[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Wed Sep 10 20:51:28 EDT 2008
Milton and all,
Nicely articulated, and largely correct and/or accurate IMO.
As you indicate here, and have in other posts, as have I and
others, some wants/desires are not and cannot become rights
for many of the reasons already articulated, even though we
or anyone may have a strong personal opinion that such
concepts "Should" be considered a "Right" vis a vi the Internet
and/or it's use. I believe as you seem to Milton, that this is
at the crux or the disagreement for the Synthesis paper, which
would carry over in the actual defining of what we state or
espouse as actual "Right" vis a vi the Internet and/or it's use.
Milton L Mueller 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
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827
____________________________________________________________
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