[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Jeffrey A. Williams jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Mon Sep 8 04:06:54 EDT 2008


Sivasubramanian, and all,

  Good point!  As I have stated already, a "right to have an Internet in

ones own language" is a good goal, but not a reasonable "Right" in
any draft of an "Internet bill of Rights".

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:

> Hello Milton,
>
> "right to have an Internet in ones own language"
>
> What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important
> public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of
> all messages that everyone writes"  or what if I say "I want all
> intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil
> in a Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to progress any
> further"? And what if I demand the proceedings of the IGF
> simultaneously interpreted in Tamil and all documents officially
> transcribed and published in Tamil? And in Spanish and Portuguese and
> American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in Toda, the language of
> the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, in Kannada?
>
> There is so much to be DELETED in this draft.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
>
>      Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights
>      movement Milton and I don't think we need to demand the
>      emphases be exactly the same. But that and many other issues
>      here can wait till another day.
>
>      The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main
>      thrust of the submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing
>      points of view here but perhaps now we need to collectively
>      concentrate on getting the text together – next week the
>      ongoing debate can happily continue.
>      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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>      Sent: 09 September 2008 08:17
>      To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
>
>      Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
>
>           ---------------------------------------------------
>           From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
>
>           Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM
>           To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>           Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis
>           paper
>
>           So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous
>           land rights is a collective right?
>
>           No, unless you believe that the rights of woman
>           are completely different from the rights of men.
>           In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal)
>           societies that assign superior or different rights
>           based on gender believe in collective rights.
>           Liberal societies that afford men, women and the
>           transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as
>           individuals are based on individual rights. So now
>           tell me where you count yourself.  ;-)
>
>           Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An
>           individualist approach would certainly recognize
>           the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned
>           corporations or even political communities) to own
>           land, but see these as extensions of individual
>           rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the
>           property rights of a very different culture may
>           not be recognizable to a modern legal regime, and
>           vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle
>           those situations as a kind of special sovereignty.
>           However, a collectivist approach to property
>           rights can just as easily work against indigenous
>           minorities as for them. I am sure you know the
>           history.
>
>           But for the sake of this submission, we obviously
>           need to reflect differing opinions. Can't we find
>           a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a
>           statement such as "while differing opinions on
>           individual and collective rights exist" within the
>           context of the general request, which is to make
>           rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem
>           to be disputed)
>
>           That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be
>           happy to delete the line about how state-provided
>           internet access might be used to violate other
>           rights, even though I think the point is true and
>           salient, I recognize that it may be a bit too
>           in-your-face.
>
>      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
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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



More information about the Governance mailing list