|

PART 1 Introduction and Methodology

Monday, October 5th, 2015

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 A. INTRODUCING THE BPF

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 The 57th Commission on the Status of Women (March 2013)[1] urged governments and relevant stakeholders to:

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 3 “… develop mechanisms to combat the use of ICT and social media to perpetrate violence against women and girls, including the criminal misuse of ICT for sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, child pornography and trafficking in women and girls, and emerging forms of violence such as cyber stalking, cyber bullying and privacy violations that compromise women’s and girls’ safety.”

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 5 While great strides have been made to improve connectivity and Internet access around the world, resulting in increased opportunities for advancing rights and interests of different sections in society, increased access has also resulted in the use of technology to perpetrate acts of abuse and violence against women and girls (VAWG).Online VAWG has increasingly become part of women’s experience of violence and their online interactions; encompassing acts of gender-based violence that are committed, abetted or aggravated, in part or fully, by the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as telephones, the Internet, social media platforms, and email. Examples of online VAWG include (but are not limited to) online harassment, cyber stalking, misogynistic speech, privacy invasions with the threat of blackmail, viral ‘rape videos’ that force survivors to relive the trauma of sexual assault, and the non-consensual distribution of ‘sex videos’ (see Section C below for definitions).

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 1 Online VAWG can, among other things, limit women’s ability to take advantage of the opportunities that ICTs provide for the full realisation of women’s human rights, often violate women’s human rights, and reaffirm and reproduce gender stereotypes. Online VAWG is aggravated by various obstacles that prevent women from exercising their right to access justice in both online and offline environments, including a lack of effective and timely remedies to address online violations experienced by women, and obstacles faced in collecting evidence relating to online VAWG.[2]

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 3 Over the past six years, increasing attention has been paid to understanding the nature, harm and consequences of online VAWG against women by the media, governments and women’s movements. This is evidenced in the formal recognition of online VAWG in significant women’s rights policy spaces and the focus on secure online practices for women and women human rights defenders.

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 3 But the concern of online VAWG has arguably not been adequately taken up by the various stakeholders within the Internet governance ecosystem. There is still a lack of awareness regarding what kinds of online conduct constitute abusive and violent behaviour and the variety of actions that can be taken to address and prevent such behaviour in the future.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 2 Taking effective action to counter the growing phenomena of online VAWG is not only important in ensuring that the Internet fulfils its potential as a positive driver for change and development, but also in helping to construct a safe and secure environment for women and girls in every sphere of life.

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 To help address this challenge, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) brought together multiple stakeholders from diverse communities to investigate the types of conduct online that potentially constitute VAWG, the underlying factors that contribute to enabling environments for online VAWG, the impact that online VAWG abuse has on individuals and in communities, other related contentious issues, and emerging solutions, responses and/or strategies that can constitute good and/or best practices and provide insights and lessons learnt to inform subsequent work on countering online VAWG.

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 This draft report is the result of months of deliberations between these stakeholders on a variety of platforms and using a methodology described below in section B. It was produced as part of an ongoing, open and iterative process in which multiple people from diverse regions and stakeholder groups participated.

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 B. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 The IGF

13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 The Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which was called for in section 72 of the Tunis Agenda, brings people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While there is no negotiated outcome, the IGF informs and inspires those with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors. At their annual meeting delegates discuss, exchange information and share good practices with each other. The IGF facilitates a common understanding of how to maximise Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise.

14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 In 2011 a report was produced by the UN General Assembly Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Working Group on Improvements to the IGF, which called for the development of more tangible outputs to ‘enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy’. To enrich the potential for IGF outputs, the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) developed an intersessional programme intended to complement other IGF activities, such as regional and national IGF initiatives, dynamic coalitions and best practice forums (BPFs). The outputs from this programme are designed to become robust resources, serve as inputs into other pertinent forums, and evolve and grow over time.

15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 BPFs, more specifically, offer substantive ways for the IGF to produce more concrete outcomes. While BPF outcome documents have already been useful in informing policy debates, they are also iterative materials that are not only flexible but ‘living’ in the sense that they can be updated at any time to accommodate the pace of technological change faced by Internet policymakers. BPFs have the freedom to define their own methodologies; tailored to each theme’s specific needs and requirements. As decided in a general feedback session during IGF 2014, the term ‘best’ in BPF should be interpreted lightly because the topics of BPFs often relate to themes that need to be addressed in a flexible manner in order to accommodate the pace of technological change.

16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 For 2015, the MAG identified six topics to form the focus of BPFs, including:

  • 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0
  • the regulation and mitigation of unwanted communications;
  • establishing and supporting computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs);
  • developing meaningful multistakeholder participation mechanisms;
  • practices to counter the abuse of and violence against women online;
  • creating an enabling environment for IPv6 adoption; and
  • fostering enabling environments to establish successful IXPs.

18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 Other stakeholders

19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 1 Addressing online VAWG requires considerable cooperation and input from a multitude of stakeholders, including the technical community, private sector, civil society advocates, organizations, governments, international organizations, the academic community, users, and young people.

20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 In acknowledging and supporting the work that many stakeholders have already done and are doing to research, support and help counter online VAWG, including the positive contributions and achievements already made, the BPF provided a neutral forum where a compendium of effective practices were gathered, with due recognition and attribution given to relevant stakeholders and participants for the work that has already been done in addressing the challenge of online VAWG. This includes, inter alia, inviting participation from civil society groups that have done significant and extensive research in the area, intergovernmental organizations, and the private sector.

21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 METHODOLOGY

22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 a) Scope of work

23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 The BPF provided an open and inclusive multistakeholder platform for the exchange of information on online conduct and behaviour that potentially constitute abuse and/or violence of women, with the aim of collecting and compiling a helpful resource output for communities to create a safe and enabling environment for women online. The BPF’s goal was not to negotiate text but to collect practices that might help women to participate fully in the development of an inclusive and people-centred information society.

24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 The BPF therefore asked all stakeholders to help it address the following question:

25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 What are effective practices and policies that address, mitigate and/or prevent the abuse of, and violence against, women and girls online?

26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 In addressing this question, the BPF mapped priorities for its work in a draft outline of its proposed scope, namely:

  • 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 1
  • Introduction & problem definition – to define the problem in as much detail as possible and to identify the underlying factors that contribute to and create an environment in which abuse and violence is possible.
  • Solutions, responses and/or strategies to counter online abuse and violence against women and girls – to identify existing policy and other measures; highlight common practices that have proven to be effective; and to investigate the consequences of policy interventions
  • Conclusion(s) – to share insights gained as a result of the BPF’s experience – and lessons for future research; highlight unresolved issues where further multistakeholder cooperation is needed and proposed steps for future multistakeholder dialogue and/or actions.

28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 b) Working approach

29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 General methodology

30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 The IGF’s multistakeholder advisory group (MAG) decided in early 2015 that one of its BPFs would investigate practices to counter the abuse of women online as a part of the IGF’s intersessional work for 2015. A dedicated and open mailing list was created by the IGF Secretariat in early March 2015, and details for joining the mailing list were published on the IGF’s website. Two MAG members volunteered to help coordinate the BPF, and the IGF Secretariat appointed a rapporteur to assist the BPF in coordinating, organizing and reporting on the BPF’s work.

31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 The BPF coordinators and rapporteur thereafter adopted a semi-structured methodology by organizing fortnightly virtual calls in order to introduce the topic to participants, to welcome broader participation, to define the scope of the BPF, and to investigate a proposed methodology.

32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0 Fortnightly meetings were scheduled using Doodle polls, and after each meeting a meeting summary and meeting recording were distributed on the IGF’s intersessional and BPF’s mailing lists as well as being published on the BPF’s dedicated platform on the IGF’s website. When necessary, for instance in mapping the BPF’s scope of work or defining the BPF’s synthesis document, the BPF made use of open, editable online platforms like Etherpad and Google Docs that are freely accessible by most Internet users. To facilitate the involvement of participants from regions that do not allow access to Google and/or Etherpad, documents were also made available in original MS Word format on the mailing lists.

33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 The rapporteur provided frequent BPF status updates to the intersessional and BPF mailing list with calls for input and/ or other relevant information. These updates, which provide a good overview of the BPF’s development and progress over time, are contained in Part 3, Appendix 8.

34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 Terms of reference: defining the synthesis document

35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 Before defining the BPF’s terms of reference and intended scope, the group undertook a comprehensive mapping exercise on an open and editable web platform (Etherpad) with the primary objective of framing the topics and elements the BPF intended to cover. Input regarding this framing exercise was invited and received both orally during virtual meetings and in writing (directly on the document and via the mailing list). From the first three meetings of the BPF, a consensus was reached by participants that the topic covered not just online abuse of women, but more comprehensively, a range of acts and behaviour that constitutes online violence against women and girls, of which abuse is a part of.

36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 0 These topics were extracted from the framing document and used as the foundation for a detailed non-paper synthesis document (see Part 3, Appendix 2, for the synthesis paper), which provides a coherent overview of the BPF’s objectives, scope of work, methodology, and how participants can get involved in the BPF’s work. As with other phases during the BPF’s work, an open, inclusive, transparent and iterative process was followed to create the synthesis document.

37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 c) Populating outline of work – primary and secondary data sources

38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0 A skeleton outline of work was extracted from the synthesis document (see paragraph 18 above for this basic outline). This outline was populated from data gathered on the mailing lists, during the mapping exercise, and from other documents shared with the BPF group to form Draft 1. The skeletal Draft 1 was subsequently discussed and populated, section-by-section, during fortnightly virtual meetings. After each meeting the specific section being discussed was again shared with the mailing list and input was invited. Draft 1 remained open and editable on Google Docs for a number of weeks until mid-September, since when it has remained open but only viewable, not editable (still available here). It therefore reflects a broad range of inputs and views to provide a foundation for detailed discussion on the BPF issue.

39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 Primary data was also gathered using three other sources: a survey, case studies, and a social media campaign; all of which also aimed to encourage broader and more diverse stakeholder engagement in the work of the BPF. More details of these campaigns can be found in Section iv) below.

40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 d) Encouraging stakeholder engagement

41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 1 Due to the nature of the Internet as a distributed network of networks, addressing online VAWG requires considerable input and cooperation from a multitude of stakeholders, including the technical community, private sector, civil society advocates and organizations, governments, international organizations, academic community, users, and young people.

42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 For this reason the BPF prioritised the importance of engaging stakeholders from diverse fields in the BPF’s work in order to have vibrant discussions informed by multiple perspectives. A list of the stakeholders who participated in the BPF’s work – whether through case studies, survey responses, attending meetings, commenting on draft reports, or participating on the mailing list by sharing information – are contained in Appendix 1.

43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 Mailing list

44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 1 In March 2015 a wide call was issued to the IGF mailing list to encourage participants to join BPF mailing lists, including this one (see Part 3, Appendix 3 for the call). The coordinators also directly contacted individuals from various stakeholder groups to encourage participation. Stakeholders were invited to participate in fortnightly virtual meetings, by commenting on and visiting an online platform hosted on the IGF’s website, and by following discussions on the dedicated BPF mailing list.

45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 Survey

46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 To gather more input on some of the substantial questions that the BPF aimed to address, a survey was designed and published on Google Forms (available here) (also see Part 3, Appendix 4 for the survey contents and analysis).

47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 Survey design

48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0 Survey questions were derived from the skeleton document to address specific sections of the BPF’s scope of work. The questions were drafted and refined with the BPF’s community after consultation on the BPF mailing list and during a virtual meeting dedicated to a survey planning session.

49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 The survey focused primarily on two aspects of the BPF’s work: defining the problem of online VAWG, and measuring the impact thereof on both communities and individuals. Because the target audience of the survey was not defined and invitations to complete the survey were sent to both experts in the field and general Internet users, the survey provided relevant background, context and descriptions where perceived necessary. To encourage more stakeholder participation, the survey was also kept relatively short, with a combination of close-ended  and open-ended questions; the latter providing the opportunity for more lengthy, substantive responses.

50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0 Responses were elicited over a period of one month by calls on the mailing list, social media (including tweets from the IGF’s Twitter account), and emailed invitations (see Part 3, Appendix 3 for the call for participation) to various mailing lists (including mailing lists within the Internet governance, academic and broader community).

51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 1 A total number of 56 survey responses were collected, with the largest proportion of responses submitted by respondents who identified themselves as part of the civil society stakeholder group (41%), and the smallest number from the technical community (4%). It should be noted, however, that the identified stakeholder groups were not necessarily mutually exclusive. Of these stakeholders, 31 respondents also identified their organizations, which varied from civil society organizations to police and government departments, universities, intergovernmental organizations, etc.

52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 The survey attracted responses from a rich diversity of regions, particularly from developing countries. Of the respondents that identified their countries (52 out of 56 respondents), 25% were from Africa, 23% from Europe, 17% from Asia, 13% from Central and South America, 12% from the Middle East and 10% from North America. Within these regions a vast number of countries were represented. From the Africa region, for instance, survey responses were received from South Africa, Zambia, Nigeria, Ghana, Tunisia, Kenya, Cameroon and Uganda. There were a limited number of countries represented in the Europe region, however, with responses only being received from the UK, Estonia, Switzerland and Germany.

53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 Survey analysis

54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 The survey analysis was conducted with the goal of gathering stakeholder perceptions and comments on the BPF’s topic; and to consolidate and identify common concerns, issues and definitions for further study and for incorporation into the main outcome document where relevant.

55 Leave a comment on paragraph 55 0 Due to the number of substantive responses for open-ended questions, many interesting comments and/or quotations were also highlighted for inclusion in the main outcome document. While comments have already been incorporated, quotes will be incorporated in layout phase for Draft JP.

56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0 The full survey analysis is contained in Part 3, Appendix 4, and where relevant survey responses have been integrated directly into Part 2 of this report.

57 Leave a comment on paragraph 57 0 Case studies

58 Leave a comment on paragraph 58 0 Using the mailing list and BPF’s online platform on the IGF’s website, stakeholders were furthermore encouraged to submit case studies relevant to the work of the BPF. The coordinators and rapporteur also did a substantial amount of direct outreach to diverse parties to request input. Inputs were received from a diversity of stakeholders and countries, including Suriname, the Philippines, the Council of Europe, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Albania, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Estonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mexico, and Nepal.

59 Leave a comment on paragraph 59 0 The case studies are contained in Part 3, Appendix 5, and where relevant lessons, examples and other content extracted and summarised from case studies were incorporated directly into Part 2 of this report.

60 Leave a comment on paragraph 60 0 Social media campaign

61 Leave a comment on paragraph 61 1 To raise more awareness of the importance of the issue, and to gather responses in respect of some sections of the BPF’s proposed scope of work, a social media campaign was planned for mid-October.

62 Leave a comment on paragraph 62 0 As the campaign will only take place after Draft II is published, this section will be updated with results in Draft JP. The analysis [will be] contained in Part 3, Appendix 6.

63 Leave a comment on paragraph 63 0 C. INTERPRETATION NOTES

64 Leave a comment on paragraph 64 0 For the purposes of this document, unless specifically otherwise defined:

  • 65 Leave a comment on paragraph 65 0
  • All references to ‘women’ should be construed as including ‘girls’ unless otherwise specifically noted. ‘Women’ of diverse sexualities and gender identities are also included in relevant sections of the document.
  • ‘Girls’ is defined as female individuals from birth to the age of 18.

66 Leave a comment on paragraph 66 0 Abbreviations and acronyms

67 Leave a comment on paragraph 67 0 The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document (in alphabetic order):

68 Leave a comment on paragraph 68 0 APC – Association for Progressive Communications

69 Leave a comment on paragraph 69 0 BPF – Best practice forum

70 Leave a comment on paragraph 70 0 ICT – Information and communication technology

71 Leave a comment on paragraph 71 0 IGF – Internet Governance Forum

72 Leave a comment on paragraph 72 0 ITU – International Telecommunications Union

73 Leave a comment on paragraph 73 0 MAG – Multistakeholder Advisory Group

74 Leave a comment on paragraph 74 0 UGC – User generated content

75 Leave a comment on paragraph 75 0 UN – United Nations

76 Leave a comment on paragraph 76 0 UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

77 Leave a comment on paragraph 77 0 UNGA – United Nations General Assembly

78 Leave a comment on paragraph 78 0 VAWG – violence against women and girls

79 Leave a comment on paragraph 79 0 FOOTNOTES – PART 1

80 Leave a comment on paragraph 80 0 [1] See: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/53sess.htm.

81 Leave a comment on paragraph 81 0 [2] See: CEDAW’s General recommendation on women’s access to justice, 23 July 2015 (C/CG/33): http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CEDAW_C_GC_33_7767_E.pdf

Page 5

Source: http://review.intgovforum.org/igf-2015/best-practice-forums/draft-ii-bpf-on-practices-to-counter-online-violence-against-women-and-girls/part-1-introduction/