Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example

Mon Nov 30 11:54:09 EST 2009

The basic human problem here is the access to tools.  But the core always comes back to that most primary of tools.  If the access is out there for those with the drive, ingenuity and study to use it -- should we be forced to provide it also to those with out the motivation?

So much is  accessable and most of what we pay for is simply the convenience.

--- On Mon, 11/30/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Subject: Re: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org>
Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 9:08 AM

Just picking up on one thread here -

> This raises the challenge of how to express affordable access to the
> internet for all as a basic right. We can't avoid this. Whether you call
> it a 'new right' or a pre-condition for excercising existing rights, we
> have to work harder to address the access gap.

The historical basis we can pick up is the right to communicate - the belief
that, in the event of any media becoming ubiquitous, lack of access to it
results in (at least) the lack of a fundamental opportunity, if not a right.

The right to communicate was advanced with the UNESCO MacBride report in
1983 - a contentious document. However the concept does go back to 1974, and
is the subject of quite a lot of literature since then.

A good summary is at http://www.righttocommunicate.org/

I would dearly love to see the right to communicate revised. Forget whether
its called the Internet or something else or what it morphs to - the lack of
access to any ubiquitous media is a denial of a fundamental human right and
opportunity.

Ian Peter 

> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> Organization: Association for Progressive Communications
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:52:59 +0200
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: RE: Extending Rights to the Internet: (Was RE: [governance] Example
> 
> Hi all
> 
> It is good to be having this discussion. If we want to make a convincing
> argument to have a greater focus on rights at the next IGF we should
> have good proposals for how to unpack and approach the issue by the Feb
> 2010 consultations.
> 
> I would suggest there are three main threads here.. and then different
> strategies and tacties, depending which terrain one is working on.
> 
> Thread one is (as expressed well by Meryem and Michael) is that in order
> to excercise basic rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of
> association, and more (rights which are already reflected in global
> instruments like the UDHR) all people should have access to the
> internet.
> 
> This raises the challenge of how to express affordable access to the
> internet for all as a basic right. We can't avoid this. Whether you call
> it a 'new right' or a pre-condition for excercising existing rights, we
> have to work harder to address the access gap.
> 
> An analogy would be the right to education (Articla 26 of the UDHR). In
> practice, realising this rights requires access to schools, and is
> enforced through global directives for education to made compulsory at
> national level. Interesting to look at:
> http://www.right-to-education.org/
> 
> 
> Thread two relates to what kind of access people have. Is it
> unrestricted, does it supports basic rights such as freedom of
> expression, association etc.. If not, then access does not effectively
> enable you to excercise basic human rights. Re. the important work of
> the OpenNet Initiative. Open standards can also impact on the type of
> access. E.g. a case in South Africa where the electoral commission's
> website during the 2009 national election was only viewable with
> Internet Explorer. An open source advocate made a complaint against the
> commission with the Human Rights Commission.
> 
> The work of the IRP coalition is trying to capture these two threads in
> the form of basic principles and rights that can be used as a point of
> reference in global internet governance.
> 
> Thread three is Parminder's point which is that it is not just
> intervention by national governments (e.g. filtering, surveillance,
> censorship) that limits the kind of *free* access needed to excercise
> one's human rights, it is also the market structure of the internet
> industry. He is arguing that one needs global regulation of some kind to
> limit this.
> 
> Thread four is consumer rights which come into play when you are not,
> putting it bluntly, 'getting what you are paying for' in terms of
> content and quality of service and support. In some cases these rights
> need to be defended against a particular service provider (e.g. Telkom
> in South Africa my ADSL provider grrrrr!!!) or, against an
> industry/sector, e.g. to use another South African example, mobile
> operators overcharging consumers for interconnection/termination fees
> between different operators.
> 
> Parminder, what I think you argument can be strengthened by is a clearer
> sense of WHO to hold accountable for WHAT RIGHTS.
> 
> There is no point in lobbying for global regulation unless you consider
> who will enforce that regulation.
> 
> We need to distinguish between global regulation and globally agreed on
> regulatory guidelines which inform national regulation. Or are you
> actually (asking Parminder) proposing the establishment of a global
> regulator of some kind?
> 
> In APC's work on trying to get West Africa regulators to be more
> empowered in relation to the multi-nationally owned and controlled SAT3
> undersea cable it was alarming that some of them did not sufficiently
> grasp that they had the power to regulate SAT3 pricing under their
> national jurisdiction.
> 
> I agree with you that global guidelines are needed to prevent
> anti-competitive behaviour. But we need to remember that to enforce them
> you need to work at national level. Many of us have been doing that of
> course, particularly at the level of advocacy and research in ICT policy
> and regulation.
> 
> What we have not been doing enough of (I think) is supporting consumer
> rights campaigns, and tackling actual anti-competitive behaviour through
> raising issues with competition tribunals. There already fairly
> reasonable anti-competitive clauses in global telcoms regulation
> guidelines. The difficulty is that they are not being enforced or
> implemented effectively at national level.
> 
> My point is that the discussion of global rights and principles is very
> useful to distil our thinking about rights and the internet, but, if we
> want to bring about change in how people have access and how they can
> use the internet we have to work in a more holistic way at national
> level, and, tackling anti-competitive behaviour which harm consumer
> rights in ways that limit the expression of their human rights.
> 
> One of the primary reasons that civil society organisations in many
> parts of the world are not working in this important area is because of
> the often (in my opinion) immobilising debate on market vs. state roles
> and responsibilities.
> 
> We tend to work on macro policy issues (which are important) and then
> (particularly in developing countries) we are not active in how these
> policies translate into day to day experience of users.
> 
> Surely there is general consensus that the role of the state
> (regulators) is to ensure that market structure is open, with low entry
> barriers for small players, competitive, ensure accountability by
> providers to consumers.. and so on.  There will be nuts and bolts issues
> to argue about, e.g. licensing fees, universal access funds, state
> supported public access, incentives/barriers for foreign investors,
> equity issues, local language and content quotas and so on.
> 
> Am I wrong in feeling that we are, in a manner of speaking, scratching
> the surface with ideological discussions and not delving into detail
> enough?
> 
> Anriette
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20091130/2e74d927/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