[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Thu Sep 11 09:23:40 EDT 2008
Sorry to have dropped out of this discussion due to travel. After
detaching and thinking about it I believe that the problem is really
insoluble. The basic problem we are confronting is that the term
"rights" has been stretched beyond the breaking point.
The whole purpose of this document is to talk about "new" rights, to
expand, with no apparent limit, the number of things that could be
called an internet-related right. Each claimed "Right" or entitlement,
however, involves a claim of a very different kind - some are collective
rights, some individual, some negative, some positive, some seem to
imply claims against society, some against the national state, some
against international institutions. This grab-bag approach actually
makes a rights discourse treacherous and unproductive rather than
progressive.
The proposal is to link FoE, privacy, and other traditional human rights
to a discussion of IPR v. A2K, right to Internet, vaguely specified
"cultural" rights, and virtually anything else one cares to frame as a
right.
At some point one has to stop and ask, "what policy objective could NOT
be dressed up as a "Right" and put into this "rights discourse?"
And if the answer is "nothing," then all we have succeeded in doing,
imho, is to completely debase the concept of rights. When anything and
everything is a right, nothing is a right, it is all just policy.
Further, it is clear to me that the whole motivation for this rights
discourse is not to bolster the enforcement and application of basic
FoE, privacy or A2K rights, but to bring new positive rights into the
discourse and elevate them to the same status as the others. This is a
political strategy and sgenda that some of us have, but which is not
widely shared. It would be little more than a platform coup d'etat to
present this as the view of civil society.
So, count me out. Unless the push for a rights discourse is limited to a
few very specific, consistent and well-understood rights it will do more
harm than good.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:01 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
>
>
> In my email below I suggested the new language for the contested para
as
>
> > "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)
>
>
> This was inadvertent due to picking from the wrong version of the doc,
> because I have already agreed to replace 'positive and collective
rights'
> with 'other kinds of rights'. This is because we found that we cant
agree
> on
> the meaning of these terms.
>
> Accordingly the para should read
>
> "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 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'."
>
>
> Thanks. Parminder
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:47 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
> >
> >
> > > > 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list