[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
Robin Gross
robin at ipjustice.org
Tue Sep 9 11:37:48 EDT 2008
Parminder,
What you might call "women's rights", I call "human rights".
Women do no have special rights because of the nature of their sex.
Women have rights because they are individuals.
Minorities do not have special rights because they are in the
minority, minorities have rights because they are individuals. Etc.
The concept of equality among all individuals comes into play here.
Women, minorities, and others who are disadvantaged in one way or
another should be treated as equals to the privileged. As soon as we
start dividing ourselves up into groups and assigned with special
rights according to our group, we turn equality on its head. That
is why, for me, what we must give primacy to is the defense of
individual rights -- and collective rights present a threat to
fundamental individual rights (regardless of how well-meaning the
proponents are).
Robin
On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Parminder wrote:
> Robin,
>
>
>
> ‘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. That’s a
> simple and direct derivation. Are you saying so?
>
>
>
> One cannot say, no, I ‘do’ believe in all or some of the rights
> listed above but not in collective rights as a category.
>
>
>
> Negative, positive and collective rights are categories of
> representation and analysis, and in fact help to underscore that
> different sets of rights may need different justifications and
> analysis (something which Tapani asked to be clarified).
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> I quote what the IGC statement of July 19, 2005 to the WSIS process
> said about rights.
>
>
>
> “Among priority public policy issues are….”….. Addressing human
> rights as a cross-cutting principle in relation to evolution and
> use of the Internet. Nothing in Internet governance negotiations
> must impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human rights.”
>
>
>
> Most of the rights I mention above are universally agreed human
> rights. Many positive rights and collective rights are certainly
> among what would constitute as the category of universally agreed
> human rights as meant in the above statement.
>
>
>
> So while IGC at one time insisted that ‘Nothing in Internet
> governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or contradict
> universally agreed human rights’, and now if it issues a statement
> that ‘impair, restrict, or contradict universally agreed human
> rights’ I for one, as an IGC member, would certainly not want to be
> a party to it.
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:38 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> On 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 don’t 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 JUSTICE
>
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>
> w: 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
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080909/e347ca4c/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list