parties in the telecommunications sector. The ITU’s role has included the coordination of
country codes to facilitate international telephone dialing, which parallels the port allocation
process in Internet governance generally handled by the nonprofit Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Put in the ITU’s own expansive terms, its role ranges
‘‘from setting standards that facilitate seamless interworking of equipment and systems on a
global basis to adopting operational procedures for the vast and growing array of wireless
services and designing programmes to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the
developing world.’’
13 But these activities have generally focused on interoperability within
the telecommunications sector broadly, and have not extended far into the Internet governance realm.
Other than the ITU, the U.N.’s work relevant to this problem has been handled through the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF), chaired by Nitin Desai and under the secretariat of Markus
Kummer. The IGF has the authority to conduct an international dialogue on issues related to
the Information Society, which has provided a forum for broaching issues but is neither chartered, nor likely, to accomplish any degree of change. An international treaty process, though
cumbersome, could emerge as the way ahead. Some activists have considered litigation
under existing human rights agreements. More likely than a treaty process, though, the IGF
could be called upon to raise this issue squarely with the global community to determine the
most promising course of action. Unlike the analogous Sullivan Principles process, though,
the technical aspects of the Internet filtering and surveillance issue make it unlikely that a true
global community conversation would ensue. Rundle and Birdling have taken up related
issues in much greater detail in chapter 4 of this volume.
Other Modes of Pressure
Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates have played an important role
to date in the public discourse related to this issue. The United States Congress has held
hearings on this matter to draw attention to the actions of large technology firms. The New
York City Comptroller has recently filed shareholder actions with certain technology firms to
prompt action on these topics. Human rights organizations and investor groups around the
world have hosted forums related to corporate involvement in such regimes. While the involvement of NGOs and other outsiders in the process of addressing these ethical issues is not a
solution in itself, it is clear that these stakeholders play an important role in any next steps.
Conclusion
The most promising approach to addressing the ethical dilemma facing multinational corporations doing business in states that carry out online censorship and surveillance is for the relevant community to develop a voluntary code of conduct, with the possibility that such a code
be redacted into formal law at some later stage. The code can emphasize procedural safe120
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey
country codes to facilitate international telephone dialing, which parallels the port allocation
process in Internet governance generally handled by the nonprofit Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Put in the ITU’s own expansive terms, its role ranges
‘‘from setting standards that facilitate seamless interworking of equipment and systems on a
global basis to adopting operational procedures for the vast and growing array of wireless
services and designing programmes to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the
developing world.’’
13 But these activities have generally focused on interoperability within
the telecommunications sector broadly, and have not extended far into the Internet governance realm.
Other than the ITU, the U.N.’s work relevant to this problem has been handled through the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF), chaired by Nitin Desai and under the secretariat of Markus
Kummer. The IGF has the authority to conduct an international dialogue on issues related to
the Information Society, which has provided a forum for broaching issues but is neither chartered, nor likely, to accomplish any degree of change. An international treaty process, though
cumbersome, could emerge as the way ahead. Some activists have considered litigation
under existing human rights agreements. More likely than a treaty process, though, the IGF
could be called upon to raise this issue squarely with the global community to determine the
most promising course of action. Unlike the analogous Sullivan Principles process, though,
the technical aspects of the Internet filtering and surveillance issue make it unlikely that a true
global community conversation would ensue. Rundle and Birdling have taken up related
issues in much greater detail in chapter 4 of this volume.
Other Modes of Pressure
Human rights activists, academics, and shareholder advocates have played an important role
to date in the public discourse related to this issue. The United States Congress has held
hearings on this matter to draw attention to the actions of large technology firms. The New
York City Comptroller has recently filed shareholder actions with certain technology firms to
prompt action on these topics. Human rights organizations and investor groups around the
world have hosted forums related to corporate involvement in such regimes. While the involvement of NGOs and other outsiders in the process of addressing these ethical issues is not a
solution in itself, it is clear that these stakeholders play an important role in any next steps.
Conclusion
The most promising approach to addressing the ethical dilemma facing multinational corporations doing business in states that carry out online censorship and surveillance is for the relevant community to develop a voluntary code of conduct, with the possibility that such a code
be redacted into formal law at some later stage. The code can emphasize procedural safe120
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey