[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Parminder]

Milton

 

>I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention
around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own
views into our mouths. >As always, >we can engage with these disagreements
honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement
differences of views about what rights are and >how they are defined, or we
>one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen.

 

It was decided on basis of discussions around our input to September MAG
consultations that we try to seek IGC inputs to the IGF, Hyderabad,
synthesis paper on two subjects - 'rights agenda in IGF' and 'review of the
IGF'. This decision was taken on the above basis by the co-coordinators. Ian
asked me to do the first draft. Before doing an initial draft a call for
open comments was given, as also a proposal made for forming working groups.
Neither you nor anyone else responded. After that an initial draft was
proposed. Any other IGC member has as much right as the initial drafter to
change the draft. A collaborative platform was also set up for this purpose
and a few members have exercised that right.

 

I have a right as much as any other member to propose that some of my views
be a part of the draft. Even if I had not proposed the initial draft I would
have suggested these amendments. So, how is it that I am 'holding the pen'
and putting words in others' mouths. Why dont you hold the pen. McTim, who
now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text. 

 

Additionally, it is my 'tentative' judgment, open to being corrected, that a
very large majority on this list do support exploring all internationally
recognized human rights  - civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and
that to development - in the context of the Internet. 

 

This gives me adequate basis for proposing this draft, which is open for
members' comments, and amendments. 

 

It is up to the members, as per their political views, to support, oppose or
ignore it - or engage with providing alternative texts etc. And one must
also always remain conscious that in a larger group some give-and-take on
developing common positions will be needed to be made. For instance I have
considerable problem with global corporations exercising additional
influence - as if their existing power was not dominating enough - through
multistakeholder policy forums, but would not bring that issue up when this
group is proposing positions of the ultimate greatness of
multistakeholder-ism. But of course it is a personal and political decision
for anyone to make or not make such compromises in a given situation. 

 

>one faction that is temporarily dominant..

 

Associating me with a 'dominant faction', even if temporarily so, on this
list is a welcome surprise. I haven't really seen myself that way. But
thanks in any case : - )

 

Parminder 



 

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:30 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

 

 

>> > Conceptions of 'rights and the Internet' extend to the area of
>> > positive
>> > rights - for instance in the area of access, where a 'right to the
>> > Internet' is being articulated by some groups, and to collective rights
>> > like cultural rights, including the right to have an Internet in ones
>> > own language, which can underpin the
> > important IGF thematic area of cultural diversity.

I oppose this language. As I have made clear, I don't think there is such a
thing as a collective right, or a positive right that is meaningful in this
context, and have no idea what is meant by "cultural rights" -- except that
people have spent centuries violating all kinds of rights -- expression,
association, life -- in an attempt to protect collectivities or cultures.

I see that Parminder has chosen to ignore extensive evidence of contention
around this issue on the list, and apparently thinks he can put his own
views into our mouths. As always, we can engage with these disagreements
honestly, or dishonestly; i.e., we can recognize in the statement
differences of views about what rights are and how they are defined, or we
one faction that is temporarily dominant and holding the pen.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080903/9ce26af2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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