[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Tue Sep 9 03:53:53 EDT 2008

Hello Parminder and All,

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  >>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 )
>
> Siva
>
> I didn't say anything personal to Milton.
>
Taken and accepted on your word.  I don't understand the history you have
given below, but what you say about not meaning any thing personal is taken
on your word.

> He wrote twice, give me a guaranteed job at ITfC when I spoke of positive
> rights. I did not reply because I thought it was a diversion. But it is a
> straight forward thing to call it a polemical trap, which it most definitely
> is. I see nothing wrong in it, and don't think even Milton does. BTW, you
> may have missed that Milton said yesterday that I may be being dishonest,
> and also that I was trying rhetoric. Do you think it is personal? (Though I
> am not complaining.)
>
You now do say 'I wrote nonsense to hint at the…' whereby you are agreeing
> that you caricatured the cited 'right'. I said that such caricaturing
> approach is problematic, and argued cited other positive rights – just my
> view….
>
I meant "nonsense" in the sense 'ridicule' to illustrate ridiculous
situations that we may have to face if the Internet is to move to a rights
based approach.

> > My apologies to All for going into the basics when it is about time to
> conclude
>
> Not at all. Basics are important in this debate.
>
Thanks.

> > The Internet has worked, is working and will work - on its own.
>
> What has happened with the Internet is of course extra-ordinary. But if
> 'working on its own' was all that is needed we are all here on a civil
> society policy discussion/ advocacy forum are wasting our time, aren't we.
>
I would say that the Internet progressed and worked with least
interference,  in the absence of intervention and that this essential nature
of Internet needs to be preserved.

>  >…, not by declaring rights or demanding enforcement of rights.
>
> It is fine that you hold the view that a rights-based approach is not
> useful in this area, and give your arguments.
>
> >Google Translate happened, more out of Google Community participation than
> by the users demanding Translation as a matter >of right.
>
Lets hope that the same will automatically and spontaneously happen on and
> about Google with regard to privacy, and freedom of expression of different
> viewpoints and sources of knowledge (commercial and non-commercial, those
> under-privileged with less 'voice' and those with dominant presence etc
> etc.) But yes, this discussion is certainly useful.
>
Google is a name thrown in, in the context of the participative character of
the Internet. It was to make the argument illustrative. Now you are drawing
Google into picture in toto. A debate on Google would be a distraction at
the moment and it is not fair. Suffice it to say that I mentioned the
development of Google Translation, and did not seek to endorse all practices
and policies of Google Inc. Let's leave Google alone.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India

>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:03 PM
> *To:* Parminder
> *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Milton L Mueller
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
>
>
>
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080909/3deb8051/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