Off the back of having declared itself ‘systemically racist’, InternetNZ’s proposed constitutional changes would result in an organisation that is less democratic, more ideological, and primed for censorship. The role of InternetNZ as a domain name provider is an important one, and that is why we are working to ensure core principles are protected in this process, says former-Judge Dr David Harvey, member of the Free Speech Union.

“Proposed changes to the constitution require that:

• InternetNZ centre Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all its work;
• Users must be able to enjoy the internet "safe" and free from "harm";
• InternetNZ to be effectively co-governed with two co-chairs – one of whom must be Māori
• Members are required to understand, uphold, and adhere to the Society’s objects, values, and code of conduct, taking responsibility for their actions and interactions with other members.
• Members would be required to adhere to a code of conduct
• The number of elected board members will drop from nine to five, and appointments increased from two to four so almost half the board will be appointed
• A nominations committee to vet candidates for appointment to the Council
• At least one third of the Board must be Māori

“President of InternetNZ, Stephen Judd claims we have spread ‘misinformation’ by raising concerns about these requirements, but has then failed to indicate exactly where we are incorrect. He claims that membership is open to everyone, which is correct, and that anyone can stand for Council, also correct. But this is the very point of our fears: once the constitution is amended in line with the changes above, then the guiding ethos of the organisation shifts considerably.

“Our concerns are not with the state of InternetNZ presently, it is what becomes of the organisation that plays a key role in internet governance once these undemocratic, ideological, and censorship-prone changes are implemented.

“We look forward to working alongside all members of InternetNZ, and those currently on its Council, to address concerns related to the potential weaponisation of these changes to the ethos of the organisation, and to ensuring the core principles of a free and open internet.”

© Scoop Media