[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 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, 

Dominant? But wait, just a few posts ago you were telling me that the
vast majority of civil society groups supported your conception of
rights and that I was either a minority of one, or part of a very tiny
and insignificant group, so tiny it could be ignored. So which is it? 

Anyway, the issue is whether those doubts exist, or not. They do. So why
should the statement not reflect that? 

Let's put it this way: if one sincerely thinks, as I do, that
redefinition of human rights in collectivist and positive terms is often
inimical to real rights, why should I be willing to sign on to a
statement that strongly implies that the whole point of a rights
discourse is to push the discussion into those directions?

> 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.

This is not about North and South, it's about left vs. liberal. In any
society, any culture, there are left-oriented people and there are
liberals.
Both ideologies are Western in their current manifestations, and
probably originated not in North or South but in the middle (Greece),
although there are mutual and reciprocal influences and cultural
adaptations of various sorts. 

In some societies, liberals are a tiny minority, e.g. in many Islamic
countries you can get killed for supporting women's individual rights.
The small size of the view, however, doesn't mean it isn't right.

> > 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

So what you believe is "progress," and that must mean that what I
believe is "backwards." Well, thanks a lot, but I happen to believe that
what you are advocating in this case is backwards-moving, as it would
provide ample rationale for rolling back (or never allowing to begin
with) key freedoms. 

> 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.

> 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

Parminder, either you are being dishonest here or you need to go back
and read what I wrote and try to comprehend it. Really, we don't have
time for rhetorical games. I am up to my ears in contesting IPR
interests in the ICANN and other IG spaces, have been for 10 years, I
don't need you to hector me about how I am somehow against contesting
it. 

The thrust of what I said was not that "we can't be seen to be
contesting IPR;" on the contrary it was that we should contest it but
need to be unified on that because "fanatical opposition" will come from
private sector and govts. 

> > 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

I did not propose a statement that says "civil society casts doubt on
the very existence of positive and collective rights." I proposed a
statement that said, "some contest it, some support it." 

The argument for that statement is blindingly simple: it is true. This
discussion is proof.

If the people you work with would greet a true statement with fanatical
opposition, I frankly don't care what they think. 

But what does it say about the strength of their ideas and the
confidence they have in their truth if they cannot enter into a
discourse about rights if it means acknowledging that there are actually
people out there who have a different view about it? 

Note, my position is not that the statement has to reflect my personal
view of rights, it is simply that it must acknowledge the existence of
contention. That is now non-negotiable. 

> "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.

I don't. It's just your attempt to get your agenda smuggled in as the
view of the whole of civil society. 

We won't agree on this statement until and unless you can accept the
fact of a difference of view as to the nature of rights. 


____________________________________________________________
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