[governance] FoE rights

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 4/1/2006 4:45:22 PM >>>

>I do apologize. It's not that easy to have a full time job, and 
>run (many) volunteer activities besides that.

I fully understand. I am in the same condition! No need to apologize, just expressing my disappointment that we didn't benefit from your wisdom sooner.

Based on your argument below, I am not convinced we are raising the dangers you claim, but it is not too late to modify the theme proposal in the next two days if you have specific changes to propose. 

Let me explain why I am not convinced. You say that we base our claim on "ethics" and not "rights." This constitutes a misunderstanding of what we are doing, I think. Or maybe we didn't formulate it clearly. 

We assume that individuals have rights to FoE, and wish to assert those globally by confronting the problem of multinational ISPs who cooperate with states who violate those rights. Recognizing that neither IGF nor probably anyone else can overcome national sovereignty of the local law, we ask: how can we define principles for interaction with these states that a) put pressure on the repressive states to recognize rights to FoE, and b) encourage ISPs to minimize the damage to FoE; c) encourage ISPs to recognize an ethical obligation to do so. 

So it is the ethical obligation to recognize FoE rights, not ethics in a broad sense that would encompass any kind of claim to regulate content regardless of rights, that we are interested in. 

Let me know if that addresses any of your concerns. And I welcome simple editorial changes that might clarify things or avoid problems. Even major editorial changes, if you are willing to do that. 

>I've provided the example of the Mahomet cartoons because it's  
>becoming like a 'syndrom', you know... The issue that you proposed is  
dangerous because it is framed in terms of 'ethics'. People who want  
to limit FoE will jump on this: those who don't want to talk about  
rights talk about ethics, it's well known, and we keep facing this  
attitude. You cannot imagine how much it works, even with well  
intentionned people. It's the reason why it's better to frame it in  
terms of corporate social responsibility, for companies, rather than  
ethics. Obviously, when talking about companies, we cannot frame the  
issue in  terms of rights to be respected, because they're not binded  
by rights instruments: they're only binded by the national  
legislation under which they're established (and/or of the markets  
they want to enter).

> the more basic issue is: who is on the defensive and who is on the  
> offensive? It seems that international processes seem to be driven  
> entirely by people who have some kind of agenda for controlling or  
> restricting the internet in some way, for various reasons. Why can  
> there not be pressure in the other direction, a more positive  
> assertion of liberty of expression?

Because we're not going at all towards this. On the contrary, we're  
going backwards and it's a hard time just to get things  
_preserved_... And I'm saying that with more than 10 years of  
experience in this field, and presence in intergovernmental arenas.  
Even the most committed to HR and FoE, like the council of Europe.  
But people think and behave like crazy when we discuss Internet  
issue. For them, it's the devil...
Could you imagine that we're again witnessing now discussions that  
happened 10 years ago. Have a look at this to simply figure out the  
situation: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe 

> Do you think real FoE can be preserved and protected by simply  
> keeping it off the agenda and refusing to talk about it? Won't it  
> be chipped away bit by bit using that tactic?

No, I don't think this at all, and this was not my point. Don't get  
it wrong: the issue is not to avoid or escape the debate on this. My  
point is simply that :
(1) for this particular proposal, the 'ethics' framing is wrong and  
dangerous, and
(2) for FoE in general: is not a governance issue, and it's a big  
mistake, I think, to discuss _rights_ in a governance arena. It's a  
good strategy however to take rights (specially when already defined  
in international instruments which are binding for governements) as a  
starting point/justification/perspective/argument to obtain what is  
seen as a political progress.

Best,
Meryem
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance