[governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed.

[Parminder]

I am primarily responding to the question that has been discussed briefly in
this thread of whether conception, articulation and adoption of new sets of
rights are at all needed for the Internet, and, more generally, for the
techno-social phenomenon of an emerging information society. Robert, Milton
and Vittorio have expressed some views on this....

 It is wrong to dismiss a rights discourse - by asserting that we don't need
new 'rights' and that they may create more problems - without inspecting the
basic significance of 'rights', why and when new rights get instituted, and
whether present circumstances require such an exercise.

Rights constitute an important element of defining the relationship between
individuals and social institutions, and thus are one of the key principles
of societal organization. There can be other principles - like market based
exchanges, and all these principles together shape our societies, and thus
are important inputs into a policy discourse like the one conducted on this
list. 

Information society term implies far reaching structural changes to our
societal institutions - which are taking place right now in front of our
eyes, and the Internet is the central techno-social paradigm driving these
changes. Existing statements of rights are framed in terms of social reality
experienced by their framers. Most of these still hold true today as they
did when they were formulated. But greater emphasis on some issues may be
required, while some entirely new areas requiring a rights-based approach
may come up. Robert, I know you work a lot in the area of privacy, do you
think that the extent and nature of threat to privacy is adequately covered
by existing HR instruments?

Much of the current evolution of rights discourse is taking place in
developing countries. UNDP has increasingly been casting its polices and
practices in the area of development in terms of what it calls as a
rights-based approach. 

The few rights based initiatives in terms of the Internet and the IS that
have originated in the North have ignored these new areas of 'rights', and
thus lack global legitimacy. 

A 'right to communicate' and 'communications rights' have been some areas of
evolution of rights in areas in which the Internet has strong and direct
impact. Sen's 'capability rights' approach has strong implication in ICTD
area (IT for Change is working on applying this approach to ICTD and ICT
policy - in how ICTs expand capabilities and freedoms, as education does, in
making possible new choices of 'being' and 'doing', and therefore how ICTs
may need to seen from a rights perspective, and the policy implications
thereof).

And this discourse of rights is not merely academic; proceeding on what
aspects of the Internet and ICTs are seen from a rights-perspective gives us
the ground for shaping appropriate Internet and IS polices - which are an
expression of societal goals and chosen means to reach them. 

To not employ a rights framework for developing global and sub-global
Internet polices may be wrong to say the least, and possibly
ideologically-biased.  

On the question raised by Milton that since governments regularly violate
existing HR guarantees there is no practical sense in writing more HR text -
well, this comes from an environ where a high degree of HR protection is
taken for guaranteed, in other places peoples' struggles still see
international and national HR docs are key allies in their fights, and these
often have great practical value.  

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
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erick Iriarte Ahon [mailto:faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:36 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dan Krimm
> Cc: graham at lobo-graham.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's
> progress .. wishing for it to succeed.
> 
> Hi
> 
> In 2001, James Graham proposed the creation of "Group for the
> Internationalization of Cyberspace (GIC)"
> [The Internationalization of Cyberspace for a Legal E-Qual World: A
> Latin American Initiative]
> 
> He said: "The present initiative aims to resolve most of the actual
> legal problems that are discussed on national and international
> level. Internet being transnational by its nature, regulators do
> accord that there is a real need for some international legislation.
> However, their will of protection of sovereignty does not permit
> today to find a global solution. Although, some treaties have been
> achieved (e.g. the Cybercrime Treaty of the European Council) or will
> be achieved (e.g. the Jurisdiction Convention of the Conference of
> the Hague), no international organization does treat Internet and its
> issues as a whole. Beneath specific topics like e-signatures or
> cybercrimes, there are other issues like the digital divide and the
> respect of fundamental freedoms.".
> 
> You can find the proposal and Project in:
> http://www.alfa-redi.com/gic/
> 
> Six years ago, and for some reason, the document only appear in some
> articles in LAC (i think the same reason that have only a few LAC
> organizations in another proposals).
> 
> Maybe you can use the proposal for the discuss.
> 
> Erick Iriarte Ahon
> 
> 
> 
> At 01:50 p.m. 25/09/2007, Dan Krimm wrote:
> >At 11:07 AM -0700 9/25/07, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > >Words don't achieve power by the number of their authors but by the
> > >righteousness of their meaning. John Perry Barlow's Declaration of
> > >Independence for Cyberspace and the Cluetrain Manifesto are but two
> > >examples of similar documents, drafted by a few and adopted by many.
> >
> >
> >I agree with Robert, though, that if you want these powerful words to
> have
> >a tangible effect in the world of political power one must organize
> >politically and mobilize a broad constituency to talk about the ideas and
> >ultimately push for their adoption in law.
> >
> >Words may inspire people from the top down but political power is
> >ultimately expressed from the bottom up and must be instantiated in
> >legislation, regulation and judiciary enforcement in order to take effect
> >tangibly in a society, especially in areas where markets alone simply
> >cannot suffice.
> >
> >It's the "adopted by many" part that requires more than just the words.
> >The point here is to get public policy to reflect this agenda, and in
> fact
> >the Barlow Declaration and Cluetrain are not consistently expressed in
> >terms of law at this time.
> >
> >This is a persistent disconnect in the policy dynamics of the tech
> >community.  Silicon Valley and The Beltway still view each other mostly
> >with apprehension (in the US, and I believe this dynamic extends
> >internationally as well).  This is a systemic problem of communities that
> >are not currently engaged in a meaningful exchange of ideas, and I think
> it
> >can (and therefore should) be improved.
> >
> >Those in the tech community who believe that invention and rhetoric and
> >markets alone (should I add "consensus processes"?) can solve problems of
> >political power are fooling themselves.  And have no doubt that politics
> >are *intimately* and *fundamentally* involved in ICT policies by now,
> here
> >in the Information Society.
> >
> >Politics are not mocked.  :-)
> >
> >Dan
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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