rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...

Thu Sep 4 01:29:09 EDT 2008

Milton and all,

  And does the IT4C have more than one position open,
my 85 year old mother says she is also interested in a
position, and was once ask to run as Lt. Gov.  An extra,
she is also disabled so if there is an OSHA consideration
she would be a good candidate to help there as well...  >:)

Milton L Mueller wrote:

> p.s., when do I start my new job at IT4C?
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:09 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; 'Tapani Tarvainen'
> > Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...
> >
> >
> > > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause.
> > ALAWCAI. If
> > > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the
> > > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate.
> >
> > Thanks again. Accordingly, I have suggested a tentative 'may'
> > to be added in
> > the part on positive and collective rights. Hope you can
> > agree to this.
> >
> > As for "the old "as long as we can afford it" (ALAWCAI)
> > clause, you know
> > that some kind of ALAWCAI is applicable to all rights, even
> > to the negative
> > ones.
> >
> > You yourself mention article 29 of UDHR as an ALAWCAI clause.
> > Within this
> > group we have provisions in the charter that can be used to
> > 'limit' what may
> > be considered by someone as his FoE. For certain kinds of
> > postings we can
> > limit posting rights and or unsubscribe a list participant
> > altogether. We
> > are limiting some's FoE just because we collectively (a word you hate)
> > cannot afford it, right.
> >
> > Do you not agree with this ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list?
> >
> > In fact in light of certain recent behavior on this list,
> > about which I ma
> > getting many complaints, it may be found necessary
> > collectively (again) to
> > revisit the ALAWCAI clause to FoE on this list, because we may have
> > discovered that there are some other kinds of behavior which one may
> > consider his FoE, but it may not be possible for the group to
> > 'afford' if we
> > have to remain effective etc.
> >
> > > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality
> > cases I would
> > > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For
> > example, if voting
> > > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an
> > international
> > > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think
> > individuals
> > > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or
> > > translations of laws/policies be made available to them.
> > Even if it does
> > > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to
> > political
> > > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge.
> > But there is
> > > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can
> > > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist)
> >
> > You know, when you say that you agree to what you agree to
> > above, we are
> > really far away form each other in our views. No one
> > advocates rights in
> > manner that will jeopardize the way our society and economy
> > works, and the
> > basic needs for incentives to work, and economic awards as
> > per incentive. It
> > is only for conditions that fall outside what *normal* working of the
> > society and economy covers that the meaning of these rights -
> > positive as
> > well as collective - becomes operational. You described one special
> > circumstance above where the 'collective' may need to 'pay'
> > for fulfilling
> > someone's right. Others are able to think of some other
> > situations like this
> > one. We all do agree that we need to be cautious in balancing
> > rights, and
> > the basic requirements of healthy working of the society (and
> > the economy.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:34 AM
> > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen
> > > Subject: RE: rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org]
> > > > But perhaps I should yield to the more forgiving
> > interpretation that
> > > > such rights are implicitly limited by circumstances, have
> > an implicit
> > > > "as long as we can afford it" -clause.
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > I like that, the old "as long as we can afford it" clause.
> > ALAWCAI. If
> > > Parminder adds that to all his positive rights claims the
> > > realist/economist in me will be satisfied, or at least abate.
> > >
> > > One could consider Article 29 states' "ALAWCAI clause" for
> > freedom of
> > > expression.
> > >
> > > > And it can be interpreted as an obligation to Internet
> > > > designers to not prevent or hamper it being used in whatever
> > > > languate one chooses. But if you intepret it as a positive right,
> > > > i.e., that Internet should be provided to you ready-made in your
> > > > own language, I ask: who should pay for it?
> > >
> > > Indeed. Ask not only who should pay for it -- because it's easy to
> > > volunteer someone else to pay for my benefits -- but ask
> > also whether
> > > making such a demand is the best way to get such content in
> > one's own
> > > language produced? Are there not more effective policy
> > options? Is there
> > > a danger that this kind of demand will act as a substitute for those
> > > more effective options?
> > >
> > > (I should add that in some of these linguistic equality
> > cases I would
> > > actually opt for requiring people to pay for it. For
> > example, if voting
> > > is done by Internet in a multilingual society, or if an
> > international
> > > institution produces authoritative documents, then I think
> > individuals
> > > in major linguistic groups have a right to demand that ballots or
> > > translations of laws/policies be made available to them.
> > Even if it does
> > > cost more. Because it affects the basic individual right to
> > political
> > > representation and voice, on which most other rights hinge.
> > But there is
> > > still some kind of a ALAWCAI clause in there, because no society can
> > > cater to all of the very small linguistic groups that might exist)
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > 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

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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