<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Lisa,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is a wonderful statement. This concept is critically important.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Seldom is it appropriate to hold a group accountable for an obvious oversight. But it is always correct to hold them accountable for something so obvious that it must have been left out with intention.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All of the passive language here means nothing at all without giving users of the Internet a voice in their government. The IGC even suggesting they support human rights without demanding the individual a seat at the decision making table is unbelievable for well educated persons. Human Rights are not <EM>Granted</EM> by folks who consider themselves benevolent philosopher kings like Milton or Ian. They are only protected by an electorate composed of those governed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Any group pretending to support human rights that is not constantly yelling at ICANN for stakeholder representation is playing games and seeking funding rather than rights.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Wed, 9/2/09, Lisa Horner <I><lisa@global-partners.co.uk></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Lisa Horner <lisa@global-partners.co.uk><BR>Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles<BR>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 4:53 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>Hi all<BR><BR>I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. <BR><BR>Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in this statement,
maybe we could do something else, for example start compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as guidance for session organizers?<BR><BR>As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to incorporate into amendments.<BR><BR>Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this?<BR><BR>All the best,<BR>Lisa<BR><BR>--------------------<BR><BR>DRAFT STATEMENT<BR><BR>The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.<BR><BR>The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF. This is problematic
as:<BR>• Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice.<BR>• The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities.<BR>• The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. <BR><BR>The
Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts.<BR><BR>--------------------------------------------------------<BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:<A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anja@cis-india.org" ymailto="mailto:anja@cis-india.org">anja@cis-india.org</A>] <BR>Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49<BR>To: governance<BR>Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles<BR><BR>Dear all,<BR><BR>Sorry for
responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with<BR>only sporadic, very slow, Internet access.<BR><BR>Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft<BR>a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of<BR>strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to<BR>include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues<BR>session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why,<BR>after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last<BR>session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their<BR>implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for<BR>putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge<BR>during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it<BR>too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this<BR>discussion is relegated once again
to this one session at the very end<BR>of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a<BR>discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can<BR>get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then,<BR>rather than including it in a written statement already now.<BR><BR>I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using<BR>somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of<BR>the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but<BR>also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments<BR>effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too<BR>impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country<BR>like France as much as it would, say, China.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Anja<BR><BR><BR><BR>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4389 (20090902)
__________<BR><BR>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<BR><BR><A href="http://www.eset.com/" target=_blank>http://www.eset.com </A><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR> <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For all list information and functions, see:<BR> <A href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>