[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Fri Sep 5 20:33:02 EDT 2008

Parminder and all,

  Try to remember, there is no "Balance" between security and
privacy.  Ben Franklin said it far better than I can: "Those who
would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Parminder wrote:

> 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 dont accept your simplistic
> argument that well, isnt 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 dont 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 arent 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 dont 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.
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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