[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Parminder]

> > it is not a satisfactory solution.
> >
> > The whole point of this debate is that some people mean completely
> > different, sometimes clashing things by "rights."
> 
> The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different
> interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the
> statement.

As with earlier contestation on this point, I write the below as an IGC
member, and not a co-coordinator. 

As mentioned in my earlier email, I agree to put the sentence - Different
people have different interpretations about rights - at the end of the
contested paragraph, so that it will read as follows. 

"The openness and diversity of the internet provide an avenue for 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 positive and collective rights may be
meaningful in relation to the Internet - for instance, respectively, a
'right to the Internet', 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. It may be noted that
different people have different interpretations about rights, which makes a
discussion on various rights important." (ends)

Though this sentence may in fact be unnecessary because later on the draft
does mention that  - " We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes
conflict or compete with each other." But, I am fine if the proponents of
these statements insist, in the interest of getting a statement out and
possible campaign towards making 'rights and the internet' the over-arching
theme of IGF-4. 

Ian, I request you to explore if an agreement can be reached on the above
text.

Parminder 

PS: Without prejudice to my agreement to include these parts, I must observe
that to say these sentences in a global civil society statement goes against
'normal' claims of much of global civil society to both universality of
rights and indivisibility of rights. By universality of rights one means
that recognized human rights are true in all human conditions, which is
contradicted by our 'different interpretations' part. And the doctrine of
indivisibility of rights highlights interdependence of rights rather their
conflicts, which too we contradict. Therefore I don't think it is right for
us to say these sentences in our advocacy statements.

It also regresses on the statement made earlier by the caucus during the
WSIS process, which I cited a day or two ago. 

"Nothing in Internet governance negotiations must impair, restrict, or
contradict universally agreed human rights." 

I think the above parts of IGC's own statements will
impair/restrict/contradict some universally agreed human rights. 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:27 AM
> To: 'Milton L Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
> 
> 
> > > 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."
> 
> The solution then is to say what you say above. People have different
> interpretations of what are rights. I am fine with saying this in the
> statement.
> 
> The solution to the problem cannot to use the term individual and
> collective
> rights - because many people have said here that their real problem is
> that
> are not sure what is meant by these terms. We cant say there are
> contestations between people who only admit individual rights and those
> who
> also support positive and collective rights - without some level of basic
> agreement about what is meant by these terms. I think that is simple and
> obvious.
> 
> I had earlier asked the group if those opposing collective rights can say
> that in saying so they oppose these and these specific rights which I, and
> many other, consider collective rights. I have not been getting any clear
> reply to that.  So the main problem seems to me to be that we cant agree
> on
> what is meant by collective rights. That makes a statement about there
> being
> differences between backers of 'only individual rights' and 'also positive
> and collective rights' meaningless. Does it not?
> 
> And the individual/negative rights folks say, "those
> > conceptions of collective rights can often be threats to what we
> > consider rights."
> 
> As I said, begs the question, which 'conceptions of collective rights..' .
> Indigenous people's rights, cultural rights, women's rights, minority
> rights, linguistic rights.... ???
> 
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 8:07 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Tapani Tarvainen
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
> >
> > > -----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


____________________________________________________________
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