scholars, and non-governmental organizations. In early 2006, a group of companies
first met to draft an industry code of conduct under the joint facilitation of Business
for Social Responsibility (BSR) and the Berkman Center. That spring, Orville Schell
and Xiao Qiang of the University of California-Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism initiated the creation of a code of conduct by academics, in collaboration with the
Berkman Center. Meanwhile, CDT convened a third set of actors to deepen understanding, raise issue awareness, and seek solutions. Participants from the three processes met in Oxford in July 2006 and soon agreed to work together.
This chapter examines the context in which GNI has emerged, describes its structure
and intentions, explores some concerns, and highlights some of the challenges GNI
must address to fulfill its intended purpose. Issues that will impact success include the
tensions among structure and flexibility, aspiration and practicality, and refining
known approaches and creating new ones. While these considerations play into many
elements of the initiative, they are particularly salient with respect to accountability
and governance. I offer these thoughts as objectively as possible, recognizing my personal participation throughout the process, to support collective understanding of
both this process and emerging institutional approaches to governance in the knowledge society.
Government and Business Collide: Expression and Privacy at Risk
All over the world, companies in the ICT sector face increasing government pressure to
comply with domestic laws and practices in ways that conflict with both core elements
of their business and their users’ fundamental rights to privately impart and access information and communication. Whether law enforcement officials request a user’s personal information for unknown reasons or a takedown of content that is acceptable in
other jurisdictions, companies find themselves in an untenable position in which they
must balance their obligation to respect local law with their responsibility to protect
the rights of their users. Companies know that resisting a government is costly, perhaps placing their operating license and local employees at risk, but that acceding
blindly can have terrible implications for them and their users, and that this tension
is ever more part of their business. A (more) sustainable solution is essential. 9
Described most comprehensively by Palfrey and Zittrain in Access Denied and informed by the OpenNet Initiative’s research, the problem has been framed in many
ways, whether as an ethical issue, a reckless drive for appealing markets, an international legal question, a matter of Internet governance, a trade barrier, 10 or an organizational deficit. It is clear that ICT companies (broadly interpreted) face very real
challenges with respect to freedom of expression and privacy. Left unchecked, governments seem likely to chip away at these fundamental freedoms, potentially leading
companies into a proverbial race to the bottom, with a possibly daunting impact
Protecting Privacy and Expression Online
89
first met to draft an industry code of conduct under the joint facilitation of Business
for Social Responsibility (BSR) and the Berkman Center. That spring, Orville Schell
and Xiao Qiang of the University of California-Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism initiated the creation of a code of conduct by academics, in collaboration with the
Berkman Center. Meanwhile, CDT convened a third set of actors to deepen understanding, raise issue awareness, and seek solutions. Participants from the three processes met in Oxford in July 2006 and soon agreed to work together.
This chapter examines the context in which GNI has emerged, describes its structure
and intentions, explores some concerns, and highlights some of the challenges GNI
must address to fulfill its intended purpose. Issues that will impact success include the
tensions among structure and flexibility, aspiration and practicality, and refining
known approaches and creating new ones. While these considerations play into many
elements of the initiative, they are particularly salient with respect to accountability
and governance. I offer these thoughts as objectively as possible, recognizing my personal participation throughout the process, to support collective understanding of
both this process and emerging institutional approaches to governance in the knowledge society.
Government and Business Collide: Expression and Privacy at Risk
All over the world, companies in the ICT sector face increasing government pressure to
comply with domestic laws and practices in ways that conflict with both core elements
of their business and their users’ fundamental rights to privately impart and access information and communication. Whether law enforcement officials request a user’s personal information for unknown reasons or a takedown of content that is acceptable in
other jurisdictions, companies find themselves in an untenable position in which they
must balance their obligation to respect local law with their responsibility to protect
the rights of their users. Companies know that resisting a government is costly, perhaps placing their operating license and local employees at risk, but that acceding
blindly can have terrible implications for them and their users, and that this tension
is ever more part of their business. A (more) sustainable solution is essential. 9
Described most comprehensively by Palfrey and Zittrain in Access Denied and informed by the OpenNet Initiative’s research, the problem has been framed in many
ways, whether as an ethical issue, a reckless drive for appealing markets, an international legal question, a matter of Internet governance, a trade barrier, 10 or an organizational deficit. It is clear that ICT companies (broadly interpreted) face very real
challenges with respect to freedom of expression and privacy. Left unchecked, governments seem likely to chip away at these fundamental freedoms, potentially leading
companies into a proverbial race to the bottom, with a possibly daunting impact
Protecting Privacy and Expression Online
89