[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Ok, then lets do that. We will not use the terms negative, positive
and
> collective rights, since we are not able to agree on analytical
> difference/

it is not a satisfactory solution. 

The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely
different, sometimes clashing things by "rights." This division applies
not only within civil society, but to states and business, for example
IPRs. In essence, the positive and collective rights folks are saying,
"those individual rights you care about so much are not meaningful, we
need a different conception that pushes states into a more active
guarantor role." And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those
conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we
consider rights." 

I do not see how we advance a rights discourse around the internet by
pretending that that problem does not exist. I would rather squarely
face it, acknowledge its existence, and deal with it. I see absolutely
no value in initiating a rights discourse without dealing with that
problem. And if you somehow succeed in making it the theme of IGF IV,
you will immediately be forced to deal with it. So let the synthesis
paper input openly acknowledge the problem, please.

--MM

> meaning etc. In fact in doing so we may be affirming the
indivisibility of
> human rights as agreed in many global human rights documents,
including of
> the UN. WSIS declaration of principles affirms 'the universality,
> indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights
and
> fundamental freedoms...'
> 
> Accordingly, I propose the contested para to be,
> 
> 
> "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 how other kinds of rights may be meaningful
in
> relation to the Internet; for instance, a 'right to the Internet',
which
> may
> relate to the IGF's 'access' theme, and 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'."
> 
> I have deliberately kept the connection to IGF's thematic areas
because if
> we do make this proposed input we will need to take it forward towards
> achieving our real objective of getting a rights-based agenda to
underpin
> IGF's deliberations.
> 
> In fact not just going with FoE and privacy rights is also important
in
> this
> context. Such a text can never get accepted as the basis of full range
of
> IGF's work and discussions.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org]
> > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:41 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
> >
> > 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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