[governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward

[Ian Peter]

Yep I’ll buy that. Now we have

 

>The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and
>universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant
>themes of access to knowledge and development, while adding the important
>issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications
>of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [regarding
an 
“open Internet” and relevant aspects of the often confusing network
neutrality discussions]

The square brackets at this stage should be included unless we get strong
objections or acceptable improved text

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: 15 February 2009 17:14
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: 'Ginger Paque'
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward

 

>The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and
>universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant
>themes of access to knowledge and development,  while adding the important
>issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications
>of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [and
relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions]

 


Ian

Alternatively we can say "..... in keeping with current international
debates regarding an 'open Internet' [and relevant aspects of the often
confusing network neutrality discussions]. 

As Lee mentioned no one seems to have objection to use of the term 'open
Internet'. This term makes the issues under consideration more specific than
just speaking about 'openness' theme, which has been around in the IGF for a
few years and is interpreted rather flexibly. My concern is that when
globally some specific issues in the area of 'open Internet' are hot, and
some key decisions likely to be taken, w emake sure that the IGF does
devotes some central space in its agenda to this issue. parminder 

 
 

 


Ian Peter wrote: 

Not too late Parminder and thanks. I’m personally happy with the first two
changes you suggest

 

The particular issue we must resolve is whether to specifically mention net
neutrality or not – we have differing opinions here. But we all seem to
agree it is a term which means different things to different people. I think
we also mostly agree that the debate is often confusing and distorted away
from what we are trying to achieve.

 

I’m personally not prepared to concede important rights and principles
discussions to the sort of distorted traffic management and carrier
profitability issues network neutrality evokes. To me any mention of the
term has to be somewhat qualified.

 

Perhaps we can compromise with something like the relevant paragraph below,
with some suggested additional text in square brackets

 

The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and
universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant
themes of access to knowledge and development,  while adding the important
issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications
of their choice, in keeping with current international debates [and relevant
aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions]

 

Comments please? We do need to get to a consensus call within a day or so.

 

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: 15 February 2009 15:55
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward

 

Apologies for coming in so late, but if changes are still being considered I
suggest that

- we say 'Internet rights and principles' instead of just 'rights and
principles' which in my opinion do not make it what clear what really is
meant/ proposed. 

- the phrase 'Without invoking legislation or prohibitions' should be
removed. I do not think the IGC has a position against invocation of any
legislation at all. 

- I am strongly in favor of explicitly including the issue of network
neutrality (we can call it the issue of an 'open Internet' as evoked in
debates around the NN issue or something like that), and we should
specifically mention that the next IGF takes up and discusses this issue
centrally, in its program. On McTim's objection that NN means different
things todifferent people, it is not that the IGC is taking a position on
what is meant by NN but only asserting that debates and contestations around
this issue are important, central and very topical concerns in the realm of
global Internet policy and the IGF must discuss this issue, providing a
global democratic platform for public discourse and inputs on this crucial
subject.

thanks. 

parminder 


, 
Ginger Paque wrote: 

We have not had comments on the proposed statement to the OC in February.
Here again is the proposed text for your comment, and the previous email and
IGC statement can be found below: Please send your comments. Thanks. Ginger
 
 
The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major
theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings
leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to
the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human
rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities
of all parties.
 
The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and
universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant
themes of access to knowledge and development,  while adding the important
issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications
of their choice, in keeping with current international debates.
 
The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the
responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other.
Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open examination
of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its
commercial facets.
 
Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this
multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and
expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF
2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we
recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working
Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially
in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources
from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting.
 
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Ginger Paque [mailto:ginger at paque.net] 
Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Enero de 2009 03:41 p.m.
Para: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Asunto: Statement OC February OC: the way forward
 
In parallel to the discussion on the IGC statement to the OC about the IGF
process review as started by Ian, we must start a draft of our statement on
the way forward, proposing the themes of rights, net neutrality within
openness and universal access and possibly remote participation, as have
been in discussion on the list.
 
I suggest we start our discussion with this short draft (the previous IGC
statement “Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in
Egypt”  is copied below for your reference):
 
 
The Internet Governance Caucus supports “Rights and principles” as a major
theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings
leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to
the Internet, and how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human
rights. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities
of all parties.
 
The concept of “rights” continues to stress the importance of openness and
universal access. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant
themes of access to knowledge and development,  while adding the important
issues of basic user rights and control to access, content and applications
of their choice, in keeping with current international debates.
 
The inclusion of “principles” allows for wide discussion of the
responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other.
 Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open
examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly
in its commercial facets.
 
Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this
multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and
expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF
2009 in Egypt as a proven method to include new voices. To that end, we
recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working
Group as a collaborating organization for the RP at the IGF 2009, especially
in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the use of the RP resources
from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting.
 
 
I look forward to your ideas on this.
Regards,
Ginger
 
IGC previous statement:
Rights and the Internet as the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt
 
The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the
Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the
IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based
discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus has already
expressed support for the letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG
by the Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights.
 
The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at
the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an
overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt.
 
A complex new emerging ecology of rights and the internet
 
 One important purpose of a discourse on rights should be to clarify and
reach greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet are
defined, how they relate to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and
which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within
this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus,
differences of opinion exist as to the nature of various rights and
conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in
internet governance discussions.
 
While the internet opens unprecedented economic, social and political
opportunities in many areas, many fear that it may at the same time be
further widening economic, social and political divides. It is for this
reason that development has been a central theme for the IGF meetings to
date. In this new, more global and digital context it might be useful to
explore what the term "right to development" means.
 
With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments are
increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into people's homes and
personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. Consumers
of digital products thus face new challenges including the right
 
<http://docs.google.com/RawDocContents?docID=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&justBody=fals
e&revision=_latest&timestamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno
te3sym>
<http://docs.google.com/RawDocContents?docID=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&justBody=fals
e
<http://docs.google.com/RawDocContents?docID=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&justBody=fals
e&revision=_latest&timestamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno
te3sym>
&revision=_latest&timestamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno
te3sym
<http://docs.google.com/RawDocContents?docID=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&justBody=fals
e&revision=_latest&timestamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfootno
te3sym> >  to know and completely 'own' the products and services they pay
for. Technological measures to monitor and control user behavior on the
internet are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public
policies and traditional concepts of what rights users have.
 
While property rights are of considerable importance, their applicability
and mutations in the digital environment have led to widespread political
contention over the proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In
fact, intellectual property is emerging as a primary area of socio-economic
conflict in the information society.  The IGF can explore issues surrounding
the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims
alongside the concept of a right to access knowledge in the digital space It
can also explore how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and
use consumer electronics, computers and other forms of equipment can be
reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect
copyrights.
 
It may also be useful to explore if and how other concepts may be meaningful
in relation to the Internet - for instance, a 'right to access the Internet
unconditional of the use being made of it (similar to electricity and
telephone). Similarly, a right of cultural _expression_, and a right to have
an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic
area of cultural diversity.
 
Other important internet policy areas, like network neutrality, are being
framed in terms of rights, such as a right to access and share information,
or as an extension of freedom of _expression_ itself. The right of the
public
to access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new
manner in a digital environment, where information is often publicly
sharable at little or no extra cost. Positive acts of withholding digital
public information from citizens in fact can be looked upon as a form of
censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the IGF
openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such as the right
of association and the right to political participation may have important
new implications in the internet age,
 
We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim
"rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them.
We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with
each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a
rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of
communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply
legal categories.
 
These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to
explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum
where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context.
 
Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical
principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality as a giant
global marketplace. With the internet becoming  increasingly central to many
social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual
framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a
rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose.
 
A rights-based IG shouldn't be seen as threatening, but rather rights
provide a set of international standards and guiding principles that can
help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent to recollect that
WSIS called for a people-centric information society, and a rights framework
helps develop people-centric IG agenda and polices.
 
It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this
task. This process should start at the IGF Hyderabad, where workshops on
rights issues are being planned.  These issues will also hopefully figure
prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these
discussions will help the IGF work towards developing 'Rights and the
Internet' as the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt.
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________________________________________
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
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090215/8c17d70c/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