[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Milton L Mueller]

________________________________

	From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
	

	Thanks Milton for this engagement. While, as you would expect, I
have a lot of issues with your amendments, this process of engagement
and deliberation is very useful.  

	 

	Agreed. 

	 

	It is important to recognize that there are two important and
different contestations here. One, whether there is at all a category of
positive and collective rights in any case whatsoever. My personal view
is that it is a very small minority among the IGC membership that really
contests the very validity of the category of positive and collective
rights. I invite members' comments on this statement. Accordingly, I
don't think an IGC statement should go out casting doubts on the very
validity of these categories of rights. I would therefore want all
corresponding parts of the statement removed. 

	 

	But there is no doubt about the fact that it is contested. And
it is not just me, three or four others have taken up this discussion
more or less from my point of view. Based on the list dialogue this
would look like almost a 50-50 division, but whether this is a "small
minority" or a significant minority doesn't matter, it is contested, and
if the statement doesn't reflect that I will opt out of it and issue a
separate statement contesting the legitimacy of your statement as an
expression of IGC. 

	 

	

	The second contestation is about whether there are some already
accepted extensions of positive and collective rights to the Internet -
right to access internet (positive right) and right to cultural
expression or an Internet in ones own language (a collective right). I
agree that there may not be enough consensus in this group at present to
assert these rights, and we may only speak of exploring them, and
debating the pros and cons. Accordingly, I am for mentioning the
language of 'wanting to explore' with regard to these rights.  

	 

	I did not delete that language, in regard to RTDevelopment, I
think it is perfectly acceptable to "explore" contested issues.  

	 

	"The openness and diversity of the internet are underpinned by
widely recognized (but still imperfectly enforced) basic human rights:
the individual right to freedom of expression and to privacy. It may
also be useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights
are meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance a right to
Internet access, or a right of cultural expression - including the right
to have an Internet in ones own language, which can inform the important
IGF thematic area of cultural diversity." 

	 

	This proposed amendment does not make it clear that there are
significant participants in CS who contest the positive and collectivist
notions, so I can't accept it.

	 

	

	"We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and
claim "rights" it is much more difficult to implement and enforce them.
We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete
with each other. For example, a claim that there is a "right to Internet
access" may imply an obligation on states to fund and provide such
access, but it is likely that if states are responsible for supplying
internet access that there will also be strong pressures on them to
exert controls over what content users can access using public funds and
facilities.  There can also be uncertainty about the proper application
of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical
methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of
how to apply legal categories. "

	 

	This para clearly makes out a strong case against 'right to the
Internet' and is obviously not acceptable to those who speak for it. I
would delete the whole para.  

	 

	So people who believe in a positive right to Internet access
cannot be contradicted, but those who do not can be? I think the only
thing you need to do is replace "it is likely that if states are
responsible" with "some fear that if states are responsible."  That
makes it clear that there is disagreement. which there is.

	 

	I however find the last two sentences - which I know you state
in terms of meaningfulness of universal access - very interesting in
terms of IPR in digital space. But I discuss my issues with the IPR
paragraph in a separate email. 

	 

	The last two sentences were meant to be general, not specific to
universal access or IPRs -- the principle applies to all kinds of
issues, especially privacy and identity.  

	

	I also have problem with the new opening para that you propose.

	"The Tunis Agenda (para. 42) invoked human rights when it
reaffirmed a global "commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart
and use information" and affirmed that "measures undertaken to ensure
Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter
spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of
expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles."
However, little follow up work has been done to enact these commitments
to basic human rights in Internet governance."

	 

	If one mentions rights in the IG arena it is by default read as
FoE and privacy rights. While these are basic and very important rights,
our effort is to explore the rights terrain much further. As argued in
my earlier email the possibility that a broad rights agenda may at ant
time be globally accepted as a good basis for IG related policy
discussions also lies in making the rights discourse broader,  

	 

	This is a tactical difference mainly, but also one of principle.
You start with the area where there is the most common ground. The point
about citing the Tunis Agenda is that governments have already committed
themselves to it, I think the line about balancing security concerns
with other rights is especially important. Even on your own expansive
terms, it would be wiser to start with the traditional rights and then
move gradually into how far it can be taken. 

	 

	 including concerns of what I call as the vast majority of
people, which go beyond these two rights.  

	 

	Just for the record, I do not accept your claim to speak for the
vast majority of people. 

	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080905/185a3d42/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