done such assessments, and it is not at all clear who might be both able and interested
in doing them.
Ultimately, each of these concerns (and others like them) must be addressed by the
accountability regime, as independent monitors report initially on company process
and then on actual incidents, in evaluating a company’s implementation of the Principles. This process will be complex, with the assessor needing to determine not only the
more straightforward elements of compliance such as whether a training program is in
place, but also the difference between lackluster recruitment efforts and GNI flaws. The
matters only get weightier, in the case of bad outcomes, discerning between irresponsible company actions and good faith decisions, for instance, if the actions following
a human rights impact assessment were sufficient or ill considered, in light of the
impact.
The constraint on the accountability platform is that not only must it earn the
public trust, but it must do so in a relatively lightweight, scalable, and affordable fashion that reinforces learning across the GNI. As participants, online activity, and government interventions all increase, the regime will need to evolve with the Internet. If
it is unable or if it cannot be effective without being overly onerous, ICT companies
will not embrace the GNI.
Public Communication and Remedy
As suggested by empirical experience and proposed in Ruggie’s Protect, Respect, and
Remedy Framework, offering transparent channels of communication and the potential for remedy is essential to addressing business and human rights concerns, and the
GNI views them as essential for the purposes of information gathering and for its own
credibility. A means for individual users and other parties to reliably access and communicate with the nascent GNI is still in the design phase and likely to be pilot tested
in 2009–2010. While all GNI participants recognize the need for channels for communication, query, and complaint, the sheer number of Internet users is intimidating, and
is orders of magnitude different from the equivalent community in the labor or extractive industries, for instance. The participatory expectations common to Internet culture further increase the likelihood of public interaction with the GNI (noting the
grass-roots creation of a GNI Facebook group upon launch), suggesting the incorporation of a Web 2.0 approach that not only accepts complaints, but develops and shares
information, perhaps even in real-time.
The GNI must be able to consider, review, utilize, or redirect large numbers of external submissions and do its best to keep contributors informed of the progress of their
concerns. The GNI recognizes that it faces potential user submissions on any number
of general topics, from critiques to requests for participation in GNI. Relevant distinctions must be made between those communications and submissions that concern
100
Colin M. Maclay
in doing them.
Ultimately, each of these concerns (and others like them) must be addressed by the
accountability regime, as independent monitors report initially on company process
and then on actual incidents, in evaluating a company’s implementation of the Principles. This process will be complex, with the assessor needing to determine not only the
more straightforward elements of compliance such as whether a training program is in
place, but also the difference between lackluster recruitment efforts and GNI flaws. The
matters only get weightier, in the case of bad outcomes, discerning between irresponsible company actions and good faith decisions, for instance, if the actions following
a human rights impact assessment were sufficient or ill considered, in light of the
impact.
The constraint on the accountability platform is that not only must it earn the
public trust, but it must do so in a relatively lightweight, scalable, and affordable fashion that reinforces learning across the GNI. As participants, online activity, and government interventions all increase, the regime will need to evolve with the Internet. If
it is unable or if it cannot be effective without being overly onerous, ICT companies
will not embrace the GNI.
Public Communication and Remedy
As suggested by empirical experience and proposed in Ruggie’s Protect, Respect, and
Remedy Framework, offering transparent channels of communication and the potential for remedy is essential to addressing business and human rights concerns, and the
GNI views them as essential for the purposes of information gathering and for its own
credibility. A means for individual users and other parties to reliably access and communicate with the nascent GNI is still in the design phase and likely to be pilot tested
in 2009–2010. While all GNI participants recognize the need for channels for communication, query, and complaint, the sheer number of Internet users is intimidating, and
is orders of magnitude different from the equivalent community in the labor or extractive industries, for instance. The participatory expectations common to Internet culture further increase the likelihood of public interaction with the GNI (noting the
grass-roots creation of a GNI Facebook group upon launch), suggesting the incorporation of a Web 2.0 approach that not only accepts complaints, but develops and shares
information, perhaps even in real-time.
The GNI must be able to consider, review, utilize, or redirect large numbers of external submissions and do its best to keep contributors informed of the progress of their
concerns. The GNI recognizes that it faces potential user submissions on any number
of general topics, from critiques to requests for participation in GNI. Relevant distinctions must be made between those communications and submissions that concern
100
Colin M. Maclay