[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello All,

I have included the following preamble to the Input Synthesis paper to place
our proposals in context. The preamble is drafted in such a way that it
could eventually be further worked upon to come up with a declaration of
rights:

The Internet Governance Caucus affirms faith in the Charter of the United
Nations as an organization based on the principle of the sovereign equality
of all its Members. It recognizes the sovereignty of Nations to over affairs
within each Nations territorial or geographical area or limit and upholds
the principles of law as enshrined in the constitution of Nations,

The Caucus emphasizes that the Internet is a user-centric non-geographical
universal zone that transcends national boundries and even beyond planet
earth's spherical boundaries in terms of infrastructure installations.

The Caucus invites all stakeholders to the Internet, namely the
International Organizations, National Governments and the Civil Society to
examine the "rights based approach" as the overwhelming theme of the
Internet Governance Forum at Cairo in the context of Internet's evolution as
a community infrastructure that transcends all boundaries, and its
user-centric and other characteristics that have caused to make the Internet
what it is:


   1.

   The internet is for participation by everyone. The Internet is accessible
   worldwide. The Internet transcends the boundaries of nations
   2.

   The Internet has evolved as a medium neutral of technology, nationhood,
   language, religion or race. The internet is evolving and functions on a
   community model. The people who designed the internet had a very good sense
   of what they were doing-what kind of space they were creating and what its
   characteristics would be.
   3.

   Different nations across the globe have differing concepts of freedom.
   Despite occasional attempts at restraint, the Internet has emerged as a
   medium for freedom of speech even in geographical regions where freedom of
   expression is restrained. The Internet is a medium to connect people across
   national boundaries and this is possible only as a free and unregulated
   medium.
   4.

   The Internet Standards have emerged by open collaboration and
   participation from across national boundaries. Internet is continuously
   evolving and the Internet Community acknowledges the existence of problems
   related to security and commits to work on architectural and protocol based
   solutions.
   5.

   The Internet provides space for everyone to have an identity, to store
   and exchange information. The identities on the Internet are transnationally
   distributed.
   6.

   The Internet brings together people from around the world and has been
   considerably free of politics. Intenet is a space without privilege or
   prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of
   birth
   7.

   The internet is a global social space that works on community
   participation, "governed" by conventions, unwritten rules without a
   hierarchy of authrority. Internet has its own culture and ethos and is
   founded upon unwritten codes that provide an inherent order. A form of
   Internet Governance is to emerge out of commonwealth.
   8.

   The Internet has the same relationship to the physical world that the
   mind does to the body
   9.

   The legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and
   context on the Internet are peculiar to the Internet and differs from that
   of the geographical world.
   10.

   The Internet model differs from that of the Telecommunication or any
   other industry's business model. The Internet can not to be confined to the
   conventional legal definitions of an industry, or a "product" , and its own
   conventions are evolving for Governance.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> > > 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
>



-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080911/0daafefc/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