Trade agreements today are the main source of rule-making at the global level, encompassing an expansive list of issues. These agreements cover a wide array of subjects that extend far beyond traditional trade matters. In the past, they have been effective tools for dominant industries to dilute or eliminate domestic policies and priorities, minimize regulatory costs, and maximize corporate interests. In most cases, trade agreements set constraints on domestic regulations, override regulatory safeguards, challenge domestic consumer protections, and weaken the leverage of local producers.
This report presents an effort to map different Internet governance initiatives in the Latin American and Caribbean region in order to better understand the ways these organizations have evolved over time and to be able to compare their governance structures, formal and informal procedures, funding mechanisms, the stakeholders included in decision-making, as well as other characteristics relevant to deliberative and policy outcomes. The research addresses the cases of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay, Mexico and Nicaragua. Those initiatives have already developed their own national Internet governance mechanisms and are all in different stages of institutionalization .
This white paper draws on survey research on self-censorship practices of Kyrgyz citizens conducted between October and November, 2017. The report provides a historical account of Kyrgyzstan’s political and media systems and an overview of the findings as they relate to contemporary practices of silence and expression online and offline in the country. It then offers analysis of these findings and recommendations to the policy and advocacy communities working on issues related to democratization and freedom of expression in the Central Asian region.
Social media platforms are increasingly accused of shaping public debate and engineering people’s behavior in ways that might undermine the democratic process. In order to vitalize a much-needed multistakeholder dialogue on corrective measures against the spread of false information, this project has undertaken a truncated multistakeholder consultation, addressing experts from academia, civil society, governments and the industry to assess diverging perspectives on institutional proposals, legislative responses, and self- regulation resolutions that have sprung up around the world. It also asks what new challenges platform moderation and related “fake news” issues pose to what might be called the “procedural fitness” of the current multistakeholder internet governance system. Finally, it suggests recommendations for architectural changes that could promote constructive and inclusive debate on the topic.