<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="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 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.western, li.western, div.western
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.sdfootnote-western, li.sdfootnote-western, div.sdfootnote-western
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
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><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Milton<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>></span></font><font size=2 color=blue
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> This
proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are significant
participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions, so I
can't accept it.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I will not like to go with a statement issued
on the behalf of IGC which says that “</span></font><font size=2
color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'>significant participants in CS … contest the positive and
collectivist notions” </span></font><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>of rights. The best I can
agree to is as stated in the para I proposed where FoE and privacy are in some form
considered basic, and established, rights, while we only speak of exploratory
language about positive and collective rights vis a vis the Internet. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>You say that <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>></span></font><font size=2 color=blue
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'> I did
not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is
perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Why not agree to the same logic in general
about positive and collective rights. We are merely saying “</span></font><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'>It may also be useful to explore if and how
positive and collective rights may be meaningful…………”
. Why do you object to it?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>I will give my reasons in some detail why I
cannot accept text which clearly speaks of </span></font><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>“</span></font><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>significant participants
in CS who contest the positive and collectivist notions”. </span></font><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'>I don’t accept your simplistic
argument that well, isn’t it a fact that some people have cast doubts, so
it is only saying what is a fact. Well, I know for fact that there people in CS
space - there may be some security-obsessed people on this list, I certainly know
there used to be one at least - who will say well, FOE and privacy rights needs
to be carefully balanced with security concerns. And others will say they need
to be balanced with child rights, cultural sensitivities etc etc.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>So, I ask you a simple and a direct question,
which please reply to. If above views/doubts do get expressed by some people
here, would you agree to a text, where after we mention FoE, we put the text
that ‘significant participants in CS want to ensure that FOE and privacy rights
are appropriately balanced with security concerns, child rights, cultural
sensitivities etc”. No, you wont agree, right! You will contest such language,
and I will agree to this contestation. Why is it so? Because we all know that
security concerns etc are already dominant in IGF space, and CS needs to be bringing
in the other perspective more strongly, and a language of balancing etc fatally
weakens our case. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>So here is my answer why I cant accept
doubts to be expressed about the very existence of the categories of positive and
collective rights. A ‘negative rights’ understanding of rights is
already dominant in the IG space, largely due to the dominance of Northern
groups in the CS space, and very little involvement of Southern groups. I
don’t want an IGC statement to reinforce it. It will have a very detrimental
impact on the struggles of those in the CS who are trying to open up spaces in
the area of positive and collective rights, under very adverse and difficult
circumstances. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>It would normally be fine for a CS group to
make a statement representing a part view – or North –centric view –
of rights. There can be all or any kinds of groups in the CS space. But my right
in contesting this statement with text that challenges the very existence of the
category of positive and collective rights comes from the fact that IGC has a
global forum history in WSIS, and claims itself as a global IG CS space, with some
kind of implied global legitimacy. Such a claim, in my view, is greatly strained
by taking such one-sided view of human rights. I did surf the net a bit in last
few hours and I could not find a single global human rights groups with any
degree of really global participation which did not strongly endorse and work
for positive and collective rights (If you know of any such group, you can please
point it to me.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>It took many decades of struggles for
Southern groups and many other excluded people to get their voice and concerns into
the global human rights framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent
it exists) and I cannot accept that a new information society or IG discourse
takes that progress backwards. I say this because I am very cognizant that the ideological
discourse of a ‘brave new world’ of an information society is
already rigged greatly in such a regressive way, and I will not support IGC
making a statement that helps this along. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to
strategic importance and implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try
the simplistic logic with me that – well, the contestation within CS is
only a statement of fact.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>>Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR,
no matter how subtle, is going to provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context,
so you had better make damn sure we are unified >on this one. (Milton, from another
email)</span></font><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>While I thank you for agreeing with my
description of IPRs as a positive right, if at all a right (which I greatly
doubt) your words of wisdom on why we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are
interesting. It may help you to know that every single civil society group I
work with in India and in other developing countries will consider it anathema for
a CS statement casting doubts on the very existence on positive and collective rights,
and there will be, to use your words ’fanatical opposition’. Why aren’t
you concerned with this fanatical opposition, if you are at all concerned to
keep the global CS legitimacy of the IGC. I am very much concerned on this
count, and therefore oppose the text proposed by you.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>I can only agree to the following. (I
have added another ‘may’ to my earlier text, to further ‘weaken’
the text on positive and collective rights)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>“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. It may also be useful to explore if and how positive and collective
rights may be meaningful in relation to the Internet – 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.”</span></font><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'> </span></font><font color=navy><span
style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this
or not. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Milton L Mueller
[mailto:mueller@syr.edu] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, September 05, 2008
7:14 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Parminder;
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [governance] Inputs
for synthesis paper</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Parminder
[mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thanks Milton for this engagement. While,
as you would expect, I have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process
of engagement and deliberation is very useful. </span></font><font size=2
color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Agreed. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>It is important to recognize that there
are two important and different contestations here. One, whether there is at
all a category of positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. My
personal view is that it is a very small minority among the IGC membership that
really contests the very validity of the category of positive and collective
rights. I invite members’ comments on this statement. Accordingly, I
don’t think an IGC statement should go out casting doubts on the very
validity of these categories of rights. I would therefore want all
corresponding parts of the statement removed.</span></font><font size=2
color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>But there is no doubt about the fact that
it is contested. And it is not just me, three or four others have taken up this
discussion more or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this
would look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small
minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and
if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and issue a separate
statement contesting the legitimacy of your statement as an expression of IGC. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The second contestation is about whether
there are some already accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to
the Internet – right to access internet (positive right) and right to
cultural expression or an Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I
agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group at present to assert
these rights, and we may only speak of exploring them, and debating the pros
and cons. Accordingly, I am for mentioning the language of ‘wanting to
explore’ with regard to these rights. </span></font><font size=2
color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>I did not delete that language, in
regard to RTDevelopment, I think it is perfectly acceptable to
"explore" contested issues. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>“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. It may also be useful to explore if and whether positive and
collective rights are meaningful in relation to the Internet – 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.”</span></font><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue'> </span></font><font color=navy><span
style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>This proposed amendment does not make it
clear that there are significant participants in CS who contest the
positive and collectivist notions, so I can't accept it.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>“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. “</span></font><font color=blue><span
style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>This para clearly makes out a strong case
against ‘right to the Internet’ and is obviously not acceptable to
those who speak for it. I would delete the whole para. </span></font><font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>So people who believe in a positive right
to Internet access cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think
the only thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are
responsible" with "some fear that if states are
responsible." That makes it clear that there is disagreement.
which there is.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I however find the last two sentences
– which I know you state in terms of meaningfulness of universal access
– very interesting in terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my
issues with the IPR paragraph in a separate email.</span></font><font size=2
color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>The last two sentences were meant to be
general, not specific to universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to
all kinds of issues, especially privacy and identity. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I also have problem with the new opening
para that you propose.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=western style='margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'><font size=3
color=black face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>“The
Tunis Agenda (para. 42) </span></font><font color=black><span lang=EN-GB
style='color:black'>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.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If one mentions rights in the IG arena it
is by default read as FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very
important rights, our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As
argued in my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may at
ant time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy discussions
also lies in making the rights discourse broader, </span></font><font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>This is a tactical difference mainly, but
also one of principle. You start with the area where there is the most common
ground. The point about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have
already committed themselves to it, I think the line about balancing security
concerns with other rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive
terms, it would be wiser to start with the traditional rights and then move
gradually into how far it can be taken. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> including concerns of what I call as
the vast majority of people, which go beyond these two rights. </span></font><font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Just for the record, I do not accept your
claim to speak for the vast majority of people. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>