[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi,

> 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.

I can live with the language proposed by Parminder as a compromise.
> 



> 
> 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. 

The way I see it is that we struggle to express views this diverse group 
can agree upon. Your division of North and South doesn't quite work for 
this list. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy also supports what you call a 
North-centric view.
To me it seems that you hold an advocacy-oriented view to rights where 
the desired goals have become part of the definition. This is what I 
don't support.
jeanette

> 
> 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.
> 
>      
> 
____________________________________________________________
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