<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Hi Joy<br>
<br>
Thanks for your response....<br>
<br>
It is not claimed that states</font><font face="Times New Roman,
serif"><font size="3"><font size="3"> </font></font></font><font
face="Verdana">countries have human rights, or otherwise have
rights</font>
<font face="Verdana"> "</font> <font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font
size="3">on an equal footing with the people or peoples they
govern</font></font><font face="Verdana">".<br>
<br>
However, rights of states are frequently mentioned in
international treaties etc. See for instance one <a
href="http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897">here</a>
signed by the US. Another document <a
href="http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897">here</a>
speaks of rights of states regarding underwater cables and
pipelines, an issue very connected to the present discussion.<br>
<br>
It was also open to delegates at Dubai to say, to the statement of
right of member states to access internationl telecom we will like
to add the right to people to access international telecom......
That would have really given then the moral high ground... In fact
putting right to access in the ITRs and other ITU documents should
have been one of the main advoacy pitches of the civil society.
ITU Chief was been making positive noises about this right for
many months now, and we should have used the oppurtunity....
However the CS present in Dubai and otherwise following WCIT
seemed to be unifocal about just one negative agenda - keep the
Internet out somehow...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
PRE.cjk { font-family: "WenQuanYi Micro Hei", monospace }
PRE.ctl { font-family: "Lohit Hindi", monospace }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 19 December 2012 09:13 AM,
joy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50D137D5.4050103@apc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Without in any way wanting to detract from the wider conversation, I'd
like to point out that in the international human rights system it is
quite clear that "human rights and fundamental freedoms" (both
collective and individual) belong to people or peoples (e.g.
indigenous peoples). States or governments do not have "human rights"
- - rather they have duties to respect, protect and promote the rights
and freedoms of their citizens.
"Collective rights" are a recognised category of rights, as Parminder
correctly points out. But to my knowledge, no human rights or global
civil society groups have argued that governments or States as
"collective entities" have rights on an equal footing with the people
or peoples they govern. Nor would they: but they would argue strongly
that States should be accountable for how they represent the views of
their citizens (I see that point is on a different part of this
discussion thread).
States might have done better to argue they had obligations to provide
access to the internet and necessary infrastructure, which is the
point that Frank la Rue made in his annual report in 2011, when he
highlighted States obligations under existing international law. See
Paras 85-88 here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf">http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf</a>
Regards
Joy Liddicoat
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
On 18/12/2012 4:54 a.m., parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all,
I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's
blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please find below.
--- snip --- snip --- snip ---
But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on
the right of States to telecommunication services and put it on a
par basis with Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was
the same as the Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced
Countries, Switzerland, expressed its outrage. Tension was rising
fast. We got lectured by some countries that oppress their people
about Human Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the
discussion, after having intervened more than any country in the
past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind you that on
many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has assured us there
would be no vote. This derailment was self-inflicted and this was
the drop that got the vase to overflow.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Dear Olivier,
thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of what
happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon. However, since
you stress the point of vote on the clause that 'all countries have
right to access international telecom networks' as one of the most
important ones let me respond to you on this.
Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human rights
system. Why do you think that the collective entity of a country
should *not* have a right to international telecom networks....
Isnt it something basic that must underpin any global treaty on
international telecom? What does an international telecom treaty
mean without stating such a right. It is most surprising, even
shocking, for me that people from civil society should be speaking
against such a right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but
global civil society ???
Before you say anything about collective entities like a country, I
will remind you that below you do proudly refer to your
participation in such an entity. You say that you are proud that
'your' country did not sign. Why would other people not
legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their country is
denied access to international telecom. And what would your
response as someone from global civil society be to the plight of
such people - in existing sanctioned countries and potential ones.
And you also seem to be proud that you were representing 'your
country' and were able to influence its decision.... Can other
people not legitimately have such collective feeling, and
collective rights....
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun tactics
are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries
opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would
lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and
Match. My country, the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad
they did not. Yes, I had a say in the matter since I was a full
UK delegate, one of the many countries which brought multiple
stakeholders at the table and guess what, most of these countries
have not signed. Does this not tell you something?
So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at
the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff
which I would really like the Internet to be preserved from.
But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid
concerns from developing countries that they were not able to
participate in the multi-stakeholder model because of lack of
funding, lack of understanding and a lack of proactive work from
our “own” side. I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the
matter – we should do more to bridge the gap. At the moment,
these countries only have two fora in which they can participate
and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to them and the ITU where
they have a voice. During the hour that followed the dramatic
vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst
not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and
I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are
intent on following up with countries that do not appear to have
hidden intentions are are genuine about the level of despair they
displayed at this conference. Because sadly, there was despair
too. This is the start of a better dialogue, one which we must
make efforts in promoting, reaching out, building capacity.
In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs
and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil
Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several
governments that have understood this. Let’s work together to
ensure we will never live again a similar WCIT full of mistrust
and despair.
Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.enigmail.net/">http://www.enigmail.net/</a>
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0TfVAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6OwH/3jREjRRVMRX4yZS7rjteqS5
7YLeCX9fHQ305K0agxtD/YzzMVsc7eIzkwvlYVQSHh/xCiDwFVc63+Wsp7zaLPtq
8gzJg8oI5JS6bxkOazB5jrBcnR2ec/eBe0ZngVTryoVh1WPI5tc7twU8Dr2rpmXX
pj39REkMZAzDxr6Y4+LXgkryjevZKNqTznHcksSsQC6DDkzJ3kfADwGFXof+gFBt
FApJysq0zGtTfL8zXvg0joF+Uqxfl0qVUDK8yUmT4LGcPuG5XnpmRTay9OnMeUOh
WM4u1NJWaPY+3bXcve/btZrR2D3lWKvLd5DlJAC1WeJF0975Vtss01pID4AuwZ0=
=yGLG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>