AW: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights

Lee McKnight lmcknigh at syr.edu
Mon May 26 20:42:36 EDT 2008 

Wolfgang,

I agree with your main point on the need for negotiation and appreciation for differing points of view in any international discussion on issues such as freedom of expression.

However, I am surprised you say 'noone would be so stupid to try to censor the IGF.' I seem to recall several instances eg vociferous objections to the IGF addressing critical Internet resources, or the meaning and future of the IGF's existence. To name 2 examples, without directly questioning anyone's intelligence. ; ) Both times successfully overcome. 

Still I would say the opposite, noone should be surprised by continued efforts to censor/constrain the IGF, it goes with the (difficult and sensitive) territory.  

Even the statement that 'the IGF cannot negotiate and agree on texts', which I see some making, I view as a defeatist, and false: an IGF workshop or dynamic coalition can do whatever they want, including agree to a text. Naturally that is non-binding for IGF as a whole, but could include a variety of strong commitments, perhaps carried over to other fora.  

Lee



Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 05/26/08 1:00 PM >>>
 
Robert, Jackie
 
the MAG operates under the Chatham House rules and I follow this rule (it my eyes it makes sense in such a sensitive environment). However, if you take your time an read carefully puplished texts with all your diplomatic skills you will find easily the hot potatoes. If you go to p. 5 of the summary MAG report from Geneva, May 2008 (http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf) <http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf)I>  you will find a comment which says that FOE "should have a dedicated session though there was a question whether IGF is the appropriate forum to discuss this issue".
 
Nobody would so stupid to try to censor the IGF. It is a question of priorities. As you can see in various bodies the Internet and FOE is seen a delicate issue. If you want to move foreward (like ICANN with new TLDs) you have to find a way how to deal with this complicated subject which easily get lead you into a trap where nothing anymore is movable. Neither Article 19 nor Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives you an answer to the management of concrete cases on a day-to-day basis. The way how Google explains its behaviour in China to the US congress is a good illustration for the dilemma. 
 
I personally would support to discuss FOE everywhere. It is the cornerstone of Human Rights (UN Resolution 59/I from 1946). However this is not a subject for "preaching other people about your values" or "exporting the 1st Amendement". There is need to be sensitive. There is need to find  a balance how to protect the communication rights and freedoms against other rights and freedoms. There is no FOE a la carte. Such balanced solutions for individual cases can be found very often only with the help of neutral third parties. With other words, the problem is not that from time to time you see some (politically, economically, culturally justified) restrictions (not only in China, Russia and Tunisia but also in the US, in Germany, France or the UK), the question is whether these restrictions got an independent evaluation by a neutral authorized third party (a constitutional court etc.) which has the indepedent power to reject the proposed limitation. But this is theory. We do not live in such an ideal world ;-((((.
 
One step foward would be if violations of FOE would be treated like violations of IPR as a "trade barrier" in the WTO. Some governments are rather sensitive with regard to trade issues while they ignore public criticism with regard to human rights. But the WTO is not interested to discuss FOE ;-((((. Or do you belive that the new US president will bring Article 19 to the next trade negotiations? 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 18:28
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Robert Guerra
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion



So we move to yet another forum...
Was the proposal approved?  Did it look like it was getting support?
Jacqueline
Kleinwächter wrote:
> BTW,
> 
> in the recent IGF Consultations a representative from aother big country (not the US) has proposed that FOE should be discussed ONLY in the new Human Rights Council. The IGF should concentrate on "technical issues".
> 
> wolfgang
> 
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Gesendet: Mo 26.05.2008 17:48
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jacqueline A. Morris; Robert Guerra
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Fall ICANN meeting in Cairo - Rights discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com]
>>
>> Hi all
>> This seems a little skewed.
>> From my reading of the recent discussion, it's not that those issues
>> are not of CONCERN to ICANN staff and the ALAC and others,
>> but rather it is not seen as part of ICANN's very narrow mission and
>>    
> focus.
>
> Perhaps Jackie you should read the GAC Policy Advice on new gTLDs.
> http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf
> And you should read the GNSO report on new gTLDs.
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/
>
> Both address freedom of expression issues. Both take the "wrong"
> position if you believe in freedom of expression. Anyway, no one who
> reads them can reasonably state that ICANN is confined to a "technical
> remit."
>
>  
>> This is IMO far more an issue for the IGF than for ICANN's
>> technical remit.
>>    
>
> The idea that ICANN has only a technical coordinator's job is a myth
> that has been decisively refuted countless times.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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