[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Sat Sep 6 03:14:57 EDT 2008

Milton and all,

  I sense your frustration and share in it.  I don't have a good
answer to your question that would be of certain fact.  I can
only surmise that nearly any concept or idea in respect to
"Rights" in particular, is as you rightly say, contestable.  And
as I stated some weeks ago, any set of "Rights: that the IGC
comes up with must be able to stand up to very in depth and
significantly forcible contesting. But that the some folks are
not or have not fought those battles or are far to young and
unaware of history enough to recognize that when espousing
such "Rights" and the necessary enforcement of same, requires
a huge and long term effort ( decades at least ).  Many that
are willing to espouse are not willing to fight, or even perhaps
give their very lives for those rights to which they espouse to,
to be unequivocally and legally recognized.

  For this reason and some significant experiance I myself
have had for such similar rights, I again go back to Ben
Franklin, Words may show a man's wit but actions his
meaning.

Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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 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