[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Parminder]

Milton,

I will try to stick to essential points that impact the process of statement
under consideration. I have already stated all the main points in my earlier
email, but you have ignored them. So I will restate them.  

I paraphrase your main point as follows. It is a fact that there is a
contestation. It does not even matter how many contest the essential issue
of validity of the category of positive and collective rights, and just
seeking an exploration of these rights in the context of the Internet. The
statement should just state the fact of contestation. That will be truthful
and simple. 

I asked you a pointed question. Given that I have heard you argue with
others on this list about (or not to) balancing FoE rights with other
important considerations - to give two instances, with Vittorio and few
others on .xxx issues and Rui and some others on websites with hate speech.
Now, the question is, would you agree to IGC making a statement that
captures this 'reality' of contestation in a straightforward manner. 

Something like - 'While FoE and privacy rights are important they may need
to be balanced with considerations of cultural diversity, security etc'. or
even  '....some think they need to be balanced with...'

(I have also read contestations between privacy and security on this list).

Pl reply specifically, whether you agree to put the above statement across
as an IGC statement submitted to the IGF.

If not, why so. How would your reply stand justification in face of your
argument - what is a simple reality should as well be stated.  

I myself won't agree to the above statement going out because I think it
will greatly harm IGC's advocacy efforts, for reasons which are evident. 

Correspondingly, I can't agree to an IGC statement which casts doubts about
the very validity of the categories of positive and collective rights.

IGC's claim if of being a global CS group. I asked another question in my
last email - can you point me to a single global CS human rights group with
any meaningful participation from developing country which does not accept
positive and collective rights?

I don't want IGC to become the first one. Maybe just my view. But I think it
will lose support and legitimacy from most of civil society from the South
if it does this. I am only pointing to what I see as a fact. 

It may not matter to some people here that there is little participation
form the South in IG CS fora. See the emails to this list, to ALAC and NCUC
list etc. But then if one doesn't believe there are collective identities it
just doesn't matter, isn't it? Everyone is an individual and these forums
are 'open' to all. That's enough, and people's right to participation are
guaranteed, and thereby obtained! The bane of negative rights
fundamentalism)

BTW, if there are no collective identities, why does this group send
nominations to MAG on geographic basis? How is ones right to equal
consideration in such an important political space overridden by a
collective identity that underpins what would accordingly be a collective
right. 

Milton, all the above are direct questions which will need to be answered in
support of your position. If there are corresponding questions you want me
to answer, I will surely do. 

Parminder 

PS: All rights have conflicts and contestations: right to (mass) expression
over local radios have been used to incite racial hatred directly leading to
mass killings in Rwanda, and North West Pakistan. Right to privacy has been
misused to stash such amount of corruption money from India in Swiss banks
that a check on this practice would probably trigger structural reforms in
Indian governance system. There is some amount of tension in India today
between people's right to know about public affairs and public servants and
their claims of privacy about their spouses and relatives' property, for
instance. But CS is generally strategic about which facts it states in which
statements. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:29 AM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > I can live with the language proposed by Parminder as a compromise.
> >
> 
> It's not a compromise.



____________________________________________________________
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