who are better versed and more articulate in internet governance issues, should welcome this challenge.
To conclude, let me just again reiterate that in our experience, laws can only do so much. But if we want a good law to be truly effective, it should be responsive to the interests of the majority, and involve them as much as humanly possible via all possible channels. A human rights-based approach teaches us that genuinely responsive legislation must involve broad-based, real and meaningful participation. This is especially true for those who are on the margins of society: impoverished women, informal workers, rural and urban youth, indigenous peoples – especially in the light of the possible differentiated impacts of the information and communication systems on them.
Crowdsourcing is an innovative participatory mechanism for popular participation, but is probably not yet as comprehensive as we want, nor fully democratic… yet. It might be best to combine this with other participatory mechanisms to reach the "unreached", while at the same time continue to inform and educate those already online on our right to communicate – and the responsibility we have to those who cannot yet assert this right.
Yun lang po (That is all). Maraming Salamat (Thank you very much).