[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Sat Sep 6 07:05:58 EDT 2008

Milton

> 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.

I will not like to go with a statement issued on the behalf of IGC which
says that "significant participants in CS . contest the positive and
collectivist notions" of rights. The best I can agree to is as stated in the
para I proposed where FoE and privacy are in some form considered basic, and
established, rights, while we only speak of exploratory language about
positive and collective rights vis a vis the Internet. 

You say that 

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

Why not agree to the same logic in general about positive and collective
rights. We are merely saying "It may also be useful to explore if and how
positive and collective rights may be meaningful...." . Why do you object to
it?

I will give my reasons in some detail why I cannot accept text which clearly
speaks of "significant participants in CS who contest the positive and
collectivist notions". I don't accept your simplistic argument that well,
isn't it a fact that some people have cast doubts, so it is only saying what
is a fact. Well, I know for fact that there people in CS space - there may
be some security-obsessed people on this list, I certainly know there used
to be one at least - who will say well, FOE and privacy rights needs to be
carefully balanced with security concerns. And others will say they need to
be balanced with child rights, cultural sensitivities etc etc.

So, I ask you a simple and a direct question, which please reply to. If
above views/doubts do get expressed by some people here, would you agree to
a text, where after we mention FoE, we put the text that 'significant
participants in CS want to ensure that FOE and privacy rights are
appropriately balanced with security concerns, child rights, cultural
sensitivities etc". No, you wont agree, right! You will contest such
language, and I will agree to this contestation. Why is it so? Because we
all know that security concerns etc are already dominant in IGF space, and
CS needs to be bringing in the other perspective more strongly, and a
language of balancing etc fatally weakens our case. 

So here is my answer why I cant accept doubts to be expressed about the very
existence of the categories of positive and collective rights. A 'negative
rights' understanding of rights is already dominant in the IG space, largely
due to the dominance of Northern groups in the CS space, and very little
involvement of Southern groups.  I don't want an IGC statement to reinforce
it. It will have a very detrimental impact on the struggles of those in the
CS who are trying to open up spaces in the area of positive and collective
rights, under very adverse and difficult circumstances. 

It would normally be fine for a CS group to make a statement representing a
part view - or North -centric view - of rights. There can be all or any
kinds of groups in the CS space. But my right in contesting this statement
with text that challenges the very existence of the category of positive and
collective rights comes from the fact that IGC has a global forum history in
WSIS, and claims itself as a global IG CS space, with some kind of implied
global legitimacy. Such a claim, in my view, is greatly strained by taking
such one-sided view of human rights. I did surf the net a bit in last few
hours and I could not find a single global human rights groups with any
degree of really global participation which did not strongly endorse and
work for positive and collective rights (If you know of any such group, you
can please point it to me.)

It took many decades of struggles for Southern groups and many other
excluded people to get their voice and concerns into the global human rights
framework, as underpinning global polity (to the extent it exists) and I
cannot accept that a new information society or IG discourse takes that
progress backwards. I say this because I am very cognizant that the
ideological discourse of a 'brave new world' of an information society is
already rigged greatly in such a regressive way, and I will not support IGC
making a statement that helps this along. 

And Milton, in fact you are quite tuned in to strategic importance and
implication of texts that goes out from the IGC, to try the simplistic logic
with me that - well, the contestation within CS is only a statement of fact.

>Believe me, ANY contestation of IPR, no matter how subtle, is going to
provoke fanatical opposition in the IGF context, so you had better make damn
sure we are unified >on this one. (Milton, from another email)

While I thank you for agreeing with my description of IPRs as a positive
right, if at all a right (which I greatly doubt) your words of wisdom on why
we cant be seen to be contesting IPR are interesting. It may help you to
know that every single civil society group I work with in India and in other
developing countries will consider it anathema for a CS statement casting
doubts on the very existence on positive and collective rights, and there
will be, to use your words 'fanatical opposition'. Why aren't you concerned
with this fanatical opposition, if you are at all concerned to keep the
global CS legitimacy of the IGC. I am very much concerned on this count, and
therefore oppose the text proposed by you.

I can only agree to the following.  (I have added another 'may' to my
earlier text, to further 'weaken' the text on positive and collective
rights)

"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 how positive and collective rights may be
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." 

Pleas let me know if you at all agree with this or not. 

Parminder 

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:14 PM
To: Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

  _____  

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/20080906/e4da7833/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