[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
William Drake
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
Mon Sep 8 12:27:50 EDT 2008
Since I¹m sitting next to Robin at the A2K3 conference I guess I should
second her statement.
Bill
On 9/8/08 4:07 PM, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> I haven't been able to keep up on this discussion as I would have liked to,
> but I wanted to weigh in (hopefully not too late and off topic).
>
> I also have deep concerns about promoting "collective" rights because I see
> them as subordinating individual rights in potentially dangerous ways
> (although no harm is intended). It is the sovereign individual that is
> ultimately responsible. Individuals acting together can be collectives, but
> it always breaks down to the individual in the end.
>
> Robin
>
> On Sep 5, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> members¹ comments on this statement. Accordingly, I don¹t 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 explore¹ 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.
>>>
>>> ³The 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.²
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ³We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim
>>> ³rights² 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 ³right to Internet access² 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. ³
>>>
>>> This para clearly makes out a strong case against right to the Internet¹
>>> 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.
>>> ³The 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.²
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Director, Project on the Information
Revolution and Global Governance
Center for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080908/be1a0d2e/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list