[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Civil Society,

Have you noticed this?

*Tunis Agenda says in 35, the management of the Internet ... should involve
all stakeholders, but assigns the importance of stakeholders to the
convenience of governments:
*

   1.

   *Policy authority ... is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and
   responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.
   *
   2.

   *The private sector ...  should continue to have, an important role ... *
   3.

   *Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters,
   especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. *
   4.

   *(role for intergovernmental organizations)*
   5.

   *(role for international organizations)*

If someone has to guarantee / arbitrate / enforce rights and law enforcement
happens to be the "sovereign right of States"

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Norbert Klein and All,
>
> This is a case in point. Within the existing legal structure, a
> "collective" has opted for legal action. Good.
>
> But on the Internet, WITHOUT the legal framework, with no declared list of
> rights,  flash this news in a few blog posts, post it in a few mailing
> lists, pick up a banner here and there and you will find whole communities
> from around the world plunging into affirmative action. May be even the
> Government of Japan would pay swifter attention, sooner than it takes the
> legal process to send a directive to set right the disparity
>
> That is the beauty of the Internet Model. We don't have to declare rights
> to open a door for the proponents of greater control to volunteer to
> concede/guarantee/arbitrate/enforce such rights that the Civil Society
> declares.
>
> Tell me who is going to concede/guarantee/arbitrate/enforce Rights before
> you begin discussing rights.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Let me also come in here. I am not sure if it is acceptable how I try to
>> enter
>> into this debate: I think it is not clear what the purpose of the draft is
>> –
>> at least it is not clear to me. Of course, in terms of intended
>> procedures, I
>> know. But...
>>
>> We seem to be caught in a philosophical debate – about individual or
>> collective rights.
>>
>> A few days ago I read in a Japanese mailing list that people in the three
>> very
>> different communes of Ayabe, Shoubara, and Yukichou, in different regions
>> of
>> Japan, have organized and try to start legal action because of the poor
>> Internet connection they have: while a lot of tasks of public
>> administration
>> are offred by the authorities online (often requiring broadband access to
>> handle huge documents) –  they are disadvantaged. Others are disadvanaged
>> because educational programs offered to the public cannot be accessed
>> reasonably (again: broaband access required) and as a result the people
>> are
>> educatinally deprived, compared to the majority of the citizens in the
>> country etc.
>>
>> I do not have many more details – but I imagine that the people who feel
>> excluded from what is offered to the society in general do not much argue
>> if
>> they claim individual or collective rights – they are just motivated to
>> get
>> over their deprivation, which many individuals felt, some individuals
>> articulated, and finally a "collective" is trying to get their situation
>> brought up to the general standard in their society, by legal action.
>>
>> The debate whether claims are always made in terms of "my individual
>> right"
>> even when they are made by a group of individuals who may or may not
>> consider
>> this as a group right, has no commonly shared answer – neither throughout
>> history, nor in all possible localities.
>>
>> Do we have to get it philosophically clear, or do we want to point towards
>> some directions which might be solved by some joint legal activities
>> (different in diffeent situaios)? If we want to work towards both anyway –
>> might it then be possible to avoid the unsolved philosophical basis?
>>
>>
>> Norbert Klein
>> Open Institute/Cambodia
>> --
>> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia,
>> please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day:
>>
>> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English)
>> http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080910/bc390179/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