[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Milton L Mueller]

Why is it impossible for anyone to accept reality: i.e., that certain
things are contested? 

Are these concepts so weak that they crumble when we stop pretending
that no one disagrees with them? 

 

________________________________

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 7:06 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

 

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/20080906/6150299a/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