[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello Milton Mueller,

Your arguments sum up the core objections, may I suggest that this message
be taken to the thread on final arguments ?

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080912/290c00ea/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