Photo: 123RF
Opponents of a review of InternetNZ's constitution are planning a takeover, saying the not-for profit is setting itself up as internet judge and jury.
But InternetNZ says it's bringing the organisation into the 21st century and is responding to the recommendations of a 2022 review into systemic racism.
InternetNZ is a little-known entity with responsibility for managing the 750,000 websites with a .nz domain name.
A fortnight ago, it had 300 to 400 members.
However, membership had now more than doubled since a newsletter recently disseminated by the Free Speech Union called on its members to join InternetNZ to fight against what the union labelled an undemocratic rewrite of the organisation's constitution.
"The InternetNZ Council has recently declared that InternetNZ is systemically racist and is proposing a new constitution that will make the organisation co-governed, and constitutionally required to implement policies that will eliminate harm on the internet," the newsletter, authored by former District Court judge David Harvey, said.
The Free Speech Union told its members the review was ideological and primed for censorship of .nz websites.
But InternetNZ president Stephen Judd rejected that characterisation.
"Thirty years ago nobody knew what the internet would become. Times have changed, and our constitution needs to reflect that," he said.
"The constitutional review has been highly collaborative, with an extensive co-design process and multiple opportunities for member feedback."
Proposed changes to the constitution, which would need to be approved by members, included reducing the council from 11 to between eight and 10 members, having two or three appointed members, introducing the possibility of a co-chair model, and including at least 3 Māori members.
He rejected suggestions it has adopted a co-governance model.
"Unfortunately, the proposed changes have been misrepresented by some groups, creating confusion about the purpose of the constitutional review," Judd said.
"The constitutional review is about organisational governance and won't change how domain names are managed or give InternetNZ any expanded powers over domain names. We follow a strict set of rules for domain management. We can only remove a domain in very limited circumstances: when ordered by a court, when registration details are incomplete or fraudulent, or during extraordinary emergencies like the aftermath of a mass shooting. Such actions are extremely rare."
Review 'fundamentally undemocratic'
But Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said the proposals were concerning, though he conceded he had not personally read the drafting guidelines. He had however, been briefed on them by his staff.
"The constitutional review is fundamentally undemocratic, ideological and primed for censorship, and we're very concerned for a major body like Internet New Zealand to be taking governance steps that are even remotely associated with terms like that," Ayling told RNZ.
Of course the reason the constitutional review was associated with such terms was because Harvey, himself a Free Speech Union member, had made the association.
The constitutional review was required by law and followed a 2022 review into systemic racism within the entity, the recommendations of which were adopted by the then-council.
But the drafting guidelines of the constitutional rewrite do spell out the need for Te Tiriti o Waitangi to be centred in InternetNZ's work and for board members to "have knowledge of Te Tiriti and support our goal to be a Te Tiriti-centric organisation".
Ayling said the constitution set the organisation on a path to censoring content of .nz domains and it was not InternetNZ's place to make moral rulings about the content of websites.
"Well the fact that any member who does not agree with Internet New Zealand being a Te Tiriti-centric organisation is ineligible for the board and the fact that users must be able to enjoy the internet free from, quote, harm - that's a really problematic step for an organisation like Internet New Zealand to take."
David Harvey Photo: Supplied by David Harvey
InternetNZ said any member could stand for the council, regardless of their views on any issue, including Te Tiriti.
The proposed constitutional changes would not impact people being able to enjoy the internet "free from harm" and rules governing the domain name system were not changing, it said. Such a move would require public consultation.
Amber Craig was one of those who left InternetNZ in 2021 due to her concerns about the organisation's lack of response to growing and escalating racism online targeting Māori.
The 2022 systemic racism review followed the departure of Craig and others.
She had also not personally read the drafting principles, but had been briefed on their intent.
Craig had a very different interpretation to Ayling.
"No one's actually talking about taking down sites," she said.
"What they're talking about in the constitutional reform is how do we be more inclusive and accessible to everyone because the internet is for everyone."
The constitutional review had grown out of what occurred in 2021 and was well overdue, Craig said.
She was not impressed by the Free Speech Union inserting itself into the debate at this late stage.
"It's a very anti-Te Tiriti and anti-Māori campaign," Craig said.
"When they're talking about 'it's about shutting down the internet' - no one's talking about this.
"This is at a governance and a constitutional level of how the team operates. They have a lot of rules which they have to manage and live by, and no one's talking about changing those tomorrow. All Internet New Zealand is talking about is making this a more inclusive environment where more people can have a say to build a better world."
People had a right not to be harmed, including online, Craig said.
"The Free Speech Union should not be afraid of the fact that everyone deserves the human right to be safe, and that includes on the internet too.
"No one should have to live in fear of death threats. No one should have to live in fear of the fact that people are trying to debate whether someone should exist, which is what we're talking about.
"I just have to question why, when we're trying to keep everyone safe, they feel like their voices are going to get shut down. Is it because they are voicing harmful speech? Just because you have free speech does not mean that you are absolved from consequences."
Harvey told RNZ he was motivated to write the newsletter to Free Speech Union members because of his concerns about the direction of InternetNZ.
"It started to adopt a sort of social justice position as far as the internet is concerned rather than the technical position that it used to have. Everything changed when InternetNZ started to get involved with the Ardern government and the Christchurch Call," Harvey said.
Right-wing activist and long-time InternetNZ member David Farrar shared the Free Speech Union's concerns and, in fact, reached out to the group about the his concerns.
He told RNZ he was not trying to engineer a vote of no confidence in InternetNZ's board and if InternetNZ included an amendment in its constitution ruling out increased censorship, it would allay many members concerns.
"My only desire is to stop the proposed constitution and possibly . . . put forward some amendments with others which will preserve the current role of InternetNZ and not acting as a sort of judge and jury on internet content," Farrar said.
It was also not an attempt to highjack the constitutional review, Farrar said.
In the newsletter, the Free Speech Union told members if they made a $50 donation to the union it would sign members up for InternetNZ.
Membership of InternetNZ only costs $21.
Neither Ayling nor Harvey were concerned about that difference.
Farrar said he would prefer if people signed up directly as members of InternetNZ.
Judd said InternetNZ welcomed members of all backgrounds and perspectives.
"We encourage all those who care about New Zealand's digital future to consider joining," he said.
"Membership costs just $21 and gives New Zealanders the right to vote on important decisions about how our critical digital infrastructure is governed, including who our governors are."
However, he conceded some misgivings about the motivations driving recent members.
"It does concern me if the call to action is based on things that are untrue," Judd said.
"The Incorporated Societies Act requires us to have a new and compliant constitution in place by the middle of next year, so when people intervene in that process instead of participating in that process and they put hitting that deadline at risk, that does make life difficult."
InternetNZ would soon hold a special general meeting to vote on changes to the constitution.
"The thing that I really, really want to stress is that we are not going to censor .nz - we never have, we never will. We're not going to," Judd said.
