[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Tue Sep 9 02:33:13 EDT 2008

Hello Parminder, Ian an All,

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

 Siva
>
>
> While I do agree with your earlier proposition that care must taken that
> governments do not wrongly exploit the language of right, I cant agree with
> the basis of your above understanding of 'rights'.
>
> A 'right' isn't an electrical switch, which if pressed and full outcome is
> not realized, the 'right' can be said to be meaningless. (This is true of
> all right – negative and positive.)
>
> You may want to try your above analysis of 'meaninglessness' of linguistic
> rights on the Internet to the 'right of education' enshrined in the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was done in 1948, however
> universal primary education is far from being completely realized. However,
> the existence of this 'right' gives civil society the basis and strength for
> making a strong political claim to universalisation of education policies, a
> struggle which is being keenly fought in India right now, when the right to
> education bill in final stages, while neoliberal influences in the
> government, who are more worried over India's corporate performance, are
> actively trying to stall it by citing funding problems.
>
> Another example; India's trade minister recently justified India's tough
> stance at the WTO negotiations on safeguards aimed at protecting vulnerable
> farmers in India, stated that he cannot back down on this issue because it
> is not about commercial interests of India, on which negotiations are
> possible, but it is about right of livelihood of Indian people. You can see
> how a 'rights' claim differentiates and makes for higher and stronger basis
> than a mere ordinary political claim, like protecting India' commercial
> interests.
>
.......

>  >"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?
>
If it not obvious, what I wrote as above is nonsense. I wrote nonsense to
hint at the shape of demands to come if we are to take the rights based
approach.

My apologies to All for going into the basics when it is about time to
conclude.

"right to have an Internet in ones own language" as an example sentence:

No one woke up Eric Schmidt with thunderous slogans in the middle of the
night to demand Google to translate. And no one wrote to his or her
parliamentary representative to raise a question in parliament to initiate a
debate to pass a resolution to direct the Government to instruct the
Ambassador to the United Nations to introduce a draft resolution,
diplomatically maneuver to get it voted upon resolving that the General
Assembly calling upon the Government of United States to direct the US
Department of Commerce to arm twist Google into translating search results
and web pages. Google Translate happened, more out of Google Community
participation than by the users demanding Translation as a matter of right.

The Internet has worked, is working and will work - on its own. *The
Internet is not machines or wires, it is people*. The Internet is 1.3
billion people today, would be 6 billion people tomorrow. People create and
participate. That is the magic of Internet.

Internet  relies on collaboration and on processes that are local,
bottom-up, open and accessible to individuals around the world. This model
clearly works and works well.

Progress has happened, is happening and will happen on the Internet, not by
declaring rights or demanding enforcement of rights. The Internet
organizations largely grew up organically, and work together in a
collaborative manner, respecting each other's needs, roles and expertise.
They are not hierarchically organized, and all understand and respect the
interdependencies and inherent needs

Progress and Innovation happens not by public, collective or individual
"demand" but by public, collective and individual participation in the
processes.

The common vision is that of an open, accessible and global Internet. So far
it has been happening, not on demand, not by declaring and clamoring for
rights, b participation. The Internet - the people - participate, discuss
and cause everything desirable to happen.

What worries me is this: Take a look at a title such as a "peace keeping
coalition force". What does it do? It goes to war. Think along these lines.
What would happen if you debate about rights and draw up a "Declaration of
Internet Rights"? You will end up creating rules.

> But giving the above analysis of positive rights you may be falling in the
> trap of Milton's simplistic rhetoric of caricaturing positive rights – like
> right to livelihood or work, which he see as the right of everyone and
> anyone to insist on employment with IT for Change, though of course we would
> gladly employ Milton J.
>
> I would argue for or against what Milton says, for or against what you or
Ian say, but wouldn't make it personal. Have you run out of arguments
against Milton? Is that the reason why you have picked up on him as a
person?  ( not that I know Milton or fallen in Milton's "trap". It is very
imaginative to have thought of a Milton's trap )

> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:32 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
>
>
>
> Meant to be addressed to: Hello Ian and All, (Milton's opinions are well
> respected. But this message is technically isn't a reply to Milton)
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
> isolatedn at gmail.com> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
>

-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080909/c5282538/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