[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Sun Sep 7 20:29:04 EDT 2008

Robin and all,

  I fully agree.

Robin Gross 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. RobinOn 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 members comments on this
>>      statement. Accordingly, I dont 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
>>
>
>   IP JUSTICERobin Gross, Executive Director1192 Haight Street, San
> Francisco, CA  94117  USAp: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451w:
> 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
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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