[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Mon Sep 8 16:54:05 EDT 2008
Hi Sivasubramanian,
Our issue here is to prepare a paper (or papers) for submission within about
3 days from now. I doubt we can thoroughly explore any of these proposed
themes in that timeframe.
We might have a lot of passion and differing viewpoints on rights and how
they relate to Internet governance, that to me makes it a great subject for
further exploration with all stakeholders.
Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
_____
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
Sent: 09 September 2008 06:48
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
within the context of the general request, which is to make rights a main
theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed)
Hello Ian and Parminder,
I have one of Parminder's documents embedded in my blog and took a rapid
look at it to find interesting alternatives to the theme of rights, and
found that the document talks about Internet as Public Infrastructure.
There has been a lot of passion about this topic of "rights" but this topic
is dangerous territory. Can we think of "Internet as Public Infrastructure"
as the overwhelming theme of the IGF, Cairo?
The other themes that occurred to me are "Depoliticizing the Internet",
again from Parminder's document, but this theme again is a double edged
sword like the theme of "Rights" and would charge the IGF atmosphere with a
lot of political debates.
One more theme could be the broad theme of "preserving the essential
characteristics of the Internet in the process of unrestrained growth" or
even simply "Internet for the next billion users- challenges in Governance"
Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
_____
From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
Sent: 09 September 2008 04:35
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tapani Tarvainen
Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
Hello Parminder and All,
All the heat is about the connotations of the term "collective rights". I
tried to understand the distinction between individual right and collective
right and this is what I found:
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5357/ihr6a.html>
Individual Rights apply to the generic individual without regard to his or
her identity.... These rights are determined with no knowledge of what our
actual economic standing, educational level, gender, or ethnic origin would
be. Most international and national formulations of human rights are drafted
in such a way as to apply to a generic individual.
Collective rights, however, do not start with the individual but rather with
a specific group. Individuals are defined by their membership in that group,
which thus differentiates them from others in society. Some collectives are
formed by choice (religious affiliation in the United States, for example).
Others are predetermined (the traditional understanding of gender, for
example). Collective rights begin with the premise that the group has a
claim to make. Historically, we can see numerous examples of group treatment
(generally negative). In the Roman Empire, for example, Jews possessed the
status of a religio licita, and as such enjoyed specific rights as Jews--the
right not to work on the Sabbath, or to recognize the divinity of the
Emperor. Such rights were granted to the Jewish collective and thus to the
individual Jew of the Empire by virtue of being Jewish and thus distinct
from Greeks or Syrians or Celts in the Empire. The Ottoman Empire was
governed under the millet system, by which each group in the Empire was
defined via their religious community. Thus, people living in the same town
but belonging to different faiths had different rights and obligations on
account of their group membership. A vague notion of collective rights also
lay behind the concept of extra-territoriality, that people, by virtue of
their citizenship, in foreign lands should be governed, not by local law,
but by the laws of their originating state. ---- from a Lecture of Dr.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev, Editor of The National Interest and a Senior Fellow in
Strategic Studies at The Nixon Center.
Internet Governance Caucus can propose Collective Rights if we would like to
see different bandwidth plans for men and women, priority access for
"backward and "most backward" classes as invented in India, publishing
space discrimination between different churches, and free DVD movies for
those who live in mountains.
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.
India.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Tapani Tarvainen
<tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:02:20PM +0530, Parminder
(parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:
> 'Collective rights' is obviously an analytical category and not a right as
> such. So when I speak of collective rights I am clearly meaning specific
> rights like rights of indigenous people, linguistic rights, cultural
rights,
> minority rights, right to development etc.
> To say that one doesn't believe in collective rights one must be able to
say
> that one doesn't believe in the above rights.
It does not follow if one does not agree that those rights are collective.
I suspect one or maybe the key problem here is that the term indeed
carries different meanings, and people want to reject some of them.
In particular, probably few (?) people would oppose collective
rights as justification of individual rights - rights individuals
would have because of their membership in a group.
The opposition stems from the other meaning, where collective
rights would justify depriving individuals of their rights.
> In fact I am fine if one is ready to accept a long list of all these
rights,
> and not mention the terms negative, positive and collective rights. That
> merely would mean one thinks all these rights, along with those that may
be
> considered negative and positive rights are in the same category, and need
> not be differentiated. I could in fact be happier with such a position.
That might be a useful approach.
--
Tapani Tarvainen
____________________________________________________________
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
--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008
1:22 PM
____________________________________________________________
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
--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008
1:22 PM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080909/cb608910/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