Comment by Amali De Silva-Mitchell
Re: Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation
Comment:
One of the major concerns is the gradual attrition of the values and intended outcomes of UN WSIS due to changes that take place due to layers of natural reform, change in societal norms and expectations, technological adjustments, diverse regulation from diverse parties and so forth.
It is important that there is a review perhaps once in 10 years to ensure that the structural values, intents etc. of UN WSIS are preserved albeit for changes due to new and emerging technologies and new dimensions of human existence. For instance, the recording of human thought and brain wave functions was not a perceived issue for UN WSIS but is now an emerging issue, especially in the realm of human rights and the freedom of expression.
Recommendation:
That a UN WSIS 2 be held to mark 25 / 30 years and that emerging technologies be made the focus of this summit. New technologies such as holograms, brain wave technologies and other sensory technologies including the use of light must be incorporated in to the existing framework values.
Thank you,
Amali De Silva-Mitchell (Eurodig 2019 – UK)
Recent Comments on this Site
31st July 2021 at 6:00 pm
There have been some comments about the messages on the WS-16 mailing list rather than being logged as part of the messages procedure. The final result was a list of messages agreed by consensus.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:39 pm
I suggest to rephrase more concrete: There must be a global collaborative effort in the form of dialogic regulation between governments, tech companies, and civil society to develop a solution grounded in human rights that will address disinformation and harmful content
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:36 pm
delete “being”
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:34 pm
I suggest tp rephrase a bit more concrete: Liberal approaches of governments towards online platforms at there start of the platform economy led to …
See in context
11th July 2021 at 5:24 pm
Although I was the one who mentioned this during the session, I am not sure that we should push for frequency regulation – besides, it is very likely to be be outside our scope
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:12 pm
NEW WORDING PROPOSED:
One institution ALONE CANNOT solve the problem. Multistakeholder approach IS needed, TO BUILD AN HARMONIOUS SYSTEM WHERE HARD AND SOFT REGULATION MECHANISMS FIND A BALANCE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOUNDARIES, MANDATES AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS. IN PARTICULAR Platforms have a big stake, and should be required to develop transparent self/co-regulation.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:09 pm
propose to add at the end of the phrase: “Those defenses should be strengthened by media education: a field where public service broadcasters have a special role to play based on their remits.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 1:01 pm
This legitimacy needs to arise from clear legislative frameworks in which hard regulation and soft regulations could find an equilibrium, each one with its own specific role and with clear boundaries and accountability mechanisms.
See in context
11th July 2021 at 12:57 pm
[that will address disinformation and harmful content]
See in context
10th July 2021 at 9:16 pm
As I mentioned during the session, I believe we should be careful with using the term ‘content moderation’ in the context of the Internet infrastructure level, as these services are typically very far removed from the actual content. I would like to suggest amending this paragraph to read: “Recent cases show that certain infrastructure providers unwillingly take action that could be argued to be content moderation by suspending services for the platforms in an ad-hoc manner without any transparent policy. But infrastructure services have limited possible options, which tend to be temporary solutions (clearing cache), overbroad reactions (limiting access) or options that open up websites to cyberattack (terminating services of particular users).”
See in context