[governance] Human Rights and IGF
Robin Gross
robin at ipjustice.org
Fri Jun 1 00:06:07 EDT 2007
A number of IGF Dynamic Coalitions and groups like APC and this caucus
asked at the IGF Consultations that Human Rights be considered a
cross-cutting issue in Rio. Council of Europe also backed this request
citing the need for a people-centric view of the Internet. But China
blocked our proposal. So the only cross-cutting issue will again be
capacity building.
Robin
Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang and all,
>
> Although some may see this approach as pragmatic and 'workable' -
> which remains to be proved -, there is definitely something wrong in
> simply considering human rights as a negotiable criteria for trade
> (or other economic activity).
> And making a parallel with IPR and WTO/trade is hardly relevant since
> in this case goods and services (and IPRs on them) are considered,
> not the fundamental requirements of democracy.
> Not to mention that, even with IPR/WTO only, the approach shows a
> rather narrow understanding of human rights...
> To come back to the proposal of having human rights as a cross-
> cutting theme for IGF2, I fully support this, specially since it was
> already proposed before IGF1, not only as a discussion theme, but
> also as a structure (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/
> hris-igfagenda310306-en.html). But is IGF anything else than an
> annual conference... ?
>
> Meryem
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org
> IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
> 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris
> Tel. +33(0)144749239
>
> Le 31 mai 07 à 13:23, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
>
>
>
>> With regard to Human Rights and Internet Governance: We had recently
>> a discussion, which included also Andrew McLaughlin from Google, to
>> approach the issue from a new perspective.
>>
>> Within the WTO Doha Round the ignorance of Intellectual Property
>> Rights is seen as a trade barrier. Countries which want to join the
>> WTO have to guarantee IPRs. The question could be raised whether the
>> ignorance of Human Rights can constitute also a trade barrier?
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>> Gesendet: Do 31.05.2007 13:00
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: Re: [governance] igc at igf - process issues in making a
>> statement on the behalf of IGC
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeanette and I tried to coordinate these types of
>> statements for a couple of years, I thought what
>> Parminder said was fine.
>>
>> The caucus needs to react and sometimes comments
>> will be made about issues that haven't been
>> discussed fully, and sometimes things will get
>> said that don't have full support.
>>
>> (During the final WSIS prepcoms the chair started
>> to invite observers to contribute more freely and
>> it was embarrassing when we were offered a
>> speaking slot and had nothing prepared to say. We
>> had been demanding the right to speak and then
>> had nothing agreed to say. Talking to broadly
>> agreed points is fine.)
>>
>> And civil society asking for Human Rights as a
>> cross cutting theme is so uncontroversial in
>> itself that it doesn't matter (I mean it's almost
>> expected, when the meeting hears Human Rights
>> from the lips for civil society representative
>> it's a bit like someone from business saying
>> profits are good, or the US govt reminding
>> everyone that proprietary software can also be
>> very good [for companies with powerful
>> lobbyists], bears/woods, pope/catholic etc).
>>
>> Unfortunately, during the meeting on the 24th
>> (the new open session) when Robin suggested
>> human rights be added as an additional
>> cross-cutting theme China jumped in quickly and
>> pushed back saying HR was covered in enough
>> separate fora, not necessary etc.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> Since McTim and Robert Guerra have raised
>>> questions about the validity and legitimacy of
>>> the process by which the second statement
>>> (mostly on process) was read at the IGF
>>> consultations on the behalf of IGC, I have the
>>> following explanation to offer.
>>>
>>> First of all, I don¹t think this is the first
>>> time that a statement has been hurriedly
>>> prepared during or on the eve of a meeting and
>>> presented on the behalf of the IGC. I wonder if
>>> the two contesting parties in the present
>>> instance too have been a part of such an
>>> exercise at some time. In this context it is
>>> important to note that these statements on most
>>> of these earlier occasions were made without any
>>> legal basis, while the one made in Geneva had a
>>> statutory basis in the relevant parts of the IGC
>>> charter quoted earlier by Avri and others.
>>>
>>> Now the question is whether it adhered to the
>>> relevant provisions of the charter. I will
>>> describe the sequence of events for members to
>>> make their judgment. On 21st Adam noted in an
>>> email to the list that we are missing the
>>> opportunity to comment on process issues, and
>>> that he had expected me to prepare a statement.
>>> Bill wondered in response to Adam¹s email if
>>> there was any time at all to prepare a statement
>>> at that point. Avri in response quoted the
>>> charter provisions with the opinion that these
>>> could still be used for a statement. Bill then
>>> wrote asking me if I could still draft a
>>> statement as per provisions etc. I replied to
>>> the original email of Adam¹s that I hadn¹t
>>> prepared a second statement on OEprocess¹ (apart
>>> form the one on 4 themes which was already
>>> adopted) because of certain apprehensions that
>>> some process issues were connected to some tacit
>>> understandings when the substantive main themes
>>> related statement was agreed to, and I was
>>> unsure about possibility of caucus¹s consensus
>>> on some important process issues (see my email
>>> dt 22nd). However, I said I will put together
>>> some points on process which, to quote my email,
>>> OEin my understanding seem to have wide
>>> acceptance in the caucus¹ and present it to the
>>> evening CS plenary and the next morning IGC
>>> meeting for reactions. (One must note that in
>>> the second OEprocess¹ statement there were really
>>> none of any OEpet¹ issues that I may been pushing
>>> for in my individual capacity, and therefore
>>> there could have been no great personal interest
>>> in my pushing this statement. I was only doing
>>> my co-coordinator duty on the requests by caucus
>>> members that a OEprocess¹ statement too should be
>>> attempted.)
>>>
>>> Robert, you have said in your email dt 23rd that
>>> if only we would have at least checked online,
>>> at least you and others who are often/ mostly
>>> online could have responded. But then all the
>>> above exchanges on the IGC list about attempting
>>> a quick statement on behalf of the IGC took
>>> place 2 full days prior to the statement being
>>> prepared, and if you indeed were against such
>>> last minute preparation of any statement as a
>>> valid and legitimate OEprocess¹ (and not
>>> necessarily with reference to its substantive
>>> content) as McTim¹s and your objection seem to
>>> be about, my simple question to you is, why
>>> didnt you come in on 21st and 22nd to the list
>>> and object to the process of attempting any such
>>> statement.. As per your convictions stated now,
>>> you should at that point have said, no, this is
>>> not a proper process in your viewS.. Why come in
>>> with your views post facto, when the OEevent¹ and
>>> the exchanges took place in your full view over
>>> two full days? I really hope you will answer
>>> this simple question.
>>>
>>> Back to the process of adoption of our
>>> statement, after the above exchange on the IGC
>>> list, we presented the issue of making a
>>> statement at the CS plenary on the evening of
>>> 22nd , which is in accordance with our mission
>>> statement in our charter OES.to provide a
>>> mechanism for coordination of advocacy to
>>> enhance the utilization and influence of Civil
>>> Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy
>>> processes¹ and objective 4 OEProvide outreach to
>>> other CS groups who have an interest or a stake
>>> in some aspect of Internet governance polices¹.
>>>
>>> It is at that meeting that the suggestion for
>>> including Human Rights as a cross-cutting theme
>>> for the IGF-2 came from Robin Gross (a caucus
>>> member), and there was general agreement for it.
>>> (this is the only substantive issue that McTim,
>>> on a specific inquiry from Bill, was able to
>>> point as something he objected to in our
>>> statement). After this meeting, I reached my
>>> hotel room very late, and only on the early
>>> morning of 23rd, the day of IGF consultations
>>> could I prepare a draft statement, drawing on
>>> the approved Feb statement, adding a point or
>>> two which in my understanding represented
>>> OEassumed general thinking of the caucus¹ (IGC
>>> charter), including the point of HR as a cross
>>> cutting theme. In this matter, apart from the
>>> fact pointed out by Bill that we have always
>>> endorsed HR as a key issues and principle, it
>>> may be noted that our vision statement mentions
>>> OEthe realization of internationally agreed human
>>> rights¹ right at the start. I posted the draft
>>> at 830 AM Geneva time on the IGC list. As per
>>> point 5 of the section on statements during
>>> meeting in our charter, an important criterion
>>> for such statements is that they reflect vision,
>>> objectives etc as per our charter. Here we had a
>>> direct copy-paste from the first line of our
>>> vision statement.
>>>
>>> The statement was read out to the 17 members
>>> present in the morning IGC meeting, and those
>>> present were asked not only to give their view
>>> on the content of the statement, but also,
>>> whether the statement in their opinion
>>> represented the OEassumed general thinking of the
>>> caucus¹ as per point 2 and 5 of the section on
>>> statements at meeting of the charter. And there
>>> was a general agreement that it did.
>>>
>>> So,McTim, you are wrong when you say per your email dt 23rd that
>>>
>>> ³I also don't think it passes criteria #2, if it
>>> did, we would have explicitly mentioned/included
>>> it in our statement.²
>>>
>>> Of course, the statement itself is for external
>>> consumption that it will be stupid to include
>>> these kinds of internal issues in the statement
>>> itself. However, when I put the draft on the IGC
>>> list on 23rd morning before the meeting, I did
>>> say that
>>>
>>> ³If there is a good amount of consensus among
>>> those present, with a shared acceptance that
>>> this draft reflects positions that are generally
>>> understood to have been accepted/ endorsed by
>>> the caucus (emphasis added now), it will form a
>>> spoken input into the consultation on the behalf
>>> of the IG caucus.²
>>>
>>> So, point 2 of the referred section of the
>>> charter was always on our mind, and we made sure
>>> it passed that criterion both subjectively, as
>>> well as with reference to the view of all those
>>> present.
>>>
>>> I will be happy to provide any other clarification if necessary.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>>> IT for Change, Bangalore
>>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
>>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
>>> <http://www.itforchange.net/>www.ITforChange.net
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list