[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[guru]

/"If a national constitution contains proivisions to that effect, then 
there is a right to education that should enable citizens to bring 
action against the state." (Jeanette)
/
In the same manner, the constitution can have a provision for a 'right 
to the internet', which would enable citizens to bring action against 
the state for its non provision - how is this proposition inherently 
contradictory with what you have said above?

As for accountability, the process of establishing a right and that of 
having a process of enforcing it go hand in hand - there is no logic 
that the 'accountability structures' should be perfect before the right 
is accepted. In fact the very acceptance of a right is a force that 
would compel the state to accelerate measures to that would help it be 
accountable for its non provision. Just as the UDHR acts as a moral 
pressure on certain Governments

/"I remember a long debate in Germany about a "right to work". This 
wasn't added to the constitution because it was said that the government 
is not in a position to guarantee a sufficient number of jobs. "(Jeanette)
/
Coincidentally, a recent landmark legislation in India has been the 
'National Rural Employment Gurantee Act (NREGA)' which establishes a 
right on part of an unemployed person under certain contexts to get 
employment. This example certainly suggests that it would be difficult 
to argue that universally there cannot be any right to the internet' on 
the conceptually shallow grounds of 'enforceability', which is what 
Milton seems to be advocating.

I suggest that the way forward would be to nuance this issue - under 
what circumstances and contexts should there be a collective 
accountability (Milton however much you detest the notion of the 
collective, the state, which is usually the body against which rights 
are enforced, is a representative of the collective of society within 
the political boundaries of a nation) for providing a right to the 
internet? And if the IGF is a fora for discussing and nuancing 
understanding and building common ground on IG issues, then it is the 
right place to discuss and debate this right.

If we accept the right to education (and I am eager to hear anybody on 
this list assert that the right to education is invalid), it is 
illogical not to accept the right to the internet. As Avri has argued so 
persuasively, "The Internet was designed to be an educational tool - and 
has become an indispensable part of learning about today's world and, i 
would argue, it is impossible to be fully literate in today's world with 
having learnd the Internet and through the Internet about the world.  So 
I would argue that the right to a multilingual Internet is a derivative 
of the fundamental right of education".

Education is itself socially determined and it is difficult to argue 
that education can be meaningful today if it completely excludes the 
internet. (Even Milton has not been able to clearly deny the right to 
education). The basic goal of education is to prepare the learner for 
negotiating with his/her world and with the internet increasingly an 
integral part of the world of today and even more of tomorrow, keeping 
the learner away from internet (by not actively providing for those who 
cannot access it for reasons of resources, capacities etc) strongly 
reduces the meaning of education. This process need not cover only 
children but also adults who need such education.

Just a PO - is it a coincidence that those arguing for the 'narrowness 
of rights' belong to social groups for who the access to the internet is 
a non-issue? whereas in societies with such inequities that significant 
sections of population would not have the resources or capacities to use 
the internet, such rights have great meaning for those populations.

regards,
Guru


Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> Parminder wrote:
>> Jeannette
>>
>>> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights
>>> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see
>>> who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own
>>> language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly 
>>> doesn't
>>> sound like a right to me.
>>
>> How do you see 'right to education' then - a question that has come 
>> up here
>> earlier? Do you or do you not believe in such a right?
>
> If a national constitution contains proivisions to that effect, then 
> there is a right to education that should enable citizens to bring 
> action against the state.
> In Germany, citizens can submit cases to the constitutional court if 
> they think their constitutional rights have been violated.
> I remember a long debate in Germany about a "right to work". This 
> wasn't added to the constitution because it was said that the 
> government is not in a position to guarantee a sufficient number of 
> jobs. I mention this here as it seems to describe a similar situation.
> jeanette
>>
>> Who could be held accountable for lack of 'educational facilities'? 
>> In the
>> same way that the state and other political formations can be held
>> 'accountable' for lack of educational facilities, and thereby 
>> 'violating'
>> ones right to education, these political entities can be held 
>> 'accountable'
>> for other things if they are collectively found to be 'basic' to 
>> worthwhile
>> human existence and such.
>> On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop 
>> alternative
>> conceptions to state centered notions of development, security, 
>> culture etc
>> to move toward a more people-centric one. The problem with global 
>> Internet
>> policy making is that it is not desirable to leave it to state-centric
>> notions. The alternative is that we propose a people-centric one 
>> which is
>> built on people's rights vis a vis the Internet. This is what we are 
>> trying
>> to do, and, accordingly, this debate is not an idle one. 
>> (For instance the logic of 'security' used by many repressive 
>> countries in a
>> state-centric manner in order to take control of the Internet may 
>> need to be
>> countered by use of language of 'right to human security' on the 
>> Internet as
>> it is being used in the offline world.)
>>
>> (1)There could be a global Internet policy regime that, as today, 
>> remains
>> centered on existing hegemonies.
>> (2) It could move towards a state-centric system which can break 
>> existing
>> hegemonies, but as we all know it would be as bad, or worse.
>>
>> (3) We can try alternative political frameworks. My view is that such a
>> framework needs to be based on, and built over, a strong conception 
>> of human
>> rights in the new Internet era. However, restrictive definitions that 
>> serve
>> those who are at present politically dominant will neither be 
>> legitimate not
>> acceptable to the big majority. And we won't make any process. 
>> Accordingly,
>> we will remain caught in situation (1) above or move towards(2).
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:38 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>>> Cc: 'McTim'; 'Milton L Mueller'
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> it seems this is a debate we have to repeat again and again. I am no
>>> expert on matters of right but I lean towards a narrow 
>>> interpretation of
>>> the term right. It makes sense to me to protect its meaning against an
>>> inflating use to avoid devaluation.
>>> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights
>>> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't see
>>> who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in ones own
>>> language". The latter might be a political goal but it certainly 
>>> doesn't
>>> sound like a right to me.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>> This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in
>>>>> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far".
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> McTim
>>>>
>>>> I did not propose that part (though I agree with it). Hanane did, who
>>> being
>>>> from an Arab country may have felt its necessity more strongly than 
>>>> many
>>>> others. You may give your reasons and deliberate with her and we can
>>> proceed
>>>> accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the 'right to have an Internet in ones own language' has its
>>> equivalent
>>>> in the 'right to have education in ones mother tongue' which is spoken
>>> of
>>>> inter alia in the framework of 'education for all'. The IGF, 
>>>> Hyderabad's
>>>> overall theme 'Internet for All' was taken from this concept.
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:36 PM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
>>>>> Cc: Milton L Mueller
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Parminder 
>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> pen. McTim, who
>>>>>> now supports you on this, did use the pen on the draft text.
>>>>> I edited for length and a bit of style, cutting out some strong
>>>>> rhetoric.  This was before the notion of a "right to the Internet in
>>>>> every language" language, that is my "bridge too far".
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> McTim
>>>>> mctim.blogspot.com
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080903/37b2f6c7/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