[governance] Human Rights and IGF
Meryem Marzouki
marzouki at ras.eu.org
Fri Jun 1 04:07:53 EDT 2007
So, what interesting information can we infer from this situation?
Not that China (and certainly many others) doesn't want any
discussion on human rights: this is not new and wouldn't surprise
anyone.
What is interesting to note is that one government can block (in
diplomatic terms: saying that "HR are covered in enough separate
fora", as Adam reported) a proposal supported by many CS groups, by
an intergovernmental organization, and probably by other stakeholders
too.
Now the question is: what is the progress made in process by IGF,
multistakeholderism and "consensus decision making" with respect to
"classical" intergovernmental fora like, e.g. UN WSIS or other UN
process ?
Putting HR as a cross-cutting on the agenda is a good case, and the
one we have here at hand, but it would be interesting to analyse
other cases. e.g. the MAG or a multistakeholder bureau:)
Ah, and may I remind everyone that this would perfectly fit the 1st
discussion theme ("The Changing Institutionalization of Internet
Governance) of the next GigaNet symposium, which CFP has been
circulated on this list...
Best,
Meryem
Le 1 juin 07 à 06:06, Robin Gross a écrit :
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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