[governance] Human Rights and IGF

Thu May 31 08:44:30 EDT 2007

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