[governance] Human Rights and IGF

Thu May 31 07:23:29 EDT 2007

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