<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Substantive changes and including what amount to demands in the "Last Second" flurry of activity in creating a document is bad governance. There are grammatical and spelling and punctuation issues in the document that change meaning.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your core issues of what do we want this document to accomplish were never settled. Are you changing a declaration of purpose document now into a demand for Rights document?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Are you now changing a concilliatory tone into a justifiable indignation rant?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Careful what you do with endorsements before and after such changes that effect how affected governments may fund your agenda.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My opinions are clear. I am a fundamentalist purist when it comes to demanding rights. But I do not seek contributions to fund my agenda. The people that fund me do it because I make them money. The people that fund your cause do it because they want progress in this area. Are you sure you can make progress by slapping governments in their face and drawing lines in the sand.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think protests and ranters are better left out of your document.<BR><BR>--- On <B>Wed, 9/9/09, Ginger Paque <I><gpaque@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Ginger Paque <gpaque@gmail.com><BR>Subject: Re: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights<BR>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 6:46 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv777215541><FONT face=Arial>Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out unequivocally on this topic.<BR><BR>I agree.<BR>Best, Ginger<BR></FONT><BR>shaila mistry wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<STYLE type=text/css><!--#yiv777215541 DIV {margin:0px;}--></STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style, new york, times, serif">
<DIV>Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not straighten..glad I spotted this !!!</DIV>
<DIV>shaila</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style, new york, times, serif">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style, new york, times, serif">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hi Lisa and Max and everyone.</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late.</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. </SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> regards </DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Shaila </DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).<FONT color=#0000ff>edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09<BR></FONT><BR>The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the<BR>programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives <FONT color=#0000bf>greater</FONT> priority </SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda <FONT color=#0000bf>strongly</FONT> reaffirmed the centrality<BR>of human rights in the information society, <FONT color=#0000bf>despite </FONT>this <SPAN> </SPAN>human rights and<BR>associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so<BR>far. This is problematic <FONT color=#0000ff>because :<BR></FONT><BR>* <SPAN class=yshortcuts>Fundamental human rights</SPAN> such as the rights to freedom of<BR>expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to<BR>development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies<BR>of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state<BR>and private actors at both national as well as global levels.<BR>* The internet presents new opportunities for upholding
and<BR>advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to<BR>knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance<BR>these opportunities. <FONT color=#0000bf>Ignoring <SPAN> </SPAN>these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally.<BR></FONT>* <SPAN class=yshortcuts>International human rights</SPAN>, as contained in the <SPAN class=yshortcuts>Universal</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=yshortcuts>Declaration of Human Rights</SPAN> and confirmed by the core <SPAN class=yshortcuts>human rights</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=yshortcuts>treaties</SPAN> and other <SPAN class=yshortcuts>universal human rights</SPAN> instruments, are legally<BR>binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies<BR>has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these<BR>instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of
their<BR>citizens.<BR>* The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of<BR>standards that has practical as well as <SPAN class=yshortcuts>ethical value</SPAN>. It balances<BR>different rights against each other to preserve individual and public<BR>interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights<BR>are therefore a useful tool for addressing <SPAN class=yshortcuts>internet governance issues</SPAN>,<BR>such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance<BR>with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating<BR>the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework<BR>also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other<BR>stakeholders. <BR><BR>The Internet <SPAN class=yshortcuts>Governance</SPAN> Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human<BR>rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included
in the<BR>planning and implementation of all <FONT color=#0000bf>future </FONT>IGF sessions, so that human rights<BR>are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This<BR>should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and<BR><SPAN class=yshortcuts>national policies</SPAN> affect human rights, and the development of positive<BR>policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The<BR>Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to <FONT color=#0000bf>volunteer active involvement</FONT> <SPAN> </SPAN>with the<BR>organizers of the main plenary sessions <SPAN> </SPAN>to do this, and would like to<BR>support all stakeholders through providing <SPAN> </SPAN>relevant guidelines<BR>and experts <FONT color=#0000bf>from private and public sector..s and civil society..</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT color=#0000bf>The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT color=#0000bf>renewed opportunity to </FONT></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT color=#0000bf>make Rights and Principles a core theme.<BR></FONT><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>thanks</DIV>
<DIV>Shaila<BR> </DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=1><STRONG><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: blue">Life is too short ....challenge the rules</SPAN></STRONG><B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN></B></FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=1><STRONG><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: blue">Forgive quickly ... love truly ....and tenderly</SPAN></STRONG><B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN></B></FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=1><STRONG><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: blue">Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! </SPAN></STRONG><B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></SPAN></B></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="bookman old style, new york, times, serif" color=#6000bf size=1> </FONT></DIV>
<P style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style, new york, times, serif"> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#6000bf size=1> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="times new roman, new york, times, serif" color=#7f003f><BR></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="COLOR: rgb(64,0,127)"><FONT face="comic sans ms"><STRONG>
<DIV style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: rgb(127,0,127)"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: comic sans ms"><FONT face="comic sans ms"><STRONG></STRONG></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: comic sans ms"><FONT face="comic sans ms"><STRONG></STRONG></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></STRONG></FONT></DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: bookman old style, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Lisa Horner <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lisa@global-partners.co.uk" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:lisa@global-partners.co.uk"><lisa@global-partners.co.uk></A><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> <A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles<BR></FONT><BR>Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense.<BR><BR>Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that<BR>rights are legally
binding. I hope it addresses your concerns.<BR><BR>Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last<BR>sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers<BR>with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to<BR>consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are<BR>discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of<BR>your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an<BR>earlier version.<BR><BR>I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had<BR>today.<BR><BR>The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving<BR>towards consensus...<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Lisa<BR><BR>--------------------<BR><BR>DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).<BR><BR>The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the<BR>programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human<BR>rights. The WSIS
Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality<BR>of human rights in the information society, but human rights and<BR>associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so<BR>far. This is problematic as:<BR><BR>* Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of<BR>expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to<BR>development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies<BR>of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state<BR>and private actors at both national as well as global levels.<BR>* The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and<BR>advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to<BR>knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance<BR>these opportunities.<BR>* International human rights, as contained in the Universal<BR>Declaration of Human Rights
and confirmed by the core human rights<BR>treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally<BR>binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies<BR>has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these<BR>instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their<BR>citizens.<BR>* The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of<BR>standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances<BR>different rights against each other to preserve individual and public<BR>interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights<BR>are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues,<BR>such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance<BR>with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating<BR>the obligations of states and governments, the human rights
framework<BR>also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other<BR>stakeholders. <BR><BR>The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human<BR>rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the<BR>planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights<BR>are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This<BR>should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and<BR>national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive<BR>policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The<BR>Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the<BR>organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to<BR>support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines<BR>and experts.<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Paul Lehto [mailto:<A
href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lehto.paul@gmail.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</A>] <BR>Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38<BR>To: <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A>; Lisa Horner<BR>Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and<BR>principles<BR><BR>In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights<BR>*framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework<BR>with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of<BR>standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes<BR>"guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to<BR>"opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital."<BR><BR>All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of
human<BR>rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word<BR>that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how<BR>mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger<BR>to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case<BR>with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to<BR>be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard"<BR>to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the<BR>person or entity being urged to take appropriate action.<BR><BR>The true status of international human rights is more as follows:<BR><BR>(1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the<BR>rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society<BR>goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their<BR>most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and<BR>respecting them at all
times. Ignoring rights and principles, even<BR>if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and<BR>often deadly quite soon.<BR><BR>(2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do<BR>in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal<BR>constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as<BR>federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher<BR>than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference<BR>into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as<BR>supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty<BR>ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human<BR>rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's<BR>opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally<BR>applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans).<BR><BR>(3) Human rights and their necessary
correlative principles are<BR>nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the<BR>countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty<BR>ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is<BR>free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they<BR>were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly.<BR><BR>(4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for<BR>issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are<BR>applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying<BR>principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the<BR>new context..<BR><BR>(5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact<BR>binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used<BR>in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional<BR>scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking
the oath to a<BR>"holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a<BR>trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on<BR>behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them<BR>wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to<BR>narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to<BR>respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase<BR>"opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is<BR>joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with<BR>the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law.<BR><BR>(6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it<BR>exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of<BR>the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on<BR>torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international<BR>law
prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification,<BR>under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases<BR>of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no<BR>defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to<BR>violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation.<BR>(See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief<BR>Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles<BR>apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to<BR>the Germans).<BR><BR>As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right<BR>doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes<BR>in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go<BR>away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in<BR>the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's
apparatus<BR>perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds.<BR>If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual<BR>rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at<BR>Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two<BR>decades.<BR><BR>In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS,<BR>but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold<BR>their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding<BR>them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive<BR>interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist.<BR><BR>Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor<BR><BR>On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner <<A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lisa@global-partners.co.uk" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:lisa@global-partners.co.uk">lisa@global-partners.co.uk</A>> wrote:<BR>> Hi all<BR>><BR>> I've pasted a
statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain<BR>(a) why<BR>> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think<BR>> 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<BR>comments<BR>> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to<BR>ensure<BR>> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment<BR>about<BR>> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally<BR>think we<BR>> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in<BR>positive<BR>> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should<BR>of<BR>> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation<BR>of<BR>> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and<BR>engagement<BR>> with the issues rather than
scare people off? Rather than including<BR>it in<BR>> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start<BR>> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include<BR>as<BR>> guidance for session organizers?<BR>><BR>> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions<BR>for<BR>> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult<BR>to<BR>> 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<BR>Internet<BR>> Governance Caucus.<BR>><BR>> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention<BR>in<BR>> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and
Tunis<BR>Agenda<BR>> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society,<BR>but<BR>> human rights and associated principles have received very little<BR>attention<BR>> at the IGF. This is problematic as:<BR>> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and<BR>privacy are<BR>> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice.<BR>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and<BR>advancing human<BR>> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and<BR>resources. It<BR>> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities.<BR>> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of<BR>standards<BR>> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines<BR>on how<BR>> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual<BR>and<BR>>
public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet<BR>> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with<BR>> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers<BR>both<BR>> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders.<BR>><BR>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be<BR>addressed<BR>> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This<BR>should<BR>> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental<BR>rights,<BR>> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and<BR>> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer<BR>assistance to<BR>> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like<BR>to<BR>> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant<BR>guidelines and<BR>> 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" target=_blank rel=nofollow 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<BR>principles<BR>><BR>> Dear all,<BR>><BR>> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week<BR>with<BR>> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access.<BR>><BR>> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to<BR>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<BR>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<BR>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<BR>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<BR>signature<BR>> database 4389 (20090902) __________<BR>><BR>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<BR>><BR>> <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.eset.com/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>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" target=_blank rel=nofollow 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" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>><BR>> For all list information and functions, see:<BR>> <A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>><BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Paul R Lehto, J.D.<BR>P.O. Box #1<BR>Ishpeming, MI 49849<BR><A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lehto.paul@gmail.com"
target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</A><BR>906-204-4026<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" target=_blank rel=nofollow 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" target=_blank rel=nofollow 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
rel=nofollow>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>____________________________________________________________<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>