<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Hi <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Yes, we have done an initial mapping of initiatives that aim to
set values-based standards or principles for communications environments.
This was to feed into our own initiative, the Freedom of expression project,
which aims to link a range of important communications policy issues to the
international rights system and promote policy dialogue around them. You
can download the paper at <a
href="http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/mapping+existing+agreements+and+principles">http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/mapping+existing+agreements+and+principles</a>
(forgive the sketchy quality of the diagram!)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The paper is only an initial attempt to map the field, and is
intended as a rolling document to be added to and updated as we go along.
So contributions from caucus members into this process would be very welcome…or
comments and suggestions of how to make this or something similar a more useful
tool for the caucus and wider IGF.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I like the version of the Rights synthesis paper as it stands on
the wiki at the moment. I agree that it’s important to refer to the
disagreements/different interpretations of rights that exist, and that this
makes it all the more important that rights are explicitly on the agenda for
discussion at the IGF. I wonder if there’s also a way to stress
that talking about building rights-based IG shouldn’t be seen as threatening
to companies and governments, but rather that rights provide a set of
international standards and guiding principles that can help to inform complex
policy decisions. I’ll have a think about that one…!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Lisa<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> karen banks
[mailto:karenb@gn.apc.org] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> 05 September 2008 14:54<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller;
governance@lists.cpsr.org; Parminder<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Lisa Horner<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>hi milton, all<br>
<br>
in terms of defining rights.. just to remind (and apologies if i sound like a
broken record) that several groups now have attempted to do this including APC,
the BOR coalition, global partners, UNESCO, the work of the WSIS CS Human
Rights caucus and the CRIS campaign<br>
<br>
so let's build on the collective work done this past 10 years or so<br>
<br>
if i recall correctly (lisa - please correct me if i'm wrong) - global partners
put together a document that mapped such documents.. it might be useful to
refer to that (and update if necessary) in this work<br>
<br>
i think we have a good chance of influencing the cairo agenda if we build this
work carefully and inclusively (not to suggest we aren't already) over the next
6-12 months<br>
<br>
karen<br>
<br>
At 19:51 04/09/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C90EBF.4EBACFA5"<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>OK, I just made some extensive edits
to the rights statement. A lot of the small stuff was editorial, there was
redundancy and awkwardness in many sentences, perhaps reflecting the
fragmentary approach of a shared doc. I hope people agree on the stylistic
improvements. <br>
</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>Substantively, I tried to do two
things: <br>
</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>First, make it clearer that the
definition and application of rights talk is contested and complicated -- and
use that to bolster the argument that that makes it a good focus for IGF Egypt.
In line with this, I added a quotation from the Tunis Agenda at the beginning. <br>
</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>Second, group and expand certain
discussions to run in a more coherent and structured manner. For example, there
were scattered references to privacy which I tried to consolidate in a single
para. and expand a bit. <br>
</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>For those not on the Google docs list
I append the statement below<br>
</span><br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Milton Mueller<br>
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology<br>
------------------------------<br>
Internet Governance Project:<br>
<a href="http://internetgovernance.org">http://internetgovernance.org</a> <br>
</span> <br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'><br>
</span><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>IGC’s input -1 to the synthesis
paper for IGF, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Hyderabad.<br>
</span></i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'><br>
</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>‘<b>Rights and the Internet’
as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt <br>
</b><span style='color:blue'><br>
</span>The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it reaffirmed a
global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use
information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure
Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must
protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as
contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." However, little follow up work
has been done to enact these commitments to basic human rights in Internet governance.
<br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span>The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that ‘Rights
and the Internet’ be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and
that the IGF-4’s program be framed by the goal of developing a
rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has
already expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the
MAG by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights. The IGC offers the
IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically
to help make ‘Rights and the Internet’ an overarching theme for
IGF-4 in Egypt. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span><b><i>A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet<br>
</i></b><span style='color:blue'><br>
</span> One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to
clarify and reach greater consensus on how Internet rights are defined, how
they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and which ones need to
be internationally recognized and strengthened. There are currently basic
philosophical differences, even among civil society actors, over what
constitutes a right and whether human rights inhere only in individuals or can
also be assigned to collectivities. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span><br>
The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by widely recognized
(but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights: the individual right to
freedom of expression and to privacy. To some, conceptions of rights and the
internet may also extend to the area of positive and collective rights –
for instance a right to Internet access, or a right of cultural expression -
including the right to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform
the important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity. Others contest these
positive and collective claims, viewing them as worthy policy goals but not as
rights.<br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span>Many important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being
framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information, or
as an extension of freedom of expression itself. The right of the public to
access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new manner
in a digital environment, where information is often publicly sharable at
little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital public
information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of censorship.
All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF openness theme
area. Other rights such as the right of association and the right to political
participation may have important new implications in the internet age,
including the right to participate in the shaping of globally applicable
internet policies. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span>While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political
opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be further
widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this reason that
development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to date. In this new,
more global and digital context it might be useful to explore what the term
"right to development" means. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span><a name=sdfootnote3anc></a>With respect to privacy rights, corporations
and governments are increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into
people’s homes and personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers
and citizens.Consumers of digital products thus face new challenges including
the right to know and completely ‘own’ the products and services
they pay for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on
the internet is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public
policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have.<br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span>While property rights are of considerable importance, their
applicability and mutations in the the digital environment have led to
widespread political contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks
and patents. In fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of
socio-economic conflict in the information society. The IGF can explore
issues surrounding the public interest principles which underpin IPR alongside
the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space. It can also
explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and use consumer
electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be reconciled with the
regulation of technical circumvention to protect copyrights. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
<br>
<br>
</span>We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim
“rights” it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them.
We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with
each other. For example, a claim that there is a “right to Internet access”
may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such access, but it is
likely that if states are responsible for supplying internet access that there
will also be strong pressures on them to exert controls over what content users
can access using public funds and facilities. There can also be
uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual
situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often
undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
<br>
<br>
</span>These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF
to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum
where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span><br>
Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical
principles and, increasingly, on the internet’s functionality as a giant
global marketplace. With the internet becoming increasingly central to
many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and
conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus
that a right-based framework will be may be appropriate for this purpose. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span> It is the Caucus’ view that the IGF is the forum best suited
to take up this task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where
workshops on rights issues are being planned. These issues will also
hopefully figure prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that
these discussions will help the IGF work towards developing ‘Rights and
the Internet’ as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. <br>
<span style='color:blue'><br>
</span> <br>
</span>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>