From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 30 17:00:16 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:00:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <917516.70043.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <917516.70043.qm@web58901.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E15@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > > This is ridiculous. > > David > ahem. the distinction between chicago pizza and new york pizza is a matter of global concern. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 30 17:04:12 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:04:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E16@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > You betcha. A couple slices at least. Review panels doth not > a clean break make. Having read the AoC agreement now, and the original bet, I disagree. I think I win. Clean break. Ding dong, the JPA is dead, and certainly "changed". Thanks to Adam for digging up the original bet. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org At 8:02 AM +0200 4/3/08, William Drake wrote: > I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration > won't change anything, at least not in its first term. > Who'd want to throw read meat to > right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 > election? >____________________________________________________________ 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 From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 30 17:07:39 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:07:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E17@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] > > The "Affirmation" is still based on the technically false belief that > other DNS systems do exist and that some may come into larger > use than they have. Did you mean to say: "do NOT exist"? ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 30 17:10:54 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:10:54 +1000 Subject: AW: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871958F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On a quick first read - I cant see this satisfying many of the critics, even if it is a good step. For China and others, the NTIA is still there and there is still no level playing field. I cant see ITU being happy as a result. Those who want no governments involved wont be happy with the expanded GAC role. Maybe civil society will be a little happier than most actors - I do see some better language there and perhaps a hint of more change to come. And yes a few western nations will applaud the decision and welcome it. Perhaps one effect will be an upping of the politics of GAC and higher level governmental delegations. Another effect I think is the legitimisation and institutionalisation of ICANN - wheras a year or two ago there may have been moves to replace ICANN with something else, I doubt whether any such moves will gain traction any more. ICANN is now with us for the long term - for better or for worse - and changing ICANN at a fundamental level is probably going to be about as difficult as changing IP protocols. On 1/10/09 3:03 AM, "Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter" wrote: > Dear list, > > I see it as a right next step into the right direction. If you understand the > whole ICANN saga as a process than the "Affirmation" is just another step with > an open outcome but a step forward. > > There are some points which are really innovative: > > a. the review panels will produce an interesting mix of new and innocative > multistakeholder bodies where the members of these bodies will have probably > to write their own rules for inner communication and interaction. This is the > exploration of new territory. This goes beyond the WGIG and MAG experiences. > Certainly the final confirmation for the composition of the review panels is > in the hands of ICANNs CEO abd the GAC Chair. But this is already an > expression of "co-governance", or - with other words - a further > decentralization of power and decision making. Nobody can make single > decisions. This will complicated the process, will lead to delays and certain > forms of fighting inwards and outwards, but it makes the whole process more > transparent, democratic, inclusive and at the end accountable to the broader > public. > > b. I like also the various principles which are included in the text - > starting from the public interest to consumer choice, privacy protection, > competition, stability, security, interoperability etc. If you collect all > these principles and list it on one page you have a "Internet Governance > Declaration" which goes beyond the Tunis document. > > c. I am also pleased that ICANN and NTIA resisted the bipartisan letter which > came from the US Congress in August. In his video Beckstrom argues in an > impressive way that the "Affirmation" meets on the one hand the criteria of > the letter (security, stability, headquartered in the US, US role in the GAC) > etc. but does not follow the congressional recommendation just to continue > with the JPA in its present form for ever. A very smart move. > > I agree also with Bertrand that we need now a discussion how to implement this > document, how to bring the paper language into political realities. It will > depend to a high degree by the individuals (and institutions) who will become > involved in this process. It will not be "rest in peace". It is a challenge > with a lot of work, a lot of discussion and fierce struggles. But this process > will create a dynamic process which will open doors to new territories with > the potential to make Internet Governance more democratic, transparent, > inclusive and accountable. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Gesendet: Mi 30.09.2009 17:57 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? > > > > I would say the new arrangement offers a potential for change but is > very difficult to say at this point to what extent such changes will > become reality. > > What I really like about the document is the degree to which the Obama > administration acknowledges > > * the existence of other fora and communities ("cross-community > deliberations", para 7). This is very different from what we used to > hear, namely that we should participate in ICANN instead of criticizing > it from outside or elsewhere > > * the problems with policy development in ICANN. Buzz words such as > "fact-based policy development", responsive consultation procedures, > "thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken" can be > interpreted as an attempt to change to transform ICANN style of policy > development. > > Whether or not such a document can contribute to the badly needed change > is another matter. As regulation experts like to say, the more detailed > the rules, the easier to game them. > > jeanette > > > > Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> Hi Mc tim, >>> >>> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing >>> changed ? >>> >>> B. >> >> >> And something did change. >> >> Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. >> It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair >> for right of participation. >> >> Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the >> change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. >> >> a. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 30 17:13:32 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:13:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871958F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <4AC37FE0.3030105@wzb.eu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A871958F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E18@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Here is my official response: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/30/4337767.html some irreverent comments on Wolfgang's comments below (it's been a long day) > -----Original Message----- > > a. the review panels will produce an interesting mix of new > and innocative multistakeholder bodies ...be still my heart! > members of these bodies will have probably to write > their own rules for inner communication and interaction. ...the joys > This is the exploration > of new territory. ...personally, I'd rather go hiking in the Sangre de Cristos > This goes beyond the WGIG and MAG > experiences. Certainly the final confirmation for the > composition of the review panels is in the hands of ICANNs > CEO abd the GAC Chair. But this is already an expression of > "co-governance", or - with other words - a further > decentralization of power and decision making. Sounds like a further centralization to me. GAC goes from advisory to choosing people for a special status. > b. I like also the various principles which are included in > the text - starting from the public interest to consumer > choice, privacy protection, competition, stability, security, > interoperability etc. If you collect all these principles and > list it on one page you have a "Internet Governance > Declaration" which goes beyond the Tunis document. guess what's missing: freedom of expression. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From muguet at mdpi.net Wed Sep 30 17:41:45 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:41:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ICANN=92s_New_US_Contract_And_New_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Top_Level_Domains_-_It=92s_Not_Over?= Message-ID: <4AC3D099.6040604@mdpi.net> Just coming back home, after a few hectic days FYI, an interesting analysis http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/09/29/icanns-new-us-contract-and-new-top-level-domains-its-not-over/ *29 September 2009* ICANN’s New US Contract And New Top Level Domains - It’s Not Over By Monika Ermert for /Intellectual Property Watch/ @ 12:07 pm With a day to go before the joint project agreement between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the United States Department of Commerce (DoC) is set to expire, calls for continuous US oversight role have been reiterated by US politicians and private-sector representatives who reason that this oversight is especially needed in the face of the planned introduction of new internet top-level domains like .shop. ICANN is a “captured regulator,” the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) warned last Wednesday and asked for additional oversight by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as ICANN is “risking cybersecurity, national security and global security.” Yet The Economist magazine ran an opinionated story only a day later asserting that ICANN would be “independent,” under the new contract conceding that the core infrastructure managed by ICANN - the domain-name system (DNS) root zone - will still be controlled by US authorities. So it’s not over, neither the disputes about new top-level domains (TLDs) nor those about further internationalising internet domain name system oversight. ICANN was founded in 1998 to organise private-sector, bottom-up and multi-stakeholder management for the coordination of the DNS and also IP addresses and so-called protocol parameters. It has since been at the centre of a heated debate about the roles of the US, but also global governments, industry and civil society groups in internet governance. Broadsides at ICANN While it had been quiet about the deadline of its joint project agreement (JPA) over the last month, last week ICANN saw some broadsides fired at its TLD expansion plans and its work record in general that would have been suitable for lobbying by US companies and trademark owners seeking to preserve US control. ICANN is “not independent,” “not transparent” nor “accessible,” is only after its own profits and is risking the stability and security of the internet it is tasked to protect, wrote CADNA, that lists companies like Verizon, HP, Dell, but also non-telecommunications, non-information technology members like Goldman Sachs or Wells Fargo, Nike or Hilton Hotels. CADNA called for a “full-scale audit of ICANN.” The group requested that a special federal commission take up to twelve months “to fully audit ICANN and develop recommendations for a revised and updated JPA.” The introduction of new TLDs also came under fire from CADNA who dismissed the roll-out as “poorly conceived.” Steve DelBianco, chairman of the Net Choice Coalition, representing companies like VeriSign and eBay, complained at a 23 September hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy that ICANN had “got sidetracked” in the process of introducing new TLDs. “ICANN should refocus on international labels [domains],” DelBianco said. Countries like China have long asked for internationalised, non-Latin domain names at the highest level. By opening up the TLD expansion to every new Latin-script string and complicating and slowing the process instead ICANN has risked the “splintering of the single root system,” he said, because “China has got tired of label makers and made a mini-ICANN of their own sitting on top of ours.” DelBianco neglected to mention that his parallel proposal to allocate the Chinese versions of .com, .net to the registries managing the English versions like VeriSign likely would not amuse the respective countries. DelBianco, joined by Richard Heath, president of the International Trademark Association argued, that new generic TLDs in English would not bring innovation. Heath said it would instead “decrease competition if we (the trademark owners) have to fund a lot more defensive registration“ and this would also divert resources from innovation and from investment in corporate social sponsorship projects. Congressional Members: New TLDs Require Oversight of ICANN Several members of Congress seemed to agree with the two trademark right representatives. Chairman Hank Johnson (Democrat, Georgia) for example said: “I do not understand [why] they want an unlimited expansion of the name space.“ Johnson acknowledged non-Latin TLDs and initiatives like .nyc and .eco have merit. Given the planned expansion, US oversight over ICANN’s process continued to be necessary to provide stability and security for domain name owners, he said. Republican Congressman Howard Coble (North Carolina) warned that ICANN by proceeding with the expansion of the name space had “not for the first time ignored what one might think is a mandatory instruction.” Governments in ICANN’s own Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) had raised concerns about the new TLD process, and the DoC had asked for economic proof of the necessity of new TLDs, he said. A week earlier a study from Interisle commissioned by ICANN also had recommended first introducing a new security feature to the DNS, the DNS Security Extensions protocol (DNSSEC), before moving on with the introduction of new TLDs, said Coble. The study on “Scaling the Root” in fact concluded ICANN could for stability reasons either introduce new gTLDs, new international (IDN) TLDs and next generation internet (Ipv6) or DNSSEC. It recommended to start with the latter, which will authorise answers to name requests in the DNS and therefore make forgery more difficult. The DoC already has announced that DNSSEC should be introduced by the end of this year. To amalgamate the complicated technology into the DNS system, root operators and the community should be given 12 to 15 months before another addition to the system is started, the study found. ICANN: No Link between JPA and new TLDs ICANN officials rejected the link between the dispute over TLDs and the JPA contract discussions. ICANN’s new CEO, Rod Beckstrom, in a letter dated 22 September wrote to several congressmen who had asked for legislation to make US oversight permanent by legislation, that consultations on the IP issues were still underway. “There is no link to the conclusion of the JPA,,” he said. ICANN Chief Operating Officer Doug Brent at the hearing outlined the process on the future application procedure for new TLDs as an ongoing discussion: a third version of the extensive applicant’s guidebook would come out beginning of October, Brent said. Several protective measures that were proposed by the “Implementation Recommendation Group“ (IRT) were called upon by ICANN’s board chairman. The IRT work was seen by other ICANN stakeholder groups including registries, registrars, and non-commercial domain name holders as yet another round for the IP community of undermining and bypassing the multi-stakeholder process that had worked for months for a consensus. “We will not allow an expansion that will not adequately protect trademark owners,” reiterated Brent, and “it will not be an unbridled expansion.” Delaying the process begun as part of ICANN’s overall mandate to bring competition to the originally monopolistic domain name system according to Beckstrom and Brent would only serve “to perpetuate existing market conditions: concentration within some existing registries, with most short generic strings unavailable and those that trade on the value of the current marketplace, holding portfolios based upon the value of current .com.” Support for ICANN’s process to now finally push through with new generic TLDs and non-English TLDs came from a coalition of domain name registries like Core, registrars like ENOM, declared applicants for new TLDs including the competitors for the .eco TLD of which one is supported by former Vice President Al Gore and a Commissioner of the Canadian Regulatory Authority (CRTC). In their letter to the ICANN Board, the pro-TLD coalition urged ICANN to initiate the new TLD application period without further delay as it would bring more competition and consumer choice and avoid chaos stemming from an alternative addressing scheme that would pop up if ICANN gave in to what they see as fearmongering and “narrow arguments advanced so vociferously by those who seek to preserve their advantages.” End of the JPA, No End to US Control So what will happen with a new agreement in place this week? ICANN officials so far have not responded to requests for detailed information. Beckstrom in his letter to the congressmen dated 21 September wrote: “I am in discussions with the NTIA (DoC National Telecommunications and Information Administration) to establish a long-standing relationship to accommodate principles including the beliefs that ICANN should remain a nonprofit corporation based in the United States, and should retain an ongoing focus on accountability and transparency.“ ICANN should be made a permanent institution, said Beckstrom, adding, “Accordingly, ICANN seeks to have a long-term relationship with the United States government and also seeks to build long-term relationships with other countries and contractual partners as well.“ By the end of last week The Economist came out with leaked information about an “independent“ ICANN, quoting a four-page paper about “affirmations and commitments” that envisaged four oversight panels over ICANN, checking on “competition among generic domains (such as .com and .net), the handling of data on registrants, the security of the network and transparency, accountability and the public interest.” The US would only retain a permanent seat in the latter one, and representatives of “foreign governments” would be included in the oversight panels. The agreement sets up oversight panels that include representatives of foreign governments to “conduct regular reviews of ICANN’s work in four areas.” The potential new oversight model would partly answer long-standing requests for internationalisation, not the least from non-US governments, according to Wolfgang Kleinwächter, an internet governance expert and head of ICANN’s Nominating Committee. The member states of Europe have passed another version of their “Guidelines on International Management of the Domain Name System” demanding further development of the private-sector-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder model for the technical coordination and the day-to-day management of the DNS, continued efforts towards full transparency and accountability and, notably, a “strengthened” GAC “that has increased active membership (in particular from developing countries), greater involvement in ICANN’s policy development processes [..] and effective secretariat support.” GAC members might be the ones who could fill the oversight panels, one can speculate, and this might have come up during talks the NTIA held with the EU Troika (Sweden, Spain and the European Commission) at a meeting on the first of September, one of several meetings NTIA had with governments around the world in the run-up to the JPA deadline. The EU guidelines also state a need to stipulate and support dialogue and cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the internet“ in general, a possible hint of the need for continued discussions at the upcoming UN-led Internet Governance Forum in Egypt. The guidelines do not touch on the new TLD process, yet recommend “the establishment of an arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism base on international law in case of disputes.” The burden to go to a California court to appeal against a California-based ICANN decision has been mentioned at many new TLD events in Europe recently. In the end, a change in the JPA might bring some changes and pacify some concerns over an overly US-centric ICANN. “From what I read, it looks like a smart move,” said Kleinwächter. What it will not bring is “independence” as ICANN will continue to be a government contractor for what is the core “critical resource” - the root zone and internet protocol address allocation management which are delegated via a separation contract, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract. US authorities have always declared that they will hold on to that one. So after the JPA, it’s not over and discussions about the new TLDs can be expected to continue, too, for a long time. /Monika Ermert may be reached at info at ip-watch.ch ./ Categories: Access to Knowledge , English , Features , Information and Communications Technology/Broadcasting , Trademarks/Geographical Indications , US Policy PS : Concerning the pizza bet, my own opinion is that Milton just owes a nice but empty pizza box... because it is just a nice packaging change... :-D -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net KNIS http://knis.org Academic Collaboration / University of Geneva http://syinf.unige.ch/recherche/cooperation Mobile France +33 6 71 91 42 10 Switzerland +41 78 927 06 97 Cameroun +237 96 55 69 62 ( mostly in July ) World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web Info. Net. Govermance : http://www.wsis-gov.org web NET4D : http://www.net4D.org UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS : http://www.wtis.org REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 30 17:56:03 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:56:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E1D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > rules could be tough on they key issues. Someone care to spell out > the argument for how this constitutes a real break in the governance > of names and numbers, rather than a limited, incremental > step? Some years ago the US and EU came up with the face-saving > safe harbor agreement on privacy protection, and US business pretty > much continued on its merry way. How different will this be, > in terms of outcomes? Bill, you are saying that this is not a very good accountability mechanism. Ding! On target. But, as far as the JPA termination goes, the basic issue is that (other than IANA contract) Commerce Dept oversight is finished, over, it's now just one of several GAC members in the basic supervision. Also the Affirmation itself seems to have no legal authority or binding power. And, the NTIA-ers got all the folks who might scream about "giving the internet away to furriners" (VeriSign, CSIS, Google) to agree to it in advance and put up favorable public comments on their web site. Altogether, an impressive fig leaf to cover the end of the JPA. Well done, tactically. But no, let's not be fooled about this solving the accountability problem. And let's pay careful attention to the enhanced role of GAC and the possible abuse of its selection powers. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Sep 30 17:59:27 2009 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:59:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] The Eurpean Commission and IG Message-ID: <18392552.60720.1254347967908.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f17> Dear all Please find attached the paper issued today by the EC welcoming "US move to more independent (...) Internet governance." Your reaction will be welcomed too ! Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EU_Internet Governance_Sept09.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38912 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 30 18:36:53 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Pizza? Leaning tower of Pizza. In-Reply-To: <4AC37E18.8050406@apc.org> Message-ID: <391822.33858.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> The biggest test that this shift creates is: Will unwilling stakeholders participate without immediate gratification?  The biggest point of interest will be: Will China now take a seat at the GAC table?   Clearly this is an Obama administration challenge to the complainers.  Now if those on this list do not participate in a long sustained effort to gain stakeholder/individual rights, they will only have their pontificating selves to blame. --- On Wed, 9/30/09, Willie Currie wrote: From: Willie Currie Subject: Re: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Avri Doria" Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 3:49 PM Ok, so the main shift is the establishment of four review processes which will assess ICANN's performance in four areas in three year cycles. The review teams will be jointly established by the ICANN Chair or CEO and the Chair of the GAC. These reviews will replace the role of the US DoC in reviewing ICANN's performance. One can see an increased role for the GAC in oversight of ICANN here, but it is a 'soft' form of oversight - the 'recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations'. In other words, there is no enforcement mechanism for the recommendations - the ICANN Board is not obliged to implement the recommendations, i.e. the reviews will have the soft force of persuasion and moral or political pressure but not the instruments of 'hard' oversight. This is reinforced in the Affirmation by the clear statement that 'ICANN is a private organization and nothing in this Affirmation should be construed as control by any one entity.' So  the Board  remains the key body of power within ICANN  and the least accountable, as there is no democratic mechanism for the bottom-up ICANN community to dismiss the Board. Nevertheless this is a step forward, with respect to diluting unilateral US oversight of ICANN. It remains to be seen to what extent civil society is represented on any of the review teams and whether the recommendations of the reviews are accepted and implemented by the ICANN Board. The EU has come out in support of the continuation of the IGF 'as it is the only place where all internet related topics can be addressed by a wide range of stakeholders from all over the world, including Parliamentarians.' It will be interesting to see what role the IGF may be able to play as a space where the reviews can be deliberated on in a multi-stakeholder fashion and boost the transparency of the review process and perhaps its soft power. Willie Avri Doria wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2009, at 11:21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> Hi Mc tim, >> >> I must have misunderstood. I thought Milton bought pizza if nothing changed ? >> >> B. > > > And something did change. > > Though I am not sure how much there is for Civil society to be cheer about. > It is like the old days of WSIS, CS will be beholden to the gov't chair for right of participation. > > Or, in the long run, other then outward appearance, how significant the change will turn out to be for ICANN processes. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 18:38:09 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:38:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter amendment In-Reply-To: <4AC135E5.9090800@wzb.eu> References: <18601336.1254160728627.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <76f819dd0909281152y7e6acccy2a7d4638ce685016@mail.gmail.com> <4AC135E5.9090800@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909301538q28c55966lc0acd152d65a8c7d@mail.gmail.com> The main idea of a 2/3 requirement is to make it NOT EASY to gather that kind of group together, therefore it's not easy to improvidently amend the charter without a lot of member involvement in the issue. The problem appears to be with there being no procedure for aging off inactive members. Or, if the "problem" is that members simply don't want to change the charter and realize that not voting is one way to accomplish that, THAT is a legitimate and (within its scope) effective electoral position to take, one that can't be dismissed as invalid any more than a "yes" vote can be dismissed as invalid. As far as signal to noise goes, I don't know what you're referring to precisely, unless its pizza discussions but I personally don't mind a bit of humor now and then. The flurry of messages on pizza is understandable given the reality that appetites like food, sleep (well, and sex) are nearly universal appetites that everyone can speak to, or most everyone, except computer experts (I'm not one) who I hear do not ever sleep, though I haven't confirmed that yet. In contrast, when it comes to computer technicalities, that becomes white noise for many, because they don't have the training to understand it. I certainly can't and won't defend every post made or that could be made, but part of the solution to the problem of "noise" is to realize that tolerance at any reasonable level involves putting up with considerable "noise" especially the grating kind one doesn't agree with or prefers didn't populate the list, because one doesn't need any "tolerance" at all to tolerate something one both understands and approves. Meanwhile, what we all don't care for, just like bad music, is grating to the ears, and becomes "more noise than signal." Not many of us, and certainly not I, are important enough to have our communications summarized and shortened for us so that we can enjoy high signal to noise ratio, so we've got to do a lot of sorting ourselves. Having sat myself through many a 3 day long meeting with wall to wall lawyers, one can't hit "delete" on someone who's talking in person, nor leave the room for long. It's a lot better here in the email world since a scan of an email plus a delete key stroke, if truly merited, is about ten to a hundred times more efficient with time. In this light, while not claiming that no poster ever abuses rights, the bulk of the "problem" with high noise to signal claims is the lack of tolerance by email receivers. At least those on highspeed internet and not a metered dialup have no real cause to shift the few seconds it takes to scan and delete onto the drafters of posts, for whom it would take many minutes to even hours to streamline, edit and post a "high signal" post. Back to the 2/3, if the charter architects didn't foresee some problem, we're still stuck with the charter provision designed specifically to make things difficult, even if it makes them slightly more difficult than perhaps was anticipated. Because it's meant to be difficult, performing an end-around for reasons of expedience, or reducing the provision's impact for reasons of expedience, is unjustified. Expedience will ultimately justify gutting or highly limiting any given charter position, ones we like and ones we don't like. Whose job is it to uphold the charter, no one's? That's the crux. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/28/09, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> Personally, I think that if the election were redone and if as is >> likely the measure passes easily in all respects that would be a >> victory for best practices and not a waste in any good governance >> sense of that word. Instead, it bespeaks a high respect for >> procedural integrity, even if it means the effort of a new election. > > Hi Paul, you seem to think that it would be easy to mobilize the same > number of voters once again. I can assure you, it is everything but > easy. A lot of people who once cared about this caucus have stopped to > pay attention, not least because of its worsening signal to noise ratio. > > The 2/3 threshold was designed with the aim to make changes of the > charter difficult. What the charter architects didn't and couldn't > foresee is that a changing of the charter would become nearly impossible > because a growing number of caucus members abandons the group simply by > ignoring it. Unless we manage to improve the quality of discussion on > this list, it will soon be impossible to establish majorities for anything. > jeanette >> >> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> >> On 9/28/09, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >>> Paul and all, >>> >>> Thank you Paul for this execellent and substative legal analysis. Well >>> done >>> and I concur! Now are you willing to officially a protest accordingly? >>> If >>> so I would join you as seemingly Ginger and Ian have indicated is >>> required, >>> but by what authority I know not. Please advise as soon as possible. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Paul Lehto >>>> Sent: Sep 28, 2009 12:50 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Analysis re: Results of charter >>>> amendment >>>> vote >>>> >>>> I don't know if constitutional case law and principles from courts in >>>> the USA concerning elections would be deemed to have application here, >>>> but it may, at least by analogy in furtherance of a proper analysis of >>>> facts. So here's some structure that might be applicable, or at >>>> least any departure from its reasoning would seem to call for an >>>> explanation at least: >>>> >>>> 1. Elections are PURE procedure. >>>> >>>> 2. Because they are procedures, any substantial defect in procedure >>>> renders the procedure invalid or worthless procedure, or at least >>>> renders the election "irregular" in the sense of the term "election >>>> irregularities." >>>> >>>> 3. Lack of a quorum, as pointed out by one poster, means that a body >>>> is unable to legitimately take action. In the case of a meeting, >>>> substantive business might not be discussed until such time as a >>>> quorum appears at the meeting, in which case all attending are present >>>> for the entire substantive meeting and have equal voting rights >>>> therein. >>>> >>>> 4. Scheduled elections end at the time prescribed, except for such >>>> persons as are in line at time of closing, who are entitled to proceed >>>> to complete the voting process. >>>> >>>> 5. In the case of extraordinary circumstances such as the closing of >>>> a polling location due to a bomb threat, illness of all pollworkers, >>>> or the like, after meeting a relatively heavy burden of proof of >>>> showing good cause, an independent court of proper jurisdiction may >>>> rule to extend polling place hours to accommodate or adjust only for >>>> the loss of time or access to voting, such that the end result >>>> intended is that all voters in various jurisdictions had an equal >>>> opportunity to vote. >>>> >>>> 6. An individual voter, even in cases of intentional delay by the >>>> sheriff for the specific purpose of preventing them from casting a >>>> vote, can not be allowed to vote if they arrive after closing time, >>>> even by court order. This voter has a strong legal cause of action >>>> against the sheriff for damages for violation of their constitutional >>>> rights, but ballot boxes can not be left open or re-opened even in the >>>> most extreme cases where good excuse is proved by a voter that they >>>> were faultless in not casting a timely ballot. This is why "vote >>>> suppression", while illegal in the extreme, is or can be effective in >>>> achieving the desired results if for any reason it keeps people away >>> >from the polls. >>>> 7. Under both Bush v. Gore ( a bad or even void case, in parts, but I >>>> cite it for its noncontroversial part) and the law it cites in the >>>> opinion and briefs, it is a violation of Equal Protection and election >>>> principles to make up new rules after the election commences. The >>>> parties to an election rely upon the rules as they exist when the >>>> election commences or just prior to the commencement of the election, >>>> and rule changes during the process are therefore unfair for various >>>> reasons, including but not limited to affecting one side of the debate >>>> more than others, in most circumstances. >>>> >>>> For the above reasons, in a "real election" in the USA (understanding >>>> the corporate elections operate by somewhat different rules) the >>>> persons running an election would not, no matter how much good cause >>>> they felt they had, be able to extend the hours of voting without >>>> going to a neutral magistrate or judge after putting all interested >>>> parties on notice, and arguing their case under the general rules >>>> above. In no case would being on vacation or at work in Geneva be >>>> grounds for extending time, nor would the lack of a quorum be grounds >>>> for extending time, because the very purpose of the 2/3 rule >>>> requirement is to ensure that measures that don't achieve the 2/3 >>>> requirement FAIL. >>>> >>>> Given the existence of a rule on point whose purpose is to cause >>>> charter amendments to fail if they don't achieve 2/3 voting, there can >>>> be no "good cause" to extend time under that purpose, because such a >>>> claim of good cause works directly to undermine or perform an >>>> end-around the express election requirement of the 2/3 rule. If the >>>> 2/3 threshold were not an issue, it would be different. Another way >>>> to think of this is that a charter amendment would be necessary to get >>>> around the charter provision requiring 2/3. If this were not the >>>> case, voting could simply be extended indefinitely until the 2/3 were >>>> achieved, even if it took months, and through that technique the whole >>>> purpose of having a 2/3 majority of the electorate actively engaged in >>>> a scheduled election would be defeated. A supermajority requirement >>>> for turnout like 2/3 is designed so that charters are not amended >>>> unless the electorate is sufficiently interested and energized to turn >>>> out in those numbers during a regularly scheduled election time. >>>> >>>> A requirement to have a minimum turnout like 2/3 has twin purposes of >>>> ensuring that no charter amendment passes unless there is intense >>>> enough interest in the election to stimulate turnout. Thus, a >>>> proposition that 1/3 or more of the electorate is blase' about isn't >>>> entitled to have supreme status in the charter, and in addition to >>>> those who forget to vote or are out of town, one way to vote against >>>> the amendment is simply not to vote at all. >>>> >>>> Whenever the 2/3 requirement for turnout is not achieved during the >>>> regularly scheduled election time, no extension is legitimate in order >>>> to achieve that quorum given the purposes of 2/3 rules in the first >>>> place. The remedy, if there are circumstances like spam traps or >>>> work absences, illnesses or vacations, is to have a new election, >>>> which will cause more light to be shed on the issues in the >>>> amendments. Perhaps in the new election the 2/3 is easily achieved >>>> and it passes overwhelmingly, or perhaps new debate causes new focus >>>> and concern and it is defeated. In either case, however, the purpose >>>> of the 2/3 to ensure the focus of 2/3 of the electorate within the >>>> requisite time period for an election is vindicated, and in no case is >>>> a new election a waste of time or resources. Only the 2/3 rule itself >>>> could be considered ill-advised or causing waste, but then that would >>>> require a 2/3 turnout and another election to amend, as well. >>>> >>>> In sum, the justification of expedience (to help Geneva folks vote) or >>>> the justification of spam traps affecting individual voters (like >>>> voter suppression, discussed above) would neither singly nor in >>>> combination constitute good cause to extend a REAL election under >>>> normal election law. >>>> >>>> That being said, since this is not a 'real' election and different law >>>> or rules may apply, less rigorous standards for election procedure >>>> might apply, though they would still be undermining the legal >>>> principles above (which principles only apply as "principles" and not >>>> as law per se), and many people consider "fairness" to consist of >>>> replicating or determining what a court of law would do, presuming it >>>> was fairly constituted and understood the law. >>>> >>>> For what it's worth, a fairly constituted court not afraid of >>>> political consequences (which isn't always the case) that neutrally >>>> applied the law would rule, in my humble opinion, assuming there was >>>> no 2/3 quorum at the regular time of election close, that the votes >>>> tallied after the close of election could be counted (perhaps) but NOT >>>> for purposes of determining that a 2/3 requirement was met, >>>> particularly in this case where the extension of time was self-granted >>>> so to speak due to the presumptive non-availability of a court of >>>> proper jurisdiction. The defect is a procedural one, which undermines >>>> the integrity of the election which is pure procedure, and the remedy >>>> taken on the spot seriously undermines and/or renders nugatory a core >>>> purpose of the 2/3 rule, since 2/3 could be obtained in nearly every >>>> election simply through extending the time. But for the 2/3 rule it >>>> would be a much closer case. >>>> >>>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >>>> >>>> PS By way of disclosure, I did not vote in the charter amendment >>>> process, presuming I was even a qualified voter, nor have a formed a >>>> firm and clear opinion about which way I would have voted if I had >>>> voted. >>>> On 9/28/09, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> Dear IGC >>>>> >>>>> I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the >>>>> extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved >>>>> amending the IGC charter. >>>>> >>>>> But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members >>>>> expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and >>>>> there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another >>>>> they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of >>>>> limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus. >>>>> >>>>> As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter >>>>> amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this >>>>> disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the >>>>> new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is >>>>> also not clear that extension violated any rule. >>>>> >>>>> My understanding of the coordinators' decision was that they were >>>>> motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the >>>>> right thing to do, even if not ideal. >>>>> >>>>> The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some >>>>> people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would >>>>> have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for >>>>> the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I >>>>> believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal >>>>> of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe >>>>> is >>>>> the responsibility of the coordinators). >>>>> >>>>> This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are >>>>> normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. >>>>> >>>>> >From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using >>>>> this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or >>>>> meeting periods, has been needed more often than not. >>>>> >>>>> We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but >>>>> rather >>>>> as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and >>>>> endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our >>>>> network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In >>>>> fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board >>>>> of directors. >>>>> >>>>> Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very >>>>> interesting.. thanks for posting Paul. >>>>> >>>>> Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit >>>>> law in California (where APC is registered). >>>>> >>>>> One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that >>>>> California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the >>>>> organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member >>>>> council). >>>>> Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real >>>>> time using telephone, online or video conferencing. >>>>> >>>>> We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, >>>>> and >>>>> want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy, >>>>> and who are located in just about all timezones. >>>>> >>>>> To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online >>>>> meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be >>>>> asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can >>>>> be submitted electronically. >>>>> >>>>> Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we >>>>> don't use voting very often. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >>>> P.O. Box #1 >>>> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >>>> lehto.paul at gmail.com >>>> 906-204-4026 >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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, >>> >>> Jeffrey A. Williams >>> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 >>> 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 18:47:22 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:47:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC membership In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E08@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <8955144.1254083564556.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5FE97@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AC1C18C.4040009@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E08@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909301547l2a49798dn53a8aac4dc1d454a@mail.gmail.com> It seems to me that, UNLESS there's a charter provision in the immediate area that governs "no longer being a member", then we likely do have a situation of reasonable leeway (unlike the 2/3 issue, IMO). Assuming no specific provisions on aging off members, a reasonable procedure is to send a communication reasonably likely to be received to all those who we are not sure are active members, requiring an affirmative response to stay a member (opt in). This should get rid of all those people who truly are inactive and therefore raising the bar on the 2/3 requirement a bit unfairly high. After the above effort, perhaps involving two communications, then the membership list will be solidified and lowered, probably at least by one if not by many. From that plateau, proper elections can proceed with a somewhat lower 2/3 requirement in terms of the gross number of ballots needed. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/29/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I'm feelin' that collective responsibility right now. I AM the IGC.... > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > ________________________________ > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:13 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGC membership > > The membership issue of this group certainly needs to be sorted out. > > I have said this before, but I can see only one real way out. To have a > clear membership which is renewed bi-yearly. It doesnt matter if there are > only 30-40 such members. They need to feel a collective (sorry for using > that word, Milton :) ) responsibility for the caucus. At present it is too > much of 'some one else will do it' and coordinators are left with an > impossible job. > > Organizational issues should be dealt by this members list, with free and > regular references to the larger group, which consists of those who are > interested in the caucus, in the matters of getting information, > contributing, and deliberating, but not willing to take much > responsibility, which is of course very fine. For most purposes one will > never feel the difference while participating in the regular larger > group.... it will only be more or less an exceptional thing to take matters > to the members group > > Otherwise we will keep ending up in some absurd situations of the kind > Milton refers to. > > I appeal to coordinators to take this issue up. > > parminder > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > I voted against the amendment, but do not have a problem with the procedure > used. > The real problem is that a high bar was set regarding the membership portion > who have to vote. If a loose organization such as this attracts 200 people > who call themselves "members" at point A and after two years 35% of them > lose interest and stop participating, then no charter amendments would ever > be possible. If the vote were a close one it would be different, of course. > As it is, all that happened was that the vote extension allowed the will of > an overwhelming majority to be executed. > ________________________________ > From: Magaly Pazello [mailto:femlists at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:00 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. > Williams > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote > Dear list, > after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been > following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite > my silence. > > I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding > to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time > and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look > forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do. > > I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have > aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this > period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in > favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, > I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to > adopt the new text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also > because we don't know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made > within the regular voting period or during the extension period. > > I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the > voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right? > > Best, > > Magaly Pazello > > > > 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams > > > Danny and all, > > There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not > necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have > occurred. Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that > suspicion. > > So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't > ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others. > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Danny Younger > >>Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Ian Peter >> > >>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote >> >>Ian, >> >>Thank you for the clarification. Please be advised that I am considering >> the filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural >> irregularities, and would appreciate a few answers to help guide my >> ultimate decision. >> >>One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the >> amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to >> pass (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the >> pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded >> to put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to >> obtain the particular outcome that they themselves preferred. >> >>Is this impression substantially correct? If so, in my view such actions >> constitute an improper gaming of the process. >> >>Best regards, >>Danny Younger >> >>[...] > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 19:32:31 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:32:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote In-Reply-To: References: <76f819dd0909291312g3111687cl660fcc3f4f371787@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909301632s5dc81bp768ad206c171d113@mail.gmail.com> OK, I'd look at it initially with the idea of making elections fair and clear, as long as you understand that I'd add a clause for a "belts and suspenders" redundancy approach by saying that there's no leeway or discretion within the scope of the charter provision, except perhaps as approved by a truly independent third party of some sort. On 9/29/09, Ian Peter wrote: > > Paul, I would like to think there is a way your offer could be taken up, and > as I suggested earlier I do not believe the charters problems can be solved > by dealing with one little bit at a time. There are a number of sections > which need amending and clarification and it would be a great service to > this group if someone would take this on. I would certainly support you if > you were willing to head up such a working group - but for me, with only > about a month of my term as co coordinator to run, (I am counting the days) > I would not be prepared to take a central role of any sort. BY all means > write to me off list if you would like to take this on and I would happily > work with you towards getting a working group established. > > In the meantime - we have a month to go to the IGF meeeting, and I do hope > that on this list we can start to put attention towards what we are doing as > a group there and some of the issues we need to address. > > > > > > > On 30/09/09 6:12 AM, "Paul Lehto" wrote: > >> I'd be happy to draft a charter amendment if one were desired, but >> without the stipulation that the principles of reason and construction >> of language apply with force, literally anything I would draft, no >> matter how clear, would be a waste of time and utterly ineffective in >> binding the freedom of administrators (the point of such election >> provisions). >> >> Also, in this specific case, no further rules are needed in the >> charter to resolve the question, because the 2/3 rule implies that the >> 2/3 must exist in a normal election day time period and not over a >> week, month, or year. >> >> If the above case is not sufficiently clear in its prohibition of >> extensions for purposes or effect of meeting the 2/3 rule, then no >> amount of drafting, no matter how precise, will be sufficient to tie >> the hands of any person of even average intelligence who is committed >> to getting around the words and told he's got the "leeway" to do so. >> And I consider all here quite above average in intelligence. >> >> So, on another subject, I'd be happy to draft an amendment, but on >> this one it's hopeless. >> On 9/29/09, McTim wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable >>> law >>>> that negates the actions >>>> taken by the coordinators. In my opinion, they have behaved within the >>>> limits of the charter. >>>> >>>> >>> +1 >>> >>> If there was no appeal made within the 72 hours, the issue is moot. >>> >>> Paul, please write a charter amendment if you feel that voting rules need >>> to >>> be further specified. >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >>> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nhklein at gmx.net Wed Sep 30 21:41:57 2009 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:41:57 +0700 Subject: [governance] so do i owe bill drake a pizza or not? In-Reply-To: <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6E09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd0909300041o7adc97f9v5c701cde107e0f7e@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719585@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0909300821r2410d784q57d0c842e05773a5@mail.gmail.com> <27A2EB4A-DC87-4A0F-89BE-A6199BE73ADA@psg.com> <92A96C87-EB27-4BD8-A9A2-94F4BBD76882@graduateinstitute.ch> <4AC3BAB6.1040304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4AC408E5.3020808@gmx.net> Thanks, Karl, for your analysis. Norbert Klein = Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 09/30/2009 10:01 AM, William Drake wrote: >> Let's see. On the one hand we have >> >> 1. IANA contract >> 2. VeriSign contract >> 3. California law >> 4. Entrenched org culture >> 5. Entrenched commercial interests >> 6. Whatever back channel political deals and assurances were needed in >> DC, etc (the administration will probably take heat for it anyway) >> 7. etc >> >> On the other hand, we have >> >> 1. NTIA's reviews replaced by non-binding panels. > > I see serious problems with this "Affirmation". > > First of all, NTIA cites as authority only the most vague and general > of statutory authorizations. If one accepts those as adequate it > means, for example, that NTIA has the general authority to enter into > agreements that require US corporations to include a committee of > foreign governments in their highest decision making processes. > > That might be a thought that gives comfort to some outside the US but > it scares the beejeebers out of me as a whole new and previously > unseen kind of expansion of US governmental power into the affairs of > private activities. > > There are several other aspects in which NTIA's citation of authority > is not adequate for the impositions it places on ICANN. > > Second, the agreement, as you mention, leaves open many other issues, > such as who prepares the root zone, is NTIA still in the approval loop > (I see no reason to believe that it is not). > > Third, the "Affirmation" seems to be designed to buttress the > intellectual property industry's drumbeat for an every more revealing > and privacy-busting "whois" > > Fourth, it leaves ICANN still in an unclear position with regard to > anti-trust laws. > > Fifth, given that the ICANN-Verisign contracts and legal agreements > are based on certain assumptions about what NTIA delegated to ICANN, > there is now a cloud on those contracts and agreements in that they > now may be based on a vanished foundation. > > The "Affirmation" is still based on the technically false belief that > other DNS systems do exist and that some may come into larger use than > they have. > > And where are the root operators in all of this - they, at a flick of > their text editors - can obviate this entire ICANN/NTIA structure. > > This "Affirmation" is a collection of euphemisms wrapped in pretty > ribbons. > > By-the-way, did anyone else notice the list of "reactions" - all from > people who must have been given an advance copy and none of whom are > ICANN critics. > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: The Highlight of the Past Week: the Constitution – Sunday, 27.9.2009 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-124 (To read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 22:22:41 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:22:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Online survey about impact of the IGF until Oct 1st Message-ID: *There is just a few hours left to participate in the online survey about the impact of the IGF.* ** *More than 200 people have already taken part in the survey* *Your views are very important!* *You can access it using this simplified url*: http://bit.ly/IGF-Sharm Best regards! Marilia Maciel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From anja at cis-india.org Tue Sep 1 06:48:55 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:18:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear all, Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, rather than including it in a written statement already now. I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country like France as much as it would, say, China. Cheers, Anja On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 07:30 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Lisa, Thanks! > > I like your suggestion that the IRP be given the opportunity to work > with all main sessions, and offer to work with all others--perhaps by > posting guidelines or suggestions to them by email or a link on the > IGF page. > > I would appreciate it if you can propose a short statement on the list > as soon as possible for comment and discussion. > > Here is the April IGC statement: > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights > and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead > to discourse at the IGF meetings moving 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 > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to > access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and > relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi > > > > In terms of practical suggestions, I wonder if it's worth suggesting > > that the IGC (and/or IRP coalition) is given the opportunity to work > > with all main session panel coordinators, panelists and moderators > > to ensure that the human rights dimension of the subject matter at > > hand is considered in all panel sessions. In my mind, human rights > > are relevant to all of them (access, diversity, critical resources > > etc), both in terms of the protection of human rights standards and > > in terms of making sure that the internet supports the positive > > dimensions of human rights and development (access to information, > > education, resources etc). (We'd also need some internal > > organisation amongst us to attend and contribute to sessions to > > ensure that rights dimensions are included in discussions). > > > > The human rights framework can also be used to balance competing > > "public interest" concerns, for example between security and freedom > > of expression, and contains specific guidance on when it is > > acceptable to limit certain rights in the name of protecting others. > > We could ask for such guidelines to be used or borne in mind in > > relevant discussions. > > > > We could also call for some space in the "emerging issues" session > > to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles" in the context > > of internet governance, drawing on discussions held in the regional > > and international IGF. This would address the issue of "righst and > > principles" being rejected as a main session due to a lack of > > consensus about its meaning. > > > > Finally, we could call for space in the "Internet governance in the > > light of WSIS principles" session to reflect on the extent to which > > the IGF has reflected the WSIS recognition of the centrality of > > human rights to the information society. > > What do people think? > > > > NB, after today I'm away for a few days, but would be happy to draft > > a short statement when I'm back next week. I can't find the > > statement that we submitted in April - does anyone have a copy or > > know where to find it? > > > > All the best, > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Fri 28/08/2009 11:57 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > > principles for upcoming IGF OC > > > > > > Hi Lisa and all, > > I was thinking of a similar statement to Lisa's and the IGC > > statement in April. Normally we submit the statement by email so the > > translators have a copy, but it should also be read at the meeting. > > Since this meeting is specifically for planning of the workshops and > > agenda, it should offer specific suggestions in support of all > > rights related events (the IRP workshop, for instance) and its > > inclusion, if too late for this year, in laying the groundwork for > > next year. Personally, I think that if it is short, concise and to > > the point people retain the message better. > > Thanks for coming back to this, > > Ginger > > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response to this. What kind of statement were you thinking of Ginger? Something to submit by email, or feed in orally to the Geneva planning meeting? > > > > > > Do people feel that it should be something different to the statement that Anja put together a couple of weeks ago (pasted below). Maybe we want to include specific rights and issues - we started with free expression, and Katitiza emphasised the importance of privacy. We might also want to link it to what's already been proposed for the "security, openness and privacy" session (also pasted below) - does anyone have any specific comments on what's been proposed so far? > > > > > > Just to note again, the IRP coalition is meeting in Geneva on Sunday 13th - all are welcome, in person and virtually. > > > > > > All the best, > > > Lisa > > > > > > Previous statement: > > > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so . > > > > > > The proposed IGF session: > > > > > > > > > Security, Openness and Privacy: > > > > > > > > > > > > The discussion of this cluster of issues will be the focus of the afternoon of the second day. It will be introduced by a compact panel of practitioners to set the stage for the discussion and bring out options for how to deal with the policy and practical choices related to the different clusters of issues. The discussion should cover practical aspects of the coordination needed to secure the network (e.g. to fight spam) and their relationship to issues pertaining to openness (e.g. ensuring the open architecture of the Internet). > > > > > > > > > > > > Issues to be discussed will include: > > > > > > > > > > > > · The respect for privacy as a business advantage; > > > > > > · Identity theft, identity fraud, and information leakage. > > > > > > · Web 2.0; > > > > > > · Social networks; > > > > > > · Cloud computing and privacy, e.g. control of one's own data and data retention; > > > > > > · Cultural and technical perspectives on the regulation of illegal Web contents; > > > > > > · Regulatory models for privacy; > > > > > > · Ensuring the open architecture of the Internet; > > > > > > · Net Neutrality; > > > > > > · Enabling frameworks for freedom; > > > > > > · Ethical dimensions of the Internet. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sun 23/08/2009 15:01 > > > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > > > Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC > > > > > > > > > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in laying the groundwork for next year. > > > > > > Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working draft? > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true > > > > > > > > > > > > WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing role in political dissent. > > > > > > **Now governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of information and the ability to communicate.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4361 (20090823) __________ > > > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anja at cis-india.org Tue Sep 1 06:57:43 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:27:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final list signatories comment on Draft Programme Paper Message-ID: <1251802663.9245.63.camel@cis5-laptop> Dear all, Please find below the final list of signatories of the comment on the Draft Programme Paper, as communicated to the IGF Secretariat last week. Thanks to all for their support. Anja Re: IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009 We, the undersigned would like to express our surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. Signatories: Association for Progressive Communications Bytesforall, Pakistan Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil IP Justice Jacques Berleur Ginger Paque Fouad Bajwa Milton L Mueller Willie Currie Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann Eric Dierker Jeffrey A Williams Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines Ian Peter Tracy F Hackshaw Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles Lee W McKnight Jeremy Malcolm Tapani Tarvainen Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network Carlos Afonso Dina Hovakmian Rui Correia Lisa Horner Deirdre Williams Jaco Aizenman Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong Linda D. Misek-Falkoff Baudouin Schombe Stefano Trumpy Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 1 08:35:00 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Final list and funding Message-ID: <363446.27882.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I work in a fairly "executive/consultant" capacity most of the time. I read a lot of "papers". I find myself either being asked or asking some form of this question many times a day: "What does Socrates (any name) think of this?"  Because I am overpaid I know the answer. Because I value the opinions of others I know the person. I want to know not just what the "paper" says but what Milton or Joe or Yahuda says about the paper or subject.  Sometimes a yes or no is good enough but usually I want a one liner or reference. I want to know if they have a lot to say or a little. I want a named footnote.   I reckon my suggestion would be to have, along with a name a 20 word summary by that person -- of course only if they choose to do so. Perhaps just an address to their blog. Or a reference to another paper.   I believe that by building tools into position papers such as this you both create more of a hub bub and you begin to establish an aura of respectability and a "go to" source. I copy Yahuda here because it is in doing such reference work that others will be more forthcoming in desiring to fund projects. Good governance is a combination of education and guidance. Good marketing and rallying is most fundamentally sound when created through information and education. Good governance recognizes the fundamental requirement that people are the source of authority and their opinions are the source for knowledge. --- On Tue, 9/1/09, Anja Kovacs wrote: From: Anja Kovacs Subject: [governance] Final list signatories comment on Draft Programme Paper To: "governance" Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 10:57 AM Dear all, Please find below the final list of signatories of the comment on the Draft Programme Paper, as communicated to the IGF Secretariat last week. Thanks to all for their support. Anja Re: IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009 We, the undersigned would like to express our surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. Signatories: Association for Progressive Communications Bytesforall, Pakistan Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil IP Justice Jacques Berleur Ginger Paque Fouad Bajwa Milton L Mueller Willie Currie Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann Eric Dierker Jeffrey A Williams Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines Ian Peter Tracy F Hackshaw Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles Lee W McKnight Jeremy Malcolm Tapani Tarvainen Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network Carlos Afonso Dina Hovakmian Rui Correia Lisa Horner Deirdre Williams Jaco Aizenman Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong Linda D. Misek-Falkoff Baudouin Schombe Stefano Trumpy Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 1 14:44:47 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:44:47 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Bill would give president power to disconnect private networks Message-ID: <5161916.1251830687463.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, See: http://fcw.com/articles/2009/08/28/cybersecurity-bill-presidential-power.aspx?s=hls_010909 Seems to me this is a direct matter of governance. I would suggest to all of you that you weigh in on this possible/likely legislation irregardless of your national origin as other countries are likely to follow this lead if this bill becomes law. Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Sep 2 12:53:55 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:53:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as guidance for session organizers? As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to incorporate into amendments. Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? All the best, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Dear all, Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, rather than including it in a written statement already now. I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country like France as much as it would, say, China. Cheers, Anja __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4389 (20090902) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Wed Sep 2 13:03:46 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:03:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Final list signatories comment on Draft Programme Paper In-Reply-To: <1251802663.9245.63.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <1251802663.9245.63.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: Sorry, seems I overlooked this, but would still like to express myself strongly in favor! Best regards Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 01. September 2009 12:58 An: governance Betreff: [governance] Final list signatories comment on Draft Programme Paper Dear all, Please find below the final list of signatories of the comment on the Draft Programme Paper, as communicated to the IGF Secretariat last week. Thanks to all for their support. Anja Re: IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009 We, the undersigned would like to express our surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so. Signatories: Association for Progressive Communications Bytesforall, Pakistan Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil IP Justice Jacques Berleur Ginger Paque Fouad Bajwa Milton L Mueller Willie Currie Michael Gurstein Jeanette Hofmann Eric Dierker Jeffrey A Williams Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines Ian Peter Tracy F Hackshaw Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles Lee W McKnight Jeremy Malcolm Tapani Tarvainen Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network Carlos Afonso Dina Hovakmian Rui Correia Lisa Horner Deirdre Williams Jaco Aizenman Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong Linda D. Misek-Falkoff Baudouin Schombe Stefano Trumpy Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 2 14:35:21 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:35:21 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Message-ID: <13598712.1251916521448.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Lisa and all, I support this suggestion as to method of approach. One question I have is: What exemptions or exceptions to the basic principals would be exceptable if any, and would it not be advisable to at least be considering that some exceptions will end up being the most likely end product that would gain wider support? -----Original Message----- >From: Lisa Horner >Sent: Sep 2, 2009 11:53 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > >Hi all > >I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > >Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as guidance for session organizers? > >As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to incorporate into amendments. > >Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > >All the best, >Lisa > >-------------------- > >DRAFT STATEMENT > >The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. > >The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF. This is problematic as: >• Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >• The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >• The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > >The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > >-------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >To: governance >Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > >Dear all, > >Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with >only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > >Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft >a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to >include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for >putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >rather than including it in a written statement already now. > >I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of >the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >like France as much as it would, say, China. > >Cheers, >Anja > > > >__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4389 (20090902) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >http://www.eset.com > >____________________________________________________________ >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, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 2 23:08:02 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Voting Rights was RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <637960.88908.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Lisa,   This is a wonderful statement.  This concept is critically important.   Seldom is it appropriate to hold a group accountable for an obvious oversight.  But it is always correct to hold them accountable for something so obvious that it must have been left out with intention.   All of the passive language here means nothing at all without giving users of the Internet a voice in their government.  The IGC even suggesting they support human rights without demanding the individual a seat at the decision making table is unbelievable for well educated persons. Human Rights are not Granted by folks who consider themselves benevolent philosopher kings like Milton or Ian. They are only protected by an electorate composed of those governed.   Any group pretending to support human rights that is not constantly yelling at ICANN for stakeholder representation is playing games and seeking funding rather than rights.       --- On Wed, 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: From: Lisa Horner Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 4:53 PM Hi all I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as guidance for session organizers? As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to incorporate into amendments. Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? All the best, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF.  This is problematic as: •    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. •    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. •    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders.    The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Dear all, Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, rather than including it in a written statement already now. I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country like France as much as it would, say, China. Cheers, Anja __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4389 (20090902) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Sep 3 06:09:09 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:09:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Dear Lisa and all, Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express in time my support to the latter. Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, so the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. Best, Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a > joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights > are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt > gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration > and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human > rights in the information society, but human rights and associated > principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. > This is problematic as: > • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom > of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current > internet governance processes and practice. > • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human > rights framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains > guidelines on how to balances different rights against each other > to preserve individual and public interest. This makes it the > required scheme as well as a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on > the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression > and privacy balance freedom of expression with concerns for > security on the internet. TBesides stating obligations on States > and governments, the framework also allows to derive considers both > rights and responsibilities of other different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for > human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during > the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of > positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet > for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer > assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do > this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing > access to relevant guidelines and experts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Sep 3 06:36:53 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez Pereda) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:36:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: I fully support Meryem's comments Katitza, Sent from my iPhone On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:09, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Dear Lisa and all, > > Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral > presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the > written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't > express in time my support to the latter. > > Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR > violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement > at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding > character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other > binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this > 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, > so the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to > the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely > been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective > rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would > only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. > > My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope > this is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. > > Best, > Meryem > > -- > Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org > IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire > 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > > Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society >> Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a >> joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights >> are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt >> gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration >> and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human >> rights in the information society, but human rights and associated >> principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. >> This is problematic as: >> • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom >> of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by curre >> nt internet governance processes and practice. >> • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advanc >> ing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledg >> e and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these op >> portunities. >> • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human righ >> ts framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standard >> s that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidel >> ines on how to balances different rights against each other to pre >> serve individual and public interest. This makes it the required >> scheme as well as a useful tool for addressing internet governance >> issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the interne >> t in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and priva >> cy balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the >> internet. TBesides stating obligations on States and governments >> , the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and re >> sponsibilities of other different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for >> human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during >> the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they >> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This >> should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and >> national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of >> positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet >> for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer >> assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do >> this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing >> access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 08:07:42 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:07:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> There are two things I thought I'd share....... First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. We can also share this with the members of the MAG. Regarding the IGC statement again, if anyone of you wanted to read the statement but can't make it, I am preparation to participate and can read the statement from IGC. I will also be intervening on the issues of Internet Rights and IG 4 Development. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Katitza Rodriguez Pereda wrote: > I fully support Meryem's comments > > Katitza, > Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:09, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Dear Lisa and all, > Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral > presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the written > statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express in time my > support to the latter. > Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR > violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement at this > step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding character of HR > standards (as translated into protocols and other binding conventions). > Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this 'balance' wordings: HR standards > _already_ reflect such a balance, so the point is to comply with these > standards. The same applies to the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR > standards have precisely been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define > these respective rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap > which would only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR > standards. > My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this is > readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. > Best, > Meryem > -- > Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org > IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire > 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : > > -------------------- > DRAFT STATEMENT > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a joint statement by > IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights are given > adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required > attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed > the importance centrality of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: > • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom of > expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current internet > governance processes and practice. > • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human rights > framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standards that has > practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how to > balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it the required scheme as well as a useful tool > for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security > concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > expression and privacy balance freedom of expression with concerns for > security on the internet.  TBesides stating obligations on States and > governments, the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and > responsibilities of other different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for human > rights standards issues to be included in addressed during the planning and > implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention > they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit > consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect > fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Sep 3 08:35:53 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:35:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> Fouad, a couple of anwers below. Meryem Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > There are two things I thought I'd share....... > > First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number > from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the > statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, rather a general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The goal is not here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next preparatory meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these texts that anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl ("our common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 of the Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and in the TA (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. > Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not > particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from > IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and cultural rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters such as the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point of this IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the IRP one, is to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the ifnromation society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" document exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be necessary. Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on the IGF table. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 08:52:33 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:52:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> Hi Meryem, My intention earlier was neither to start a new argument nor go into any other direction of things. Please be clear on this. As for the IGC interventions on the issues of Internet Rights, members from CS will be able to confirm that I was actively participating and deliberating on these issues at the open consultations and MAG meetings. Just in case this isn't on IGC record, we have intervened on the Internet Rights issue at the May meetings in Geneva as well as during the MAG meetings and thus have brought it on the table of the IGF. The problem is, that I personally felt, vagueness to the term Internet Rights and what it refers to for the other anti-internet rights groups to twist and confuse the pursuit. Yes the documents on Human Rights are available and we continuously quote them, but the funnelling down with a focus on Internet is not happening and then we find countries like China and other private sector lobbyists throwing out the topic of the window. The APC Internet Rights document is there but again, that is attributed to a single organization because it says APC Internet Rights Charter and within a multilateral scope of issues and interventions, either many more have to team up with APC or there should be a more strengthened backing to it. I think my comment was taken in a different understanding, indeed the intention in not a battle, the intention is simply to refer back to the particular clauses like a footnote or something. Once again, I will be at my end raising the issue of Internet Rights and IG4D in meeting and the IGF. Secondly, I have plans to get in touch with CS organizations and groups from the various countries of the developing world and pursue a more focused pressure group to convince the IGF to take on Internet Rights and IG4D as main session themes. Just in case, this discussion may be paused here to complete the IGC IR statement and we can discuss this face to face with IGC/CS participants during the EuroDIG session on IR or the IGF Preparatory. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Fouad, > > a couple of anwers below. Meryem > > Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > >> There are two things I thought I'd share....... >> >> First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number >> from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the >> statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. > > You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, rather a > general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not > explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The goal is not > here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next preparatory > meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these texts that > anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. > If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl ("our > common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 of the > Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and in the TA > (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). > Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. > >> Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not >> particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from >> IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. > > As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two international > covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and cultural > rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet > rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters such as > the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point of this > IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the IRP one, is > to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the ifnromation > society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" document > exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be necessary. > Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on the IGF > table. > > Best, > Meryem ____________________________________________________________ > 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. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 3 09:47:27 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <273942.19887.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is quite disturbing. The argument does not go to the heart of the matter but rather who is in control of the heart of the matter.  Someone does not understand that the very words we use define our charactar.  Someone does not quite get that legal battles over words are how we accept or reject concepts that govern.  Avoiding a legal battle over words means that someone is avoiding an issue.   But what is most disturbing is that someone is basically threatening someone, to either get in step with those in power or be locked out of participation. --- On Thu, 9/3/09, Meryem Marzouki wrote: From: Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:35 PM Fouad, a couple of anwers below. Meryem Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > There are two things I thought I'd share....... > > First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number > from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the > statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, rather a general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The goal is not here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next preparatory meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these texts that anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl ("our common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 of the Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and in the TA (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. > Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not > particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from > IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and cultural rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters such as the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point of this IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the IRP one, is to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the ifnromation society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" document exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be necessary. Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on the IGF table. Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 3 10:18:50 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <314772.82195.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Dilution. Has already occured by total rejection, of demanding representation in this new "Country".   Here is what should be demanded. Ignoring this is wrong   Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. --- On Thu, 9/3/09, Meryem Marzouki wrote: From: Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Lisa Horner" Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 10:09 AM Dear Lisa and all, Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express in time my support to the latter. Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, so the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to the 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely been defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective rights and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would only lead us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. Best, Meryem -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human rights framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how to balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  This makes it the required scheme as well as a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the internet.  TBesides stating obligations on States and governments, the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and responsibilities of other different stakeholders.    The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Sep 3 10:19:41 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:19:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi again Fouad, I think we don't have any disagreement here. I understand and share your concern about the vagueness of "internet rights", thus my reluctance to use this wording, and my insistance on sticking to the fundamentals. Basically, we want to bring on the table the human rights issue, as a cross-cutting issue, and we want to see it taken into account in the overall IGF program, so as to be able to discuss this issue in the internet context. This was the objective of the written IGC statement prepared by Anja and submitted to the IGF secretariat, and remains the objective of this oral statement prepared by Lisa and intended for presentation in Geneva later this month. Unfortunately I wont be able to go to Geneva this time, and as a matter of fact I had to decline an invitation to participate to one of the EuroDIG workshops. But there are many of them intending to raise different rights issues (program at: http://www.eurodig.org/), not to mention other specific meetings during this Geneva week, among them the DC IRP meeting, your own workshop, etc.). These are opportunities to deal with the substantive issue, but we want it officially recognized and implemented at IGF too. Best, Meryem Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:52, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > Hi Meryem, > > My intention earlier was neither to start a new argument nor go into > any other direction of things. Please be clear on this. As for the IGC > interventions on the issues of Internet Rights, members from CS will > be able to confirm that I was actively participating and deliberating > on these issues at the open consultations and MAG meetings. > > Just in case this isn't on IGC record, we have intervened on the > Internet Rights issue at the May meetings in Geneva as well as during > the MAG meetings and thus have brought it on the table of the IGF. The > problem is, that I personally felt, vagueness to the term Internet > Rights and what it refers to for the other anti-internet rights groups > to twist and confuse the pursuit. Yes the documents on Human Rights > are available and we continuously quote them, but the funnelling down > with a focus on Internet is not happening and then we find countries > like China and other private sector lobbyists throwing out the topic > of the window. The APC Internet Rights document is there but again, > that is attributed to a single organization because it says APC > Internet Rights Charter and within a multilateral scope of issues and > interventions, either many more have to team up with APC or there > should be a more strengthened backing to it. > > I think my comment was taken in a different understanding, indeed the > intention in not a battle, the intention is simply to refer back to > the particular clauses like a footnote or something. > > Once again, I will be at my end raising the issue of Internet Rights > and IG4D in meeting and the IGF. Secondly, I have plans to get in > touch with CS organizations and groups from the various countries of > the developing world and pursue a more focused pressure group to > convince the IGF to take on Internet Rights and IG4D as main session > themes. > > Just in case, this discussion may be paused here to complete the IGC > IR statement and we can discuss this face to face with IGC/CS > participants during the EuroDIG session on IR or the IGF Preparatory. > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Meryem > Marzouki wrote: >> Fouad, >> >> a couple of anwers below. Meryem >> >> Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : >> >>> There are two things I thought I'd share....... >>> >>> First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number >>> from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the >>> statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. >> >> You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, >> rather a >> general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not >> explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The >> goal is not >> here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next >> preparatory >> meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these >> texts that >> anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. >> If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl >> ("our >> common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 >> of the >> Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and >> in the TA >> (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). >> Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. >> >>> Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not >>> particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically >>> from >>> IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. >> >> As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two >> international >> covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and >> cultural >> rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet >> rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters >> such as >> the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point >> of this >> IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the >> IRP one, is >> to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the >> ifnromation >> society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" >> document >> exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be >> necessary. >> Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on >> the IGF >> table. >> >> Best, >> Meryem ____________________________________________________________ >> 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. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > @skBajwa > Answering all your technology questions > http://www.askbajwa.com > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 10:27:34 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:57:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A9FD256.2030003@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 11:12:16 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:12:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030507w78d3ab7byd313b19b886fb45a@mail.gmail.com> <67F6EE96-FD6F-488E-AF7C-868EE7FFF074@ras.eu.org> <701af9f70909030552y2d86d707j47ed57e7fb7264fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f70909030812ke050305qbdf791d7711d36db@mail.gmail.com> Thank you Meryem for understanding. Our comments from the developing world are sometimes misunderstood and that is not the case here. Please accept my complete support for this statement. Thank you all. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi again Fouad, > > I think we don't have any disagreement here. I understand and share your > concern about the vagueness of "internet rights", thus my reluctance to use > this wording, and my insistance on sticking to the fundamentals. Basically, > we want to bring on the table the human rights issue, as a cross-cutting > issue, and we want to see it taken into account in the overall IGF program, > so as to be able to discuss this issue in the internet context. This was the > objective of the written IGC statement prepared by Anja and submitted to the > IGF secretariat, and remains the objective of this oral statement prepared > by Lisa and intended for presentation in Geneva later this month. > Unfortunately I wont be able to go to Geneva this time, and as a matter of > fact I had to decline an invitation to participate to one of the EuroDIG > workshops. But there are many of them intending to raise different rights > issues (program at: http://www.eurodig.org/), not to mention other specific > meetings during this Geneva week, among them the DC IRP meeting, your own > workshop, etc.). These are opportunities to deal with the substantive issue, > but we want it officially recognized and implemented at IGF too. > > Best, > Meryem > > Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:52, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : > >> Hi Meryem, >> >> My intention earlier was neither to start a new argument nor go into >> any other direction of things. Please be clear on this. As for the IGC >> interventions on the issues of Internet Rights, members from CS will >> be able to confirm that I was actively participating and deliberating >> on these issues at the open consultations and MAG meetings. >> >> Just in case this isn't on IGC record, we have intervened on the >> Internet Rights issue at the May meetings in Geneva as well as during >> the MAG meetings and thus have brought it on the table of the IGF. The >> problem is, that I personally felt, vagueness to the term Internet >> Rights and what it refers to for the other anti-internet rights groups >> to twist and confuse the pursuit. Yes the documents on Human Rights >> are available and we continuously quote them, but the funnelling down >> with a focus on Internet is not happening and then we find countries >> like China and other private sector lobbyists throwing out the topic >> of the window. The APC Internet Rights document is there but again, >> that is attributed to a single organization because it says APC >> Internet Rights Charter and within a multilateral scope of issues and >> interventions, either many more have to team up with APC or there >> should be a more strengthened backing to it. >> >> I think my comment was taken in a different understanding, indeed the >> intention in not a battle, the intention is simply to refer back to >> the particular clauses like a footnote or something. >> >> Once again, I will be at my end raising the issue of Internet Rights >> and IG4D in meeting and the IGF. Secondly, I have plans to get in >> touch with CS organizations and groups from the various countries of >> the developing world and pursue a more focused pressure group to >> convince the IGF to take on Internet Rights and IG4D as main session >> themes. >> >> Just in case, this discussion may be paused here to complete the IGC >> IR statement and we can discuss this face to face with IGC/CS >> participants during the EuroDIG session on IR or the IGF Preparatory. >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Meryem Marzouki >> wrote: >>> >>> Fouad, >>> >>> a couple of anwers below. Meryem >>> >>> Le 3 sept. 09 à 14:07, Fouad Bajwa a écrit : >>> >>>> There are two things I thought I'd share....... >>>> >>>> First can we explicitly mention the particular article/clause number >>>> from the WSIS Principles and the Tunis Agenda so that when the >>>> statement is read, it is recorded accurately during the preparatory. >>> >>> You may have noticed that it's not a quote of WSIS Decl. or TA, rather a >>> general reminder. As a matter of fact, the word "centrality" is not >>> explicitly used in these texts, but rather in the CS Decl. The goal is >>> not >>> here to argue with clauses or articles. The discussion at next >>> preparatory >>> meeting is not expected to turn into a legal battle over these texts that >>> anyone car refer to - at least I hope so. >>> If really felt needed, one may refer to the first part of the Decl ("our >>> common vision of the information society"), especially para. 1-5 of the >>> Decl. Similar references can be found in the Tunis Commitment, and in the >>> TA >>> (e.g. paras 42, 44, 46, etc.). >>> Again, I strongly advise not to enter into this. >>> >>>> Secondly, can we have a backup document on Internet Rights, not >>>> particularly the APC one but a very independent one specifically from >>>> IGC that can be sent with this statement to the IGF Secrertariate. >>> >>> As for now, the international bill of rights (UDHR + the two >>> international >>> covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and >>> cultural >>> rights) or even the sole UDHR are enough. There are no such "Internet >>> rights", but human rights as they apply on the internet. Charters such as >>> the APC one tries to define such application. And the whole point of this >>> IGC statement and of the existence of many coalitions, like the IRP one, >>> is >>> to try to discuss and commonly agree on how HR translates in the >>> ifnromation >>> society. It's easy to understand that if such a "very independent" >>> document >>> exists, then the whole discussion and the statement wouldn't be >>> necessary. >>> Thus the request is, as for now, to officially put the issue on the IGF >>> table. >>> >>> Best, >>> Meryem ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> @skBajwa >> Answering all your technology questions >> http://www.askbajwa.com >> http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anja at cis-india.org Thu Sep 3 12:09:25 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:39:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> Thanks, Lisa, for drafting the statement and Meryem for your additional comments, which I fully agree with. I did not intend for us to start listing HR violations, but rather to remind government of their HR commitments in a more general fashion, and of the fact that to uphold those commitments, they need to take concrete action. Meryem's emphasis on the legally binding implications of the HR framework makes the same point much more clearly and directly, and it would be great if this issue could be highlighted in the statement. Perhaps we could therefore delete the words "In addition to its legally binding implications" in the para that starts with these words in Meryem's version, and add something along the following lines at the very end of that same para: "We would like to remind all governments who have signed such HR instruments that these do not simply constitute guidelines but have legally binding implications. Governments responsibility to actively uphold their citizens' human rights continues in the Internet era as before". I also suggest that we insert the word "repeats" in the first sentence of the statement, so that it reads: "The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request[s] that the human rights are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt". My two cents, Anja On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 12:09 +0200, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Dear Lisa and all, > > > Thanks for this statement which, I understand, is intended for oral > presentation at next IGF preparatory meeting and complement the > written statement already submitted. I'm sorry that I couldn't express > in time my support to the latter. > > > Below are some suggested amendments. While I agree that explicit HR > violations and commitments shouldn't be included in such a statement > at this step, I feel however needed to recall the legally binding > character of HR standards (as translated into protocols and other > binding conventions). Furthermore, I tried to get rid of this > 'balance' wordings: HR standards _already_ reflect such a balance, so > the point is to comply with these standards. The same applies to the > 'rights and responsibilities' doxa: HR standards have precisely been > defined -- and agreed -- so that they define these respective rights > and responsibilities. Let's not fall into a trap which would only lead > us to accept dilution, if not restrictions, of HR standards. > > > My suggestions are highlighted in the draft statement below, hope this > is readable -- and agreeable to IGC members. > > > Best, > Meryem > > -- > Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org > IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire > 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris > > Le 2 sept. 09 à 18:53, Lisa Horner a écrit : > > -------------------- > > > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > > Internet Governance Caucus [Comment: if agreed, we could make it a > > joint statement by IGC and some dynamic coalitions]. > > > > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] request[s] that the human rights > > are given adequate attention in the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration > > and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the importance centrality of human > > rights in the information society, but human rights and associated > > principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. > > This is problematic as: > > • Fundamental human rights including such as the rights to freedom > > of expression, and privacy, and education are threatened by current > > internet governance processes and practice. > > • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > > knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > > these opportunities. > > • TIn addition to its legally binding implications, the human rights > > framework is an internationally accepted agreed set of standards > > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > > on how to balances different rights against each other to preserve > > individual and public interest. This makes it the required scheme > > as well as a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in > > compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy > > balance freedom of expression with concerns for security on the > > internet. TBesides stating obligations on States and governments, > > the framework also allows to derive considers both rights and > > responsibilities of other different stakeholders. > > > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call[s] for > > human rights standards issues to be included in addressed during the > > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are > > given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > > national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of > > positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet > > for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer > > assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do > > this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing > > access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Sep 3 13:56:31 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:26:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Email ballot on charter amendment has been sent out Message-ID: <4AA0034F.7010401@gmail.com> The email inviting eligible IGC members to vote in the ballot considering the proposal for an amendment to the IGC Charter has now gone out, with a return address from Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn. If you are eligible to vote in this ballot and have not received the email with instructions and a link to the online voting site, please let me know as soon as possible. If you have received the email, please do vote. It is important for the IGC as an organization, and the IG community in general that you stay engaged with this process. Thanks to all of you for your time in voting, and in particular to those who were active in initiating and implementing the process. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 3 14:30:32 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] How to of Representation Rights Message-ID: <410816.58817.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Way too many phone calls and private email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From muguet at mdpi.net Thu Sep 3 18:15:41 2009 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:15:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Registration is now open Workshop @ITU / Ateler 18 sept UIT Message-ID: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> Dear friends/ Chers Amis Englsh / Français *The registration is now open. Les inscriptions sont maintenant ouvertes. * Attached below, the workshop poster *Expert Workshop **http://net4d.org/18sep09-index.html* * * *The current situation concerning the Domain Name System is raising more and more interest as the end of the ICANN JPA in September is approaching . Instead of engaging into bitter debates on how to co-manage a quasi-monopoly, an informal workshop is organized to explore whether there are any technical alternatives for the development of future information networks ?. Is there an effective solution to open to competition name resolving services. ? This informal workshop is organized in the context of the expert mission that has been recently contracted by ITU to Dr. Francis Muguet . after his presentation, last May, at the WSIS Forum : Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure This expert mission is in line with the outcomes of the last ITU Council Working Group on WSIS , where ITU was requested to study the evolution of the future internet. The informal expert workshop is hosted at ITU headquarters, on Friday 18 September, which happens to occur after the European Dialogue on Internet Governance ( Monday 14 - Tuesday. 15 September ) and the IGF planning meeting ( Wednesday 16- Thursday 17 September ) in Geneva The workshop , organized by Dr. Francis Muguet , is going to include in the morning, presentations and a round table, and in the afternoon, open discussions. * *Atelier dans le cadre d'une expertise * * * * *La situation actuelle concernant le Système des Noms de Domaine (DNS) suscite un intérêt de plus en plus grand, alors que l'expiration, en Septembre prochain, de l' * accord de projet conjoint (JPA)* ,entre l'ICANN et le Département américain du Commerce, approche. ** ** ** ** *Au lieu de s'engager dans d'âpres débats sur la façon de co-gérer un quasi-monopole, cet atelier informel est organisé afin d'étudier s'il existe des solutions techniques pour le développement des futurs réseaux d'information. Existe-t-il une solution effective pour ouvrir à la compétition les services de nommage ? * ** ** ** ** * Cet atelier informel est organisé dans le contexte de la mission d'expertise qui a été récemment contractée par l'UIT auprès du Dr. FrancisMuguet , après sa présentation, en Mai dernier, au Forum du SMSI : Ouverture à la concurrence de l'infrastructure de l'espace de nommage .*** ** ** ** *Cette mission d'expert est dans la ligne des décisions du dernier Conseil de l'UIT Groupe de travail sur le SMSI, où l'UIT a été priée d'étudier l'évolution de l'internet du futur. * ** ** ** ** * L'atelier informel d'expertise est hébergé au siège de l'UIT, le vendredi 18 Septembre, le plaçant après le Dialogue européen sur la gouvernance de l'Internet (Lundi 14 - Mardi 15. Septembre) et la réunion de planification de l'IGF (Mercredi 16 - Jeudi 17 Septembre) à Genève L'atelier, organisé par Francis Muguet , va inclure dans la matinée, des exposés et une table ronde, et dans l'après-midi, des discussions ouvertes.*** ** ** ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18sep09posterA4.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 83517 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 From shahzad at bytesforall.net Fri Sep 4 04:26:50 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:26:50 +0600 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> Dear Colleagues, Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... www.iamhalal.com It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :) It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is really really haram. For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :) Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? best wishes Shahzad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 04:44:12 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:44:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> Message-ID: "whois " is your friend: On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine...  www.iamhalal.com > > It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... > This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't > figure out that who is behind it? > C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>whois -h whois.rrpproxy.net iamhalal. ; This data is provided by TransIP BV ; for information purposes, and to assist persons obtaining information ; about or related to domain name registration records. ; TransIP BV does not guarantee its accuracy. ; By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this data ; only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances, you will ; use this data to ; 1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass ; unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via E-mail ; (spam); or ; 2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply ; to this WHOIS server. ; These terms may be changed without prior notice. ; By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy. DOMAIN: IAMHALAL.COM RSP: TransIP BV URL: http://www.transip.nl owner-contact: P-RGA434 owner-fname: R owner-lname: abdolalizadeh sardeha owner-street: De waarden 135 owner-city: zupthen owner-zip: 7206 GC owner-country: NL owner-phone: +31 657938393 owner-email: reza_sardeha at hotmail.com admin-contact: P-RLA441 admin-fname: R admin-lname: abdolalizadeh sardeha admin-street: De waarden 135 admin-city: zupthen admin-zip: 7206 GC admin-country: NL admin-phone: +31 657938393 admin-email: contact at imhalal.com tech-contact: P-RSA465 tech-fname: R tech-lname: abdolalizadeh sardeha tech-street: De waarden 135 tech-city: zupthen tech-zip: 7206 GC tech-country: NL tech-phone: +31 657938393 tech-email: contact at imhalal.com billing-contact: P-RLA441 billing-fname: R billing-lname: abdolalizadeh sardeha billing-street: De waarden 135 billing-city: zupthen billing-zip: 7206 GC billing-country: NL billing-phone: +31 657938393 billing-email: contact at imhalal.com nameserver: ns1.lunarbreeze.com nameserver: ns2.lunarbreeze.com ; TransIP BV ; Real-time domeinregistratie en -beheer vanaf 4.99 Euro! ; http://www.transip.nl/products/domain/ > > > They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new > interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine > wants to develop their business "using" religion :) so? let them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Sep 4 06:02:04 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:02:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> Message-ID: <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, whatever the "ethic" reference? But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities of really well targeted advertisement. Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : > Dear Colleagues, > > Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... > www.iamhalal.com > > It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions > also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet > Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? > > They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a > new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this > search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :) > > It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches > being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they > decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... > which they think is really really haram. > > For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 > (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at > Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See > for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :) > > Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if > someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? > > best wishes > Shahzad > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From a.beccalli at unesco.org Fri Sep 4 09:08:28 2009 From: a.beccalli at unesco.org (Beccalli, Andrea) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:08:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Registration is now open Workshop @ITU / Ateler 18 sept UIT In-Reply-To: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> References: <4AA0400D.6070208@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <3118A9AF91FFCE45A53E8B17C8537660AB6E76@MAILSERVER-02.hq.int.unesco.org> Hello Francis, I haven't had yet the approval to extend my mission to geneva till the 18, at what time will the meeting start? Where will it be? Best, Andrea ________________________________ From: Dr. Francis MUGUET [mailto:muguet at mdpi.net] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:16 AM To: WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance; Governance Subject: [governance] Registration is now open Workshop @ITU / Ateler 18 sept UIT Dear friends/ Chers Amis Englsh / Français The registration is now open. Les inscriptions sont maintenant ouvertes. Attached below, the workshop poster Expert Workshop http://net4d.org/18sep09-index.html The current situation concerning the Domain Name System is raising more and more interest as the end of the ICANN JPA in September is approaching . Instead of engaging into bitter debates on how to co-manage a quasi-monopoly, an informal workshop is organized to explore whether there are any technical alternatives for the development of future information networks ?. Is there an effective solution to open to competition name resolving services. ? This informal workshop is organized in the context of the expert mission that has been recently contracted by ITU to Dr. Francis Muguet . after his presentation, last May, at the WSIS Forum : Opening to competition the namespace infrastructure This expert mission is in line with the outcomes of the last ITU Council Working Group on WSIS , where ITU was requested to study the evolution of the future internet. The informal expert workshop is hosted at ITU headquarters, on Friday 18 September, which happens to occur after the European Dialogue on Internet Governance ( Monday 14 - Tuesday. 15 September ) and the IGF planning meeting ( Wednesday 16- Thursday 17 September ) in Geneva The workshop , organized by Dr. Francis Muguet , is going to include in the morning, presentations and a round table, and in the afternoon, open discussions. Atelier dans le cadre d'une expertise La situation actuelle concernant le Système des Noms de Domaine (DNS) suscite un intérêt de plus en plus grand, alors que l'expiration, en Septembre prochain, de l' accord de projet conjoint (JPA) ,entre l'ICANN et le Département américain du Commerce, approche. Au lieu de s'engager dans d'âpres débats sur la façon de co-gérer un quasi-monopole, cet atelier informel est organisé afin d'étudier s'il existe des solutions techniques pour le développement des futurs réseaux d'information. Existe-t-il une solution effective pour ouvrir à la compétition les services de nommage ? Cet atelier informel est organisé dans le contexte de la mission d'expertise qui a été récemment contractée par l'UIT auprès du Dr. FrancisMuguet , après sa présentation, en Mai dernier, au Forum du SMSI : Ouverture à la concurrence de l'infrastructure de l'espace de nommage . Cette mission d'expert est dans la ligne des décisions du dernier Conseil de l'UIT Groupe de travail sur le SMSI, où l'UIT a été priée d'étudier l'évolution de l'internet du futur. L'atelier informel d'expertise est hébergé au siège de l'UIT, le vendredi 18 Septembre, le plaçant après le Dialogue européen sur la gouvernance de l'Internet (Lundi 14 - Mardi 15. Septembre) et la réunion de planification de l'IGF (Mercredi 16 - Jeudi 17 Septembre) à Genève L'atelier, organisé par Francis Muguet , va inclure dans la matinée, des exposés et une table ronde, et dans l'après-midi, des discussions ouvertes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 14:08:04 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 23:38:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hello, It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create closed Internet communities. Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from being a part of other communities. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search > engine (the domain name is still free BTW).But after all, simply a > targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, > whatever the "ethic" reference? > But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities > of really well targeted advertisement. > > Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : > > Dear Colleagues, > > Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... > www.iamhalal.com > > It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... > This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't > figure out that who is behind it? > > > They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new > interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine > wants to develop their business "using" religion :) > > It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being > Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these > levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is > really really haram. > > For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how > "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being > haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not > attaching the screen shots :) > > Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone > know that how will it work...and who is behind it? > > best wishes > Shahzad > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 4 14:18:44 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:18:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine Hello, It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create closed Internet communities. Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from being a part of other communities. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, whatever the "ethic" reference? But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities of really well targeted advertisement. Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : Dear Colleagues, Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... www.iamhalal.com It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :) It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is really really haram. For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :) Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? best wishes Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 15:21:39 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:51:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello Milton One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet Governance is not a good idea... >The right to establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression. Wouldn't that be a paradox to apply the "right to freedom of assoication" to a community if it were to deny within its community the same right to freedom of association to its members? Or deny the freedom of expression if any of the community's members were to say anything good or positive about other communities or beliefs? I am not jumping into a conclusion that the halal search engine would have such an attitude. But if an imaginary entity were to establish a web-space by asserting its right to freedom of association and freedom of expression, and then influences (if not prohibit) its members the freeedom of association with any other community with an opposing or different ideology, would you still consider the right to the freedom-restricting entity's right to freedom valid? Thankyou Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to > establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic > community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of > association and freedom of expression. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > Hello, > > It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start > Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create > closed Internet communities. > > Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain > or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other > community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to > be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from > being a part of other communities. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search >> engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a >> targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, >> whatever the "ethic" reference? >> But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities >> of really well targeted advertisement. >> >> Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... >> www.iamhalal.com >> >> It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions >> also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. >> Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? >> >> >> They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new >> interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine >> wants to develop their business "using" religion :) >> >> It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being >> Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these >> levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is >> really really haram. >> >> For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how >> "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being >> haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not >> attaching the screen shots :) >> >> Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if >> someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? >> >> best wishes >> Shahzad >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- 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 From babatope at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 15:22:13 2009 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:22:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I concur with Milton on this. Perhaps its not funny but the idea of closed communities is not new nor fresh having been around in different shades for quite a while On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to > establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic > community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of > association and freedom of expression. > > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > Hello, > > It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start > Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create > closed Internet communities. > > Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain > or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other > community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to > be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from > being a part of other communities. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search >> engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a >> targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, >> whatever the "ethic" reference? >> But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities >> of really well targeted advertisement. >> >> Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... >> www.iamhalal.com >> >> It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions >> also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. >> Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? >> >> >> They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new >> interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine >> wants to develop their business "using" religion :) >> >> It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being >> Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these >> levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is >> really really haram. >> >> For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how >> "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being >> haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not >> attaching the screen shots :) >> >> Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if >> someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? >> >> best wishes >> Shahzad >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Babatope Soremi I'm totally sold out to changing my world for good.... Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007 You can't give what you don't have........ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 15:28:16 2009 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:58:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Sent again with a correction and apologies: Last paragraph: if an imaginary entity were to establish a web-space by asserting its right to freedom of association and freedom of expression, and then influences (if not prohibit) its members that they ought not to have the freeedom of association with any other community with an opposing or different ideology, would you still consider the right to freedom of the freedom-restricting entity valid? On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Milton > > One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet > Governance is not a good idea... > > >The right to establish customised and special applications for your own > idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to > freedom of association and freedom of expression. > > Wouldn't that be a paradox to apply the "right to freedom of assoication" > to a community if it were to deny within its community the same right to > freedom of association to its members? Or deny the freedom of expression if > any of the community's members were to say anything good or positive about > other communities or beliefs? > > I am not jumping into a conclusion that the halal search engine would have > such an attitude. But if an imaginary entity were to establish a web-space > by asserting its right to freedom of association and freedom of expression, > and then influences (if not prohibit) its members the freeedom of > association with any other community with an opposing or different ideology, > would you still consider the right to the freedom-restricting entity's right > to freedom valid? > > Thankyou > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to >> establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic >> community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of >> association and freedom of expression. >> >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >> ------------------------------ >> Internet Governance Project: >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> Hello, >> >> It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start >> Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create >> closed Internet communities. >> >> Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain >> or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other >> community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to >> be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from >> being a part of other communities. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search >>> engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a >>> targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, >>> whatever the "ethic" reference? >>> But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities >>> of really well targeted advertisement. >>> >>> Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... >>> www.iamhalal.com >>> >>> It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions >>> also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. >>> Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? >>> >>> >>> They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new >>> interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine >>> wants to develop their business "using" religion :) >>> >>> It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being >>> Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these >>> levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is >>> really really haram. >>> >>> For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW >>> how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being >>> haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not >>> attaching the screen shots :) >>> >>> Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if >>> someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? >>> >>> best wishes >>> Shahzad >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: -------------- 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 From robin at ipjustice.org Fri Sep 4 18:38:23 2009 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:38:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society Message-ID: NCUC Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 3 September 2009 Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society The organization that represents Non-Commercial Internet Users in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) issued an open letter to the Board this week, expressing concern about the possible failure of ICANN's attempt to balance the representation of commercial and noncommercial interests. California (United States) – ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), a group of 152 non-commercial organizations and individuals from 52 countries who represent the noncommercial interests of Internet users in ICANN policy development, recently appealed to ICANN's Board of Directors and CEO to meet with them in Seoul to resolve serious problems with its current plans to alter the representation of noncommercial interests in its policy making process. Specifically, NCUC’s letter expressed concern over ICANN’s adoption of a flawed charter for noncommercial users that disregarded the vast majority of public comments and concerns expressed by noncommercial Internet users. In late July 2009 ICANN’s Board decided to approve the NCSG charter drafted by ICANN staff, rather than the charter drafted by civil society in a 7-month long consensus process that included a wide variety of noncommercial interests and was submitted to ICANN’s Board by the NCUC. ICANN’s staff did not provide its board with the competing charter submitted by NCUC in order to properly inform the board’s decision. The difference between staff’s charter and civil society’s charter is stark. Staff’s charter ties council representation and resources to arbitrary and more easily manipulated constituencies, while the NCUC charter calls for stakeholder group wide elections of its noncommercial representatives and other leaders. NCUC’s charter model encourages consensus building among constituencies, while staff’s charter model encourages divisiveness and favoritism among noncommercial interests. “ICANN’s decision has resulted in significant damage to ICANN’s credibility within global civil society and has fueled further distrust towards ICANN’s decision making process,” said NCUC Chair Robin Gross. “Its treatment of noncommercial users in this instance has significantly called into question ICANN’s legitimacy to govern and its ability to protect the global public interest,” said Gross, Executive Director of digital rights group IP Justice, a NCUC member since 2004. The board’s adoption of the stakeholder group charter is part of ICANN’s ongoing effort to re-organize its Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which currently consists of 5 commercial constituencies and 1 non-commercial constituency, the NCUC. ICANN’s GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations that relate to Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLDs) or those domain names that end in .com, .net, .edu, and .org. The GNSO plays an important role on Internet-related policy issues since its recommendations affect all who own or use GTLDs, including the way domain names can be registered, used, transferred, and any applicable fees and associated policies regarding the domain names. The process of changing the GNSO’s structure from 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups is expected to be complete by the end of October 2009. In its letter the NCUC states that “there is a misunderstanding over non-commercial representation and participation in ICANN” and NCUC calls on ICANN to acknowledge that there has been significant growth among noncommercial participants at ICANN recently. NCUC’s membership has grown by 240% since 2008 and now includes 75 noncommercial organizations and 77 individuals. An independent study by the London School of Economics verified that NCUC has the highest number of different people on the GNSO Council of any ICANN constituency and that NCUC has the most geographical diversity among its membership with members now from 52 different countries. “NCUC represents an extremely broad range of noncommercial Internet users, including educational and academic institutions, human rights organizations, libraries, consumer groups, religious organizations, bloggers, open source software developers, development-oriented groups, arts organizations, and other noncommercial interests,” explained Dr. Milton Mueller, an Internet governance expert. Dr. Mueller, now a professor at Syracuse University School of Information Studies and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, co- founded the constituency in 2002. "Nonprofits and public interest advocacy groups have an irreplaceable role to play in a self-regulatory scheme dominated by business interests. Someone has to look out for the public interest. If we handicap noncommercial voices and divide them into competing silos they simply won't be able to participate effectively. ICANN's legitimacy and the quality of its decisions will suffer," explained Dr. Mueller. In order to dispel pervasive myths about civil society’s role in ICANN, the NCUC published a “Top 10 Myths about Civil Society Participation in ICANN,” a document that explains why much of what ICANN staff and other constituencies have claimed about noncommercial participation is untrue. For additional information on NCUC and noncommercial participation in ICANN, please contact NCUC’s Chair Robin Gross or visit NCUC’s website at http://ncdnhc.org. Contact: Robin Gross, NCUC Chair Milton Mueller, NCUC Co-Founder Tel.: +1-415-553-6261 Tel: +1-315-443-5616 Email: robin – at - ipjustice.org Email: Mueller – at – syr.edu More Info: Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): http://ncdnhc.org NCUC’s Letter to ICANN Board of Directors and CEO: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of NCUC’s “Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN”: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil About the Noncommercial Users Constituency: The NCUC is the home for civil society organizations and individuals in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN policy-making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that favor non-commercial communication and activity on the Internet. The NCUC is open to non-commercial organizations and individuals involved in education, community networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, children's welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas. NCUC maintains a public website at http://ncdnhc.org. ### IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 5 09:41:17 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 06:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong Message-ID: <353664.55771.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is terribly wrong.  The exceptions and caveats to this simple concept must be included every time it is said or written. Any time my State, Federal or ICANN or UN funds are involved this is in violation of law. Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Segragation into groups is fine as long as it does not violate this precept and righteous goal. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Any man woman or child is fully entitled to bear hatred, bias and prejudice. They are not entitled as Milton suggests to act upon it.   NCUC, Syracuse and Delft are not "free" and are certainly not free to discriminate and cloister and exclude. http://www.tudelft.nl/ Netherlands funded http://ncdnhc.org/ ICANN funded and foundation funded http://www.syr.edu/about/ Is US federally funded and New York State funded --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , "'Sivasubramanian Muthusamy'" Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 6:18 PM There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression.   Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org   From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine Hello, It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create closed Internet communities. Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from being a part of other communities. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, whatever the "ethic" reference? But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities of really well targeted advertisement.  Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : Dear Colleagues,   Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine...  www.iamhalal.com It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it?   They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :)   It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is really really haram.   For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :)   Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it?   best wishes Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 5 09:54:36 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 06:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Discrimination and Segregation was; Re: [governance] Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <438700.74265.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Please read this letter and see the driving force behind it. MIlton Mueller. Milton is paid and draws funds from many Government sources.  He uses those funds to further his agenda in groups like this one. In an earlier post here MIlton made clear that his opinion was that people have as an inalienable right, the right to discriminate and segregate.  There are still those at Delft who were alive and saw this beginnings of superiority claims in the 1930s and 1940s. It began with small "dignitaries" spouting off "rights to purity" "rights to nationalism" "rights to discrimanate" then it crept into denial of rights to those opposed. The only clear and correct way to keep this from happening again is to cut off funding for such eltists  before they gain a foothold in our seats of power.   (it is difficult to see such small encroachments against human rights, and it is even more difficult to stick one's neck out to prevent the growth. Please do not sit idle.  I will take the heat for this, will you??) --- On Fri, 9/4/09, Robin Gross wrote: From: Robin Gross Subject: [governance] Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 10:38 PM NCUC Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 3 September 2009 Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society   The organization that represents Non-Commercial Internet Users in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) issued an open letter to the Board this week, expressing concern about the possible failure of ICANN's attempt to balance the representation of commercial and noncommercial interests.   California (United States)  –  ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), a group of 152 non-commercial organizations and individuals from 52 countries who represent the noncommercial interests of Internet users in ICANN policy development, recently appealed to ICANN's Board of Directors and CEO to meet with them in Seoul to resolve serious problems with its current plans to alter the representation of noncommercial interests in its policy making process.   Specifically, NCUC’s letter expressed concern over ICANN’s adoption of a flawed charter for noncommercial users that disregarded the vast majority of public comments and concerns expressed by noncommercial Internet users.  In late July 2009 ICANN’s Board decided to approve the NCSG charter drafted by ICANN staff, rather than the charter drafted by civil society in a 7-month long consensus process that included a wide variety of noncommercial interests and was submitted to ICANN’s Board by the NCUC.    ICANN’s staff did not provide its board with the competing charter submitted by NCUC in order to properly inform the board’s decision.  The difference between staff’s charter and civil society’s charter is stark.  Staff’s charter ties council representation and resources to arbitrary and more easily manipulated constituencies, while the NCUC charter calls for stakeholder group wide elections of its noncommercial representatives and other leaders.  NCUC’s charter model encourages consensus building among constituencies, while staff’s charter model encourages divisiveness and favoritism among noncommercial interests.   “ICANN’s decision has resulted in significant damage to ICANN’s credibility within global civil society and has fueled further distrust towards ICANN’s decision making process,” said NCUC Chair Robin Gross.  “Its treatment of noncommercial users in this instance has significantly called into question ICANN’s legitimacy to govern and its ability to protect the global public interest,” said Gross, Executive Director of digital rights group IP Justice, a NCUC member since 2004.   The board’s adoption of the stakeholder group charter is part of ICANN’s ongoing effort to re-organize its Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which currently consists of 5 commercial constituencies and 1 non-commercial constituency, the NCUC.  ICANN’s GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations that relate to Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLDs) or those domain names that end in .com, .net, .edu, and .org.  The GNSO plays an important role on Internet-related policy issues since its recommendations affect all who own or use GTLDs, including the way domain names can be registered, used, transferred, and any applicable fees and associated policies regarding the domain names.  The process of changing the GNSO’s structure from 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups is expected to be complete by the end of October 2009.   In its letter the NCUC states that “there is a misunderstanding over non-commercial representation and participation in ICANN” and NCUC calls on ICANN to acknowledge that there has been significant growth among noncommercial participants at ICANN recently.  NCUC’s membership has grown by 240% since 2008 and now includes 75 noncommercial organizations and 77 individuals.  An independent study by the London School of Economics verified that NCUC has the highest number of different people on the GNSO Council of any ICANN constituency and that NCUC has the most geographical diversity among its membership with members now from 52 different countries.    “NCUC represents an extremely broad range of noncommercial Internet users, including educational and academic institutions, human rights organizations, libraries, consumer groups, religious organizations, bloggers, open source software developers, development-oriented groups, arts organizations, and other noncommercial interests,” explained Dr. Milton Mueller, an Internet governance expert.  Dr. Mueller, now a professor at Syracuse University School of Information Studies and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, co-founded the constituency in 2002.   "Nonprofits and public interest advocacy groups have an irreplaceable role to play in a self-regulatory scheme dominated by business interests.  Someone has to look out for the public interest.  If we handicap noncommercial voices and divide them into competing silos they simply won't be able to participate effectively.  ICANN's legitimacy and the quality of its decisions will suffer," explained Dr. Mueller.   In order to dispel pervasive myths about civil society’s role in ICANN, the NCUC published a “Top 10 Myths about Civil Society Participation in ICANN,” a document that explains why much of what ICANN staff and other constituencies have claimed about noncommercial participation is untrue.   For additional information on NCUC and noncommercial participation in ICANN, please contact NCUC’s Chair Robin Gross or visit NCUC’s website at http://ncdnhc.org.   Contact: Robin Gross, NCUC Chair                 Milton Mueller, NCUC Co-Founder  Tel.: +1-415-553-6261                        Tel: +1-315-443-5616 Email: robin – at - ipjustice.org           Email: Mueller – at – syr.edu   More Info:   Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): http://ncdnhc.org   NCUC’s Letter to ICANN Board of Directors and CEO: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of   NCUC’s “Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN”: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil   About the Noncommercial Users Constituency:   The NCUC is the home for civil society organizations and individuals in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO).  With real voting power in ICANN policy-making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that favor non-commercial communication and activity on the Internet.  The NCUC is open to non-commercial organizations and individuals involved in education, community networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, children's welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas.  NCUC maintains a public website at http://ncdnhc.org.     ### IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 5 10:11:15 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 07:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Representation through the TLD, Practical Approach Message-ID: <13991.93097.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> It is time to begin the long process of giving internet users the right to a voice in the governance of the Internet. Not representation tied to a particular group but as individuals.   It is time to make the operators of the TLDs responsive and require them to create representation of the users. They have the databases.  They have the monopolies. They have the technologies.  They operate under permission and not right. It is time to make their continued operating licenses contingent upon a solid and reliable demonstration of providing users representation in decisions on how the Internet is governed. We give them license to monopolize and control communications, we must make them have a corresponding duty to the user.   The methods can run from easy to complex. The questions of only representing domain name holders versus users will work their way out. ccTLDs will need to be addressed, but it is anticipated they are run by contractors, at the whim of the duly elected officials.   ICANN can make this operational and required. They can and should set as a condition to continued operation or new license a structure put in place for effective voting and representation of individuals, using and owning domain names. Anyone who elects to register as an individual.   The IGF or other designated group by the UN should be chartered to asure appropriate voting and election standards and monitoring. All systems and experts are in place. This very list is showing a demonstrable willingness to work hard and openly to garauntee appropriate voting and verifiable results. This very list can sit in judgment of the guidelines established, it is filled with experts and ideologues from throughout our wonderful global community. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 5 10:51:48 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 07:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Globalization and Representation Message-ID: <598517.60948.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I have seen the good and the bad of mass integration of ideas and commonality in our beautiful world community. I have witnessed the wastefields of Bhopal and Chernobyl. I have witnessed the caring hands of a Canadian doctor nurture and cure the ailments of a Tsunami victim. I have seen antibiotics administered to save,in rural Africa, that were donated by megaPharmas from Europe.   Our multinational huge MegaCorps have the capacity to ravage cultures and to destroy whole ways of life. But they also have the capacity to care and to raise up out of poverty and ignorance. Our bombarding governments sometimes act by dropping bombs, but indeed more often drop humanitarian aid.   Within this great burgeoning world of telecommunications we have seen an explosion of information.  We have seen an explosion of huge conglomerates controlling and manipulating our very ability to say "I love you". They have expanded and built huge webs of corporate control and effects on existing governance adaptations.   They have to date not made significant impacts in the areas of preservation of Natural Resources and preservation of Culture.  They have decidedly refused to accept that with this new technology there is a corresponding duty to provide for the individual in any manner.  They have had ample opportunity. From Bill Gates to TelMex, from Sony to the EU. They have chosen not to incorporate the simple and universal concept that those most effected should have a say in the use of what has become an essential tool of life.   We must now begin the task to "hold their feet to the fire". We must insist that if the US Government is too weak to demand through their Department of Commerce the enactment of controls that establish representation of users, they must cede the control over to a body with the dignity and strength to enforce basic human rights. If the US President is too beholding to the corporations and money brokers to create a system that ensures universal sufferage amoung users of communication systems then he must have the courage to give the power to someone who will.   I promise you as a student of history; that if we do not give the governed a voice in their governance bad things will happen. We will walk backward in dignity. We will lose control over our ability to effectively express ourselves. We will see a rise in discrimination and a wresting of control over our lives never witnessed. We have freed ourselves from the tyranny of physical slavery and masters over servants. We must not sit by and allow a new and "braver" master to control our thoughts and communication with each other in a slavery far worse than physical bondage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Sep 5 11:59:37 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN Message-ID: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am the embattled chair of the only individual forum left at the ICANN GNSO. I am embattled because the GNSO refuses to provide us with voting mechanisms.   I have just made posts similar to these I have posted here and they have been censored by ICANN and Avri at the GNSO.   Ladies and Gentlemen we are in trouble from censorship. Miltons support of segregated groups with representation are posted. My alternative individual representation models are censored. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 5 12:04:45 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:04:45 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8AD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> No, there is no contradiction or paradox here at all. There is an important distinction between public, state action and private, voluntary action. In the latter context, you have the freedom to deny access to things you don't want - otherwise all other kinds of freedom are meaningless. E.g., I am a free expression absolutist in a public, political context, but that doesn't mean you can come into my living room, set up a microphone and force me and my family to listen to your views. Get it? Of course it depends on what you mean by "deny" or "prohibit" within its community" below. If the operators of this Halal web site run around physically attacking people who don't use it, then this is a criminal issue not a free expression issue. But if a "Halal" web site cannot compel anyone to use it, then I see nothing wrong with them offering a search site for people who want to conform to whatever restrictions "Halal" means or however this group interprets it. What are YOU suggesting - that we pass a law to force this search engine to list different sites and invade its offices and confiscarte its servers to make them offer access to more sites? All communities, all editorial policies, all websites, by definition, include some things and not others. --MM ________________________________ Wouldn't that be a paradox to apply the "right to freedom of assoication" to a community if it were to deny within its community the same right to freedom of association to its members? Or deny the freedom of expression if any of the community's members were to say anything good or positive about other communities or beliefs? I am not jumping into a conclusion that the halal search engine would have such an attitude. But if an imaginary entity were to establish a web-space by asserting its right to freedom of association and freedom of expression, and then influences (if not prohibit) its members the freeedom of association with any other community with an opposing or different ideology, would you still consider the right to the freedom-restricting entity's right to freedom valid? Thankyou Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: There are millions of "closed communities" on the Internet. The right to establish customised and special applications for your own idiosyncratic community is as inviolable as (indeed, part of) the right to freedom of association and freedom of expression. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine Hello, It is not amusing. This could inspire other religious groups to start Kosher search engines, satvic search engines ?? Such divisions could create closed Internet communities. Usually, Internet communities are specialized groups that do not restrain or prohibit the members of the community from being a part of any other community; religious communities with a restrained attitude could emerge to be communities that restrain or influence (if not prohibit) its members from being a part of other communities. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Meryem Marzouki > wrote: Very funny indeed. I'm eagerly waiting for the www.iamharam.com search engine (the domain name is still free BTW). But after all, simply a targetted form of blocking: isn't blocking all about "unethical" websites, whatever the "ethic" reference? But what is *really* clever with this is the possibilities of really well targeted advertisement. Le 4 sept. 09 à 10:26, Shahzad Ahmad a écrit : Dear Colleagues, Do you know something about this "HALAL" Search Engine... www.iamhalal.com It seems that now cyberspace is heading towards religious divisions also... This search engine only wants to focus Muslim Internet Users. Couldn't figure out that who is behind it? They claim to be blocking ALL "unethical" websites... I reckon a new interesting form of blocking..isn't it? I also feel that this search engine wants to develop their business "using" religion :) It is very funny... they have somehow arranged 3 levels of searches being Haram... Don't know the logic behind it though as how they decided these levels. Level 3 is the serach at top most level... which they think is really really haram. For example, put "Sex" in the search area, it is haram at level 3 (BTW how "sex" can be haram ;)). If you search "Penis", it is at Level 2 of being haram and "Breasts" are also at level 2 ;))) See for yourself, am not attaching the screen shots :) Would really love to hear your thoughts on this... particularly, if someone know that how will it work...and who is behind it? best wishes Shahzad ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 5 12:06:55 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:06:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8AE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems incoherent to me. On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet Governance is not a good idea... If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Sep 5 13:33:41 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:33:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN In-Reply-To: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050909051033s3138ef64x2d58676790f02831@mail.gmail.com> Brief Brief: Not knowledgeable about all the details, but in support of your urging that *Representation Issues* are proper (re. standing to broach) and timely (ripe) and serious (meritorous). *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.). ICT ARPANet forward. On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I am the embattled chair of the only individual forum left at the ICANN > GNSO. I am embattled because the GNSO refuses to provide us with voting > mechanisms. > > I have just made posts similar to these I have posted here and they have > been censored by ICANN and Avri at the GNSO. > > Ladies and Gentlemen we are in trouble from censorship. Miltons support of > segregated groups with representation are posted. My alternative individual > representation models are > censored.____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From avri at psg.com Sat Sep 5 13:44:51 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:44:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN In-Reply-To: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <874075.6239.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5 Sep 2009, at 11:59, Eric Dierker wrote: > I have just made posts similar to these I have posted here and they > have been censored by ICANN and Avri at the GNSO. I can't speak for ICANN, believe me I can't speak for ICANN. i think i would be flayed alive if i tried. that s not say that i can't speak of ICANN. but that is for another time and place. but i haven't censored anything anywhere at anytime of what you have said or of your desires for voting mechanisms. i am not party to whether anyone anywhere at anytime give you access to voting mechanisms. however, please do not take this as my trying to censor you for accusing me of this thing. while i may respond to accusations i consider false just so it can't be said i had acquiesced to them though i do not alway feel so compelled and my not having responded (yet) to any false accusation should not be taken as acquiescence. some responses just take longer to get written. i reserve my right to respond to false accusations any time i feel like it and am ready to do so. i will of course attempt to do it within the rules of whatever environment i am using to do so. i am not going to take any action to stop your accusations or the accusations of any of my other good friends. becasue i haven't censored any thing anywhere at anytime of what you have said or wanted to say. however, when it is my job to administer or enforce the judgement of another to censure, i will do my duty e.g. if this list ever decides it has the cause, as one who is a caretaker of the listserv, i will do as i am instructed. but i am not in the position of having that decision to make. a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 5 17:59:11 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:59:11 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Re: Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN Message-ID: <30371710.1252187951576.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Avri, Eric and all, Well seems to me that perhaps Kent Krispin is perhaps needing to fix the GA list again. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Sep 5, 2009 12:44 PM >To: Governance/IGC List >Subject: [governance] Re: Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN > > >On 5 Sep 2009, at 11:59, Eric Dierker wrote: > >> I have just made posts similar to these I have posted here and they >> have been censored by ICANN and Avri at the GNSO. > > >I can't speak for ICANN, believe me I can't speak for ICANN. i think >i would be flayed alive if i tried. >that s not say that i can't speak of ICANN. but that is for another >time and place. > >but >i haven't censored anything anywhere at anytime of what you have said >or of your desires for voting mechanisms. >i am not party to whether anyone anywhere at anytime give you access >to voting mechanisms. > >however, >please do not take this as my trying to censor you for accusing me of >this thing. > >while i may respond to accusations i consider false just so it can't >be said i had acquiesced to them >though i do not alway feel so compelled and my not having responded >(yet) to any false accusation >should not be taken as acquiescence. some responses just take longer >to get written. >i reserve my right to respond to false accusations any time i feel >like it and am ready to do so. >i will of course attempt to do it within the rules of whatever >environment i am using to do so. > >i am not going to take any action to stop your accusations or the >accusations of any of my other good friends. > >becasue > >i haven't censored any thing anywhere at anytime of what you have said >or wanted to say. > >however, >when it is my job to administer or enforce the judgement of another to >censure, i will do my duty >e.g. if this list ever decides it has the cause, as one who is a >caretaker of the listserv, >i will do as i am instructed. > >but i am not in the position of having that decision to make. > >a. > >____________________________________________________________ >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, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 5 18:11:10 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:11:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Posts Censored at the GA of ICANN Message-ID: <8524594.1252188670301.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sat Sep 5 18:16:54 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 17:16:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong Message-ID: <1628897.1252189014887.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Sep 5 19:33:57 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:33:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8AE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <35EED39B7237496AB2E1E669A47F1621@shahzad> <294E9A98-472D-4DB8-9A73-1EF5B3822464@ras.eu.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FFC6DF4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8AE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AA2F565.5090704@cafonso.ca> It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems incoherent to me. > On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? > > One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet Governance is not a good idea... > > If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 6 01:51:47 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:51:47 +1000 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <4AA2F565.5090704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for certain types of advertising services though the same company. But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a part in the results reported? We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net > are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite > grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all > closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems >> incoherent to me. >> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself >> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >> >> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet >> Governance is not a good idea... >> >> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sun Sep 6 03:28:29 2009 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 08:28:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20090906072830.093D725B027B@tounes-27.ati.tn> Thank you Ian. You are 100% right. It was not a single case. The distortion is general. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisation d'Ingénieurs Tél : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 860 861 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Envoyé : dimanche 6 septembre 2009 06:52 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso Objet : Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for certain types of advertising services though the same company. But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a part in the results reported? We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net > are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite > grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all > closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? > > --c.a. > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems >> incoherent to me. >> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself >> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >> >> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet >> Governance is not a good idea... >> >> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 8.5.409 / Base de données virale: 270.13.78/2347 - Date: 09/05/09 05:51:00 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at psg.com Sun Sep 6 09:38:10 2009 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:38:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6 Sep 2009, at 01:51, Ian Peter wrote: > Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka > Google) > which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who > pay for > certain types of advertising services though the same company. I am not disputing this, but am wondering how you know. Has ths been documented and proven? I may have missed it, but don't remember seeing it. that is not to say I haven't heard the accusation before, I have just seen seen the evidence. Also, calling Google - Mammon is derogatory and refers to evil and to false gods. it is not the same as saying the secular profit making search engine. i am not sure whether you meant evil when compared to the Halal search engine that refers to real gods while google refers to false gods. or just thought of it as a way to say secular. (leaving aside the whole discussion of whether profit is theft and whether all theft is evil and where gods of good and evil exist etc ... - all wonderful topics in their opwn right) thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Sep 6 09:44:56 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:44:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <20090906072830.093D725B027B@tounes-27.ati.tn> References: <20090906072830.093D725B027B@tounes-27.ati.tn> Message-ID: Freedom of expression becomes anathema if coupled with compulsion to "listen". The greatest freedom of all is the freedom to be selective about what one "hears". It's such a great freedom that I don't think anyone bothers to write it down, and it's often forgotten in this type of discussion. Without it "freedom of expression" becomes enslavement of everyone else. So everyone may have the right of free expression (which presumably includes the right to categorise things as more or less "Halal", and indeed the right to create search engines of all kinds), just so long as everyone retains the right to withhold attention, and not to use the search engine if that is their choice. Deirdre 2009/9/6 Tijani BEN JEMAA : > Thank you Ian. You are 100% right. It was not a single case. The distortion > is general. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Vice Président de la CIC > Fédération Mondiale des Organisation d'Ingénieurs > Tél : + 216 98 330 114 > Fax : + 216 70 860 861 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Envoyé : dimanche 6 septembre 2009 06:52 > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso > Objet : Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) > which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for > certain types of advertising services though the same company. > > But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on > search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results > reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying > news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or > political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a > part in the results reported? > > We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these > distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... > > > On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net >> are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite >> grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all >> closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? >> >> --c.a. >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale > seems >>> incoherent to me. >>> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict > itself >>> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >>> >>> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to > Internet >>> Governance is not a good idea... >>> >>> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 8.5.409 / Base de données virale: 270.13.78/2347 - Date: 09/05/09 > 05:51:00 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From karl at cavebear.com Sun Sep 6 14:54:14 2009 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:54:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong In-Reply-To: <353664.55771.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <353664.55771.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AA40556.6070104@cavebear.com> On 09/05/2009 06:41 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > This is terribly wrong.... > Any man woman or child is fully entitled to bear hatred, bias and > prejudice. They are not entitled as Milton suggests to act upon it. > NCUC, Syracuse and Delft are not "free" and are certainly not free to > discriminate and cloister and exclude. I disagree with you and agree with Milton M. People are, and people will remain, creatures with biases and prejudices. And people will always aggregate and exclude on the basis of those biases and prejudices. People will congregate with relatives, friends and like-thinkers. Communities will form. Nations will form. Religions will form. There are specific acts that these communities, particularly national and religious communities, have come to place beyond the pale of acceptance. People who do these acts, whether from bias and prejudice or not, are generally considered to have violated the law of the community and are to be punished. Over the last 250 years the idea has developed that government and governance should be exercised without the taint of bias and prejudice that infects individuals. In the US we tend to wrap that idea with the words "due process" and "equal protection". There is also slowly developing the idea that in certain contexts, particularly one in which one has power and authority over another (such as in employment relationships), that people's ability to give differential treatment on the basis of sex, race, religion, and sometimes age and mental or physical state, is not to be allowed. But as a general matter, individual people remain able to give vent to their prejudices either in words or in acts, as long as those do not cross the bounds that have been imposed. That leaves a lot of space in which people may permissibly exercise their biases and prejudices. In the context of establishing bodies of government or government statements of aspirations, such as you cite, are nice. But as a practical matter they do not serve nearly as well as clearly articulated limitations on the power of those bodies of governance. That's why in the US Constitution our first amendment is cast in terms of limits on the power of our Congress to enact laws that restrict speech - we don't say that "free speech" is a right, rather we say that the government's power to restrict is greatly limited. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 6 15:30:24 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Respectful Interface Message-ID: <477512.62087.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am partaking on a rather long and sometimes boring independent work on International Norms for discourse. (I have found within a 20 mile radius there may be as many as 100 norms of respect, yet cities and rural have less in common than do cities from America and East Asia).   But today I took a side trip to an 1865 original schoolhouse from the American Southwest. Clearly the easiest place to find instruction on how to act is in education.   This was quite a fun find and I believe I will find the origins in Jolly old England.  It is relevant here as we watch and undertake a vote, tightening controls over interface on this list.  Rules change and cultures deviate in a general way. But our systems are not so different than how we treated abhorrent behavior in the past. In my grade school we did not have lashes, we had swats on the behind. I was a record holder no doubt ;-)   ps - I searched for copywrites - if any one knows, please let them know I am a scoundrel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: punishment for bad behavior.tif Type: image/tiff Size: 135136 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: List Monitors.tif Type: image/tiff Size: 51516 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 6 15:52:18 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:52:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ( a couple of people disputed this) The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if you have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the bottom line. Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. On 6/09/09 11:38 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > On 6 Sep 2009, at 01:51, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka >> Google) >> which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who >> pay for >> certain types of advertising services though the same company. > > > I am not disputing this, but am wondering how you know. Has ths been > documented and proven? I may have missed it, but don't remember > seeing it. > > that is not to say I haven't heard the accusation before, I have just > seen seen the evidence. > > Also, calling Google - Mammon is derogatory and refers to evil and to > false gods. it is not the same as saying the secular profit making > search engine. i am not sure whether you meant evil when compared to > the Halal search engine that refers to real gods while google refers > to false gods. or just thought of it as a way to say secular. > > (leaving aside the whole discussion of whether profit is theft and > whether all theft is evil and where gods of good and evil exist > etc ... - all wonderful topics in their opwn right) > > thanks > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 6 15:56:08 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong In-Reply-To: <4AA40556.6070104@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <502054.42969.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Karl,   Let us examine where we do agree.   An important role any government has, is in limiting itself as pertains to directing or intruding into the conduct of individuals.   People have and are entitled to biases and prejudices. There is a fine and blurry line between making appropriate judgments of others and being judgmental.   No Government should expend public funds on actions that support segregation or unequal treatment of individuals. It is settled law and generally settled philosophy that segregation is not in keeping with good equality practice.   Here is not where we necessarily disagree but perhaps we use different language.  I would appreciate being "schooled" as to what is considered acceptable.   When is segregation different from our rights to privacy and free association?(not Freudian). When may a publicly funded official/instructor/employee proclaim as appropriate policy the right to private clubbing using public funding. (I ask this in light of pre-WWII hate propaganda)   (one of my favorite concepts to mull is segregation of athletic or intellectual competitions based upon the scoring known as handicapping. How horribly wrong in our public funded educational institutions and yet how completely necessary and how horribly wrong to do it any other way)    On our US American Labor Day weekend, I give great thanks that some labor to protect the rights of those whose labor has not brought them the luxury and time to so exercises their rights.     --- On Sun, 9/6/09, Karl Auerbach wrote: From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 6:54 PM On 09/05/2009 06:41 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > This is terribly wrong.... > Any man woman or child is fully entitled to bear hatred, bias and > prejudice. They are not entitled as Milton suggests to act upon it. > NCUC, Syracuse and Delft are not "free" and are certainly not free to > discriminate and cloister and exclude. I disagree with you and agree with Milton M. People are, and people will remain, creatures with biases and prejudices. And people will always aggregate and exclude on the basis of those biases and prejudices.  People will congregate with relatives, friends and like-thinkers.  Communities will form.  Nations will form. Religions will form. There are specific acts that these communities, particularly national and religious communities, have come to place beyond the pale of acceptance. People who do these acts, whether from bias and prejudice or not, are generally considered to have violated the law of the community and are to be punished. Over the last 250 years the idea has developed that government and governance should be exercised without the taint of bias and prejudice that infects individuals.  In the US we tend to wrap that idea with the words "due process" and "equal protection". There is also slowly developing the idea that in certain contexts, particularly one in which one has power and authority over another (such as in employment relationships), that people's ability to give differential treatment on the basis of sex, race, religion, and sometimes age and mental or physical state, is not to be allowed. But as a general matter, individual people remain able to give vent to their prejudices either in words or in acts, as long as those do not cross the bounds that have been imposed.  That leaves a lot of space in which people may permissibly exercise their biases and prejudices. In the context of establishing bodies of government or government statements of aspirations, such as you cite, are nice.  But as a practical matter they do not serve nearly as well as clearly articulated limitations on the power of those bodies of governance.  That's why in the US Constitution our first amendment is cast in terms of limits on the power of our Congress to enact laws that restrict speech - we don't say that "free speech" is a right, rather we say that the government's power to restrict is greatly limited.         --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Sep 6 16:06:35 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 16:06:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Respectful Interface In-Reply-To: <477512.62087.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <477512.62087.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050909061306g354fe23eq1be1cbed347053f3@mail.gmail.com> Responding in thread .... And staying on the *both-rights-and-development-and-throw-in-security* ITC topic... and the famous edicts toward *"respect4all"* ... plus your current observations on variability (paraphrase) ... Well maybe that's what we get as a vacillating culture of betimes descriptive-ist (sort of bottom up?) and betimes prescriptive-ist (sort of top down?) provid*ers* and provis*ees and processes providing provisions.* Agreed- its at least about *interfaces* and *interfaces* about *networks*and etc. and these sometimes about people but often also about 'systems of systems' that are not flesh and blood. And in any case, single nodes being networks, that has to be taken into account as well. If we wish. P.S. Nothing I've been posting is about particular individuals. P.P.S. Say more perhaps in a side note on the intriguing international norms for discourse. And perhaps also 'decorum' the ''grand master-piece to observe". LDMF Online ARPANet forward.. And now *Respectful Interfaces Programme*; Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N... Y'all come on by. On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I am partaking on a rather long and sometimes boring independent work on > International Norms for discourse. (I have found within a 20 mile radius > there may be as many as 100 norms of respect, yet cities and rural have less > in common than do cities from America and East Asia). > > But today I took a side trip to an 1865 original schoolhouse from the > American Southwest. Clearly the easiest place to find instruction on how to > act is in education. > > This was quite a fun find and I believe I will find the origins in Jolly > old England. It is relevant here as we watch and undertake a vote, > tightening controls over interface on this list. Rules change and cultures > deviate in a general way. But our systems are not so different than how we > treated abhorrent behavior in the past. In my grade school we did not have > lashes, we had swats on the behind. I was a record holder no doubt ;-) > > ps - I searched for copywrites - if any one knows, please let them know I > am a scoundrel. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 6 17:53:06 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:53:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E0@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Hey, what about those who worship Mammon? Can you prove that Mammon doesn't exist? ;-) > -----Original Message----- > > Also, calling Google - Mammon is derogatory and refers to evil and to > false gods. ____________________________________________________________ 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 From mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 6 17:58:41 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:58:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if > you > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the > bottom line. > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From shahzad at bytesforall.net Sun Sep 6 20:22:22 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 06:22:22 +0600 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93AAE0A7DCF34B2297B2A3C85269BCF7@shahzad> Here is more information and background on this... forwarded from another list. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helmi Noman" <> For those interested in more info about this search engine http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090907/NATIONAL/709069866/1041/FOREIGN ----- Original Message ----- From: "Milton L Mueller" To: ; "Ian Peter" ; "Avri Doria" Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 3:58 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if > you > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the > bottom line. > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 6 22:33:31 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 19:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Respectful Interface & the Halal Search Engine Question Message-ID: <595665.53284.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Sometimes if we look into one system - complex or "simple", we can find metaphors and guidance for our seemingly incomparable system.  Here I used the interface of children in a schoolhouse from differing homes and backgrounds to show the necessary harshness of discipline to maintain order. In order to interface well we must compromise our own values. This sounds so pedestrian and amoral. But in fact sometimes the greater good is the community, so molding and shaping our own desires so that we can "work" together is the greater good. (we all wish good luck to this list in this quest)   Milton* makes a beautiful case for Google being appropriate because it is successful. This is common "Karl Marx, opiate of the people" logic. And in fact it is true. Googles' goal is to appeal to the masses. Ease of use. Largest customer base. Larger and fastest anything. I use Google because through the last decade we have grown up together. We know the same fishing holes and have both studied the word structure and subset mentality that works so well.** I know the sponsors of paid results, I know the bloggosphere it frequents and the News sources it relies upon. Ian is quite right but that is just an is not a value. Strange but these are the same qualities I look for in a club to join to be around like minded buddies. My Vietnamese wife gathers with her Vietnamese friends because they share so much. I gather with my googleese brethren because we usually think alike, or at least dress and talk alike.   I fully agree with Karl and Linda.  We must make our systems integrate and interface with each other in a respectful of differences way.  We must constantly adapt our interfaces between our machines and be cognizant of the fact we are altering our own X values to do so. We must somehow, much like a developing nation, learn to integrate while maintaining integrity and holding inviolate the almost human rights of our telecommunication technology interface machines. To me integrity is synonymous with security. Privacy is a social political concept that changes so rapidly in geographics as to be totally morphing and transitory..(this precept should be considered when denying cross list posting - probably a bad interface idea, but personally I avoid it, like mixing in-laws with siblings)   *I use Milton as my Socratic whipping boy because, at least on this list he sounds so pedantic and absolute it is easy to set him up as the straw-man. Of course he knows I respect him and only use this dialog method through respect and because he is unfazed and unphased. We all owe Milton a debt of gratitude for his contributions to "keeping it alive" over the past decade. Kudos and dittos to """All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-)"""M&M 9/6/09   ** Google and I can speak with the same syntax and sentence structure. We both know when a conjunction is necessary and when it is superfluous. We know how to put subject nouns and adjectives together in order to communicate more better and sometimes we even repeat words for fun. We love to use headliner leaders to change words from one science to another. We respect each other. I hope my life is spent searching and so is his. --- On Sun, 9/6/09, linda misek-falkoff wrote: From: linda misek-falkoff Subject: Re: Respectful Interface To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Voice of Freedom" , "l.d. misek-falkoff" , respectful.interfaces at gmail.com Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 8:06 PM Responding in thread   ....   And staying on the both-rights-and-development-and-throw-in-security ITC topic... and the famous edicts toward "respect4all" ... plus your current observations on variability (paraphrase) ...   Well maybe that's what we get as a vacillating culture of betimes descriptive-ist (sort of bottom up?) and betimes prescriptive-ist (sort of top down?) providers and provisees and processes providing provisions.   Agreed-  its at least about interfaces and interfaces about networks and etc. and these sometimes about people but often also about 'systems of systems' that are not flesh and blood. And in any case, single nodes being networks, that has to be taken into account as well.   If we wish.   P.S. Nothing I've been posting is about particular individuals.   P.P.S. Say more perhaps in a side note on the intriguing international norms for discourse.   And perhaps also 'decorum' the ''grand master-piece to observe".   LDMF Online ARPANet forward.. And  now *Respectful Interfaces Programme*; Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N...   Y'all come on by. On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: I am partaking on a rather long and sometimes boring independent work on International Norms for discourse. (I have found within a 20 mile radius there may be as many as 100 norms of respect, yet cities and rural have less in common than do cities from America and East Asia).   But today I took a side trip to an 1865 original schoolhouse from the American Southwest. Clearly the easiest place to find instruction on how to act is in education.   This was quite a fun find and I believe I will find the origins in Jolly old England.  It is relevant here as we watch and undertake a vote, tightening controls over interface on this list.  Rules change and cultures deviate in a general way. But our systems are not so different than how we treated abhorrent behavior in the past. In my grade school we did not have lashes, we had swats on the behind. I was a record holder no doubt ;-)   ps - I searched for copywrites - if any one knows, please let them know I am a scoundrel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 7 04:36:48 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:06:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <93AAE0A7DCF34B2297B2A3C85269BCF7@shahzad> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <93AAE0A7DCF34B2297B2A3C85269BCF7@shahzad> Message-ID: <4AA4C620.4010301@itforchange.net> Hi All All the defense of 'insider or closed communities' on the Internet given by a few in this thread is indeed inspiring. A good indication of how we can easily lose perspective in the new digital reality - which is indeed very new in many ways, and needs a new thorough consideration. To be able to build such communities is just an extension of the fundamental right of association which has more or less been uniformly recognized, and is a key socio-political right. However one does understand the concerns of those who feel that such a religious community based search engine may indeed be a dangerous trend. And we need to look at these concerns closely and seriously. The way the digital space can connect all those with similar views - and, this is important to note, correspondingly, cut off all those whose views we are already prejudiced not to agree with - has a deleterious impact on 'public space/sphere/ media'. We need a strong and vibrant public sphere/ media, which is a space where we are almost nilly willy thrown in along with many others with whom we may not instinctively agree, to keep our polity, which is the basis of our rights, alive. There are no rights without an active polity, and no active polity without a shared public sphere/ media. Digital reality is having a very strong negative impact on such shared spaces across socio-political spectrum. In India, though we were always a very unequal society, at least till very recently everyone, rich and the (literate) poor, more or less read the same newspaper. We now have media which is strongly socially-segmented, and it portends very badly for the future of our society as a cohesive socio-political entity. My point is, while we hail our rights, not to think of structural deformities that may be getting set up in our societies, and not thinking of the possible remedial actions - new political and governance mechanism being perhaps primary among them - we may be being short-sighted. Our rights wont go far if we lose our political character. parminder Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Here is more information and background on this... forwarded from another > list. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Helmi Noman" <> > > > For those interested in more info about this search engine > > http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090907/NATIONAL/709069866/1041/FOREIGN > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Milton L Mueller" > To: ; "Ian Peter" ; "Avri > Doria" > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 3:58 AM > Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored > links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google > was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings > depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - > it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the > alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good > competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a > friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> ( a couple of people disputed this) >> >> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few >> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if >> you >> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You >> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the >> bottom line. >> >> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >> unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Mon Sep 7 04:37:58 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 09:37:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C85F@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi I think what's important here is the principle of transparency. As long as gatekeepers of information (such as search engines) are transparent about how they select content, including political, economic, cultural etc criteria, it's not necessarily a problem. Transparency needs to be coupled with "media literacy" amongst users. They need to know that information presented to them can be affected by the values and bias of gatekeepers, and know how to find out about it and navigate around information to find what they need. Whilst the medium is very different, the issues are similar to newspapers and broadcasters having political bias. Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: 06 September 2009 22:59 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Avri Doria Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if > you > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the > bottom line. > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > ____________________________________________________________ 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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 04:54:28 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 10:54:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C85F@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C85F@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Hi Until we know what this search engine will leave out/ block, and presuming that the intentions behind this filtering are good and ethical, then what is the problem? It is no different from a public/ community library, NOT keeping pornographic material, terrorism training manuals, books on how to torture and kill human beings, how to smuggle endangered species and illegal drugs etc. You will find books on these subjects, treated from an academic, societal perspective, but not espousing these practices. Regards, Rui 2009/9/7 Lisa Horner > Hi > > I think what's important here is the principle of transparency. As long > as gatekeepers of information (such as search engines) are transparent > about how they select content, including political, economic, cultural > etc criteria, it's not necessarily a problem. Transparency needs to be > coupled with "media literacy" amongst users. They need to know that > information presented to them can be affected by the values and bias of > gatekeepers, and know how to find out about it and navigate around > information to find what they need. Whilst the medium is very > different, the issues are similar to newspapers and broadcasters having > political bias. > > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 06 September 2009 22:59 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Avri Doria > Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored > links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. > Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular > rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won > the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for > than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually > a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market > competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market > FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first > few > > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such > if > > you > > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. > You > > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's > the > > bottom line. > > > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > > unproven. But articles such as this > http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 7 05:44:01 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:14:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AA4D5E1.4020905@itforchange.net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > Since i just need to respond to any words that Milton says on Market fundamentalism :), here it is: It is really not so 'CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED'. It started with a small box on the left side with a different background color. Not it has migrated right to the top of 'search results', in the same font, color and background, and is so prominent that it blocks two third of my browser view. So watch out for what happens next as market power of Google increases further, and regulatory powers dont take off because of a host of structural reasons. Worse, Google carries out, what has been called an extortion racket, to sell advertised space to rivals of any brand that gets looked up by a user in the search engine. So if you search for 'sony cameras' the top advertised positions are auctioned out, and of course if sony is interested in not having users carried to the websites of their rivals when what they really came looking for is 'sony', it can still pay a higher price that the rivals to also get the ad space.... Really, some competition this. Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> ( a couple of people disputed this) >> >> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few >> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if >> you >> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You >> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the >> bottom line. >> >> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >> unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 06:08:39 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:08:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <4AA2F565.5090704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <701af9f70909070308k17342152k8f4b82433cb327a1@mail.gmail.com> Ian, totally agree with you. The characteristics that you have highlighted have been in interplay as the Internet becomes a more powerful space to be controlled and controlled with! On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) > which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for > certain types of advertising services though the same company. > > But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on > search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results > reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying > news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or > political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a > part in the results reported? > > We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these > distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... > > > On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net >> are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite >> grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all >> closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? >> >> --c.a. >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems >>> incoherent to me. >>> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself >>> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >>> >>> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet >>> Governance is not a good idea... >>> >>> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ 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 From correia.rui at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 06:48:15 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:48:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <4AA4D5E1.4020905@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AA4D5E1.4020905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder and Ian Just like for Milton, when I search on google, the sponsored links ARE clearly marked, identified as such and separated from the rest, in a separate frame on the RIGHT hand side. What is happening is that google is set differently in different countries. I just did a quick test here looking for the same product with google .za; .uk; .au; .in; and .nz. BUT even then, my geographical location gives away where I am and google OVERRRIDES some of the display. At any rate, with all the domains that I tried, Australia had sponsored links above the normal links, whereas the others did not. Google has become a translator's tool, as translators look up the results count of different ways of translating something. As a member of three translators' lists, I often witness disagreements of the most frequent way of saying something based on google counts, as people in different countries get different counts for the exact same search! Even the commemorative google logos for special occasions are country-dependent. On Saturday 29 August, a member of one of the translators' lists sent a note through about the "cute" google logo that day. Within minutes there were 15 replies asking what she was taling about - they could not see anything different in the country they were writing from. Others wrote in to confirm that they could see the different logo - Michael Jackson's black shoes and white gloves, commemorating the singer's birthday. Regards, Rui 2009/9/7 Parminder > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > > > > Since i just need to respond to any words that Milton says on Market > fundamentalism :), here it is: > > It is really not so 'CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED'. It started with a small > box on the left side with a different background color. Not it has migrated > right to the top of 'search results', in the same font, color and > background, and is so prominent that it blocks two third of my browser view. > So watch out for what happens next as market power of Google increases > further, and regulatory powers dont take off because of a host of structural > reasons. > > Worse, Google carries out, what has been called an extortion racket, to > sell advertised space to rivals of any brand that gets looked up by a user > in the search engine. So if you search for 'sony cameras' the top advertised > positions are auctioned out, and of course if sony is interested in not > having users carried to the websites of their rivals when what they really > came looking for is 'sony', it can still pay a higher price that the rivals > to also get the ad space.... Really, some competition this. > > Parminder > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com ] > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > ( a couple of people disputed this) > > The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few > results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if > you > have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You > can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the > bottom line. > > Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is > unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding > do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 7 07:17:49 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:47:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D78FF5F8E1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4AA4D5E1.4020905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4AA4EBDD.1080103@itforchange.net> Dear Rui Enclosed is how it comes for me. See the paid versus 'neutral' content space, the former takes most of my first browser view. Earlier it used be a small box on the right with a light yellow background. parminder parminder Rui Correia wrote: > Dear Parminder and Ian > > Just like for Milton, when I search on google, the sponsored links ARE > clearly marked, identified as such and separated from the rest, in a > separate frame on the RIGHT hand side. > > What is happening is that google is set differently in different > countries. I just did a quick test here looking for the same product > with google .za; .uk; .au; .in; and .nz. BUT even then, my > geographical location gives away where I am and google OVERRRIDES some > of the display. > > At any rate, with all the domains that I tried, Australia had > sponsored links above the normal links, whereas the others did not. > > Google has become a translator's tool, as translators look up the > results count of different ways of translating something. As a member > of three translators' lists, I often witness disagreements of the most > frequent way of saying something based on google counts, as people in > different countries get different counts for the exact same search! > > Even the commemorative google logos for special occasions are > country-dependent. On Saturday 29 August, a member of one of the > translators' lists sent a note through about the "cute" google logo > that day. Within minutes there were 15 replies asking what she was > taling about - they could not see anything different in the country > they were writing from. Others wrote in to confirm that they could see > the different logo - Michael Jackson's black shoes and white gloves, > commemorating the singer's birthday. > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2009/9/7 Parminder > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) >> > > Since i just need to respond to any words that Milton says on > Market fundamentalism :), here it is: > > It is really not so 'CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED'. It started > with a small box on the left side with a different background > color. Not it has migrated right to the top of 'search results', > in the same font, color and background, and is so prominent that > it blocks two third of my browser view. So watch out for what > happens next as market power of Google increases further, and > regulatory powers dont take off because of a host of structural > reasons. > > Worse, Google carries out, what has been called an extortion > racket, to sell advertised space to rivals of any brand that gets > looked up by a user in the search engine. So if you search for > 'sony cameras' the top advertised positions are auctioned out, > and of course if sony is interested in not having users carried to > the websites of their rivals when what they really came looking > for is 'sony', it can still pay a higher price that the rivals to > also get the ad space.... Really, some competition this. > > Parminder >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Avri Doria >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >>> >>> ( a couple of people disputed this) >>> >>> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few >>> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if >>> you >>> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You >>> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the >>> bottom line. >>> >>> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >>> unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >>> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _sony_camera__-_Google_Search.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 121585 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 7 07:20:45 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:20:45 +1000 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rui thanks for pointing that out ­ I wasn¹t aware of the differences in various countries. Just noticed that google.co.uk, google.co.in and google.com.au all carry links sponsored links in the same font at the top of search results, and IMHO not very clearly differentiated. I note google.com does not do this. So certainly more than just Australia carries this pattern, but I am not sure how widespread it is. (also note that if in Australia I type google.com it redirects to google.com.au ­ I have to retype to get the US site). I would be interested in research on the level of understanding of users of the differences where this occurs. I have seen evidence that many users place greater trust in sponsored links and when buying tend to spend more at sponsored link sites. Then there is the problem Parminder points out. On a search for Sony, the first result returned could well be for a rival company who paid most for the sponsored link on that keyword to get top placing. Instead of going to Sony¹s site, I follow the link to another manufacturer altogether. No domain squatting rules here... On 7/09/09 8:48 PM, "Rui Correia" wrote: > Dear Parminder and Ian > > Just like for Milton, when I search on google, the sponsored links ARE clearly > marked, identified as such and separated from the rest, in a separate frame on > the RIGHT hand side. > > What is happening is that google is set differently in different countries. I > just did a quick test here looking for the same product with google .za; .uk; > .au; .in; and .nz. BUT even then, my geographical location gives away where I > am and google OVERRRIDES some of the display. > > At any rate, with all the domains that I tried, Australia had sponsored links > above the normal links, whereas the others did not.  > > Google has become a translator's tool, as translators look up the results > count of different ways of translating something. As a member of three > translators' lists, I often witness disagreements of the most frequent way of > saying something based on google counts, as people in different countries get > different counts for the exact same search! > > Even the commemorative google logos for special occasions are > country-dependent. On Saturday 29 August, a member of one of the translators' > lists sent a note through about the "cute" google logo that day. Within > minutes there were 15 replies asking what she was taling about - they could > not see anything different in the country they were writing from. Others wrote > in to confirm that they could see the different logo - Michael Jackson's black > shoes and white gloves, commemorating the singer's birthday.    > > Regards, > > Rui > > 2009/9/7 Parminder >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored >>> links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. Google >>> was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular rankings >>> depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won the market - >>> it really was better for finding what you were looking for than the >>> alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually a very good >>> competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market competition! What a >>> friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) >>> >> >> Since i just need to respond to any words that Milton says on Market >> fundamentalism :), here it is: >> >> It is really not so 'CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED'. It started with a small >> box on the left side with a different background color. Not it has migrated >> right to the top of 'search results', in the same font, color and background, >> and is so prominent that it blocks two third of my browser view. So watch out >> for what happens next as market power of Google increases further, and >> regulatory powers dont take off because of a host of structural reasons. >> >> Worse, Google carries out, what has been called an extortion racket, to sell >> advertised space to rivals of any brand that gets looked up by a user in the >> search engine. So if you search for 'sony cameras' the top advertised >> positions are  auctioned out, and of course if sony is interested in not >> having users carried to the websites of their rivals when what they really >> came looking for is 'sony', it can still pay a higher price that the rivals >> to also get the ad space.... Really, some competition this. >> >> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >>>> >>>> ( a couple of people disputed this) >>>> >>>> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first few >>>> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such if >>>> you >>>> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. You >>>> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's the >>>> bottom line. >>>> >>>> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >>>> unproven. But articles such as this http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >>>> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: -------------- 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 10:41:44 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:41:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs Message-ID: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the IGF. I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard about with, if possible, the following information : - Title of the event - Date - Location - Main organizers - Address of the web site where more information can be found This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. Thank you in advance for your help. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Mon Sep 7 11:08:22 2009 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Stefano Trumpy) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:08:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >Dear all, > >We are trying to collate an extensive list of >the various initiatives at national and regional >levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of >the IGF. > >I sollicit your help in making this list as >comprehensive as possible. Please indicate the >initiatives you have initiated, participated in >or heard about with, if possible, the following >information : Bertrand, you know the event; in any case, here you find the data: > >Title of the event IGF Italia 2009 >Date 5 - 7 October 2009 >Location Pisa, at Research area of National Research Council >Main organizers IIT/CNR, ISOC Italia and W3C Italia >Address of the web site where more information can be found www.igfitalia.it Stefano > >This information can be sent to me offlist to >prevent clogging the list, and we'll collate it >in a single document to be circulated afterwards. > >Information about the Carribean, Latin America, >East Africa and West Africa regional events, as >well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, >Kenya, Italy and the US are already gathered, so >there is no no need to duplicate. > >Thank you in advance for your help. > >Best > >Bertrand > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information >/ Special Envoy for the Information Society >Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and >European Affairs >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > >____________________________________________________________ >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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 12:21:45 2009 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:21:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <808a83f60909070921y2b5fd2e8q7c249344a149c4f8@mail.gmail.com> Here is one from the Caribbean that was just completed - just making sure that was this picked up already: - Caribbean Internet Governance Forum - August 24-26, 2009 - St. Kitts-Nevis - Caribbean Telecommunications Union - http://www.ctu.int/cigf-2009-overview On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at > national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the > IGF. > > I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. > Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard > about with, if possible, the following information : > > - Title of the event > - Date > - Location > - Main organizers > - Address of the web site where more information can be found > > This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, > and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. > > Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa > regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, > Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. > > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Mon Sep 7 12:33:09 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:33:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all Thanks to everyone for their comments and edits to the statement. Please find a new version below - I hope it addresses everyone's concerns. I suggest that we take further comments until Thursday, and then agree on a finalised version. List coordinators - I'm not sure if we need to take a formal vote on this before it can be accepted and submitted? I'm happy to contact the DCs to ask if they'd like to co-sign it. Thanks, Lisa DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights are legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, in the Internet era as before. • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. As well as having legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4403 (20090907) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 13:44:06 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:44:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <45ed74050909071044m12791111q54703807cba48bc4@mail.gmail.com> *----- respectful interfaces e-memo 090709 -----* Dear Anja and Lisa and All, Just adding a related thought. While we began early on discussing "Rights and Responsibilities," (more melodic than "Rights and Duties"?), with the word "Principles" coming forward it is perhaps timely to suggest a virtue of the earlier phrasing as well - for where the group feels it fits. A reason is that "right" now it is felt that "rights" are being exercised by some 'actors' exlusive of full participation by Civil Society at large. Pointing out that those with rights also have responsibilities, and envisioning for simplification sake a little 4 x 4 chart (or related knowledge representation format) could do some real good work that seems to be desired across the broad base here. Warm regards to all and all laboring on USA's labor day, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D). Internet ARPAnet fwd. 2007Candidate GAID. Other Affiliations on Request. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 07:30 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi Lisa, Thanks! > > > > I like your suggestion that the IRP be given the opportunity to work > > with all main sessions, and offer to work with all others--perhaps by > > posting guidelines or suggestions to them by email or a link on the > > IGF page. > > > > I would appreciate it if you can propose a short statement on the list > > as soon as possible for comment and discussion. > > > > Here is the April IGC statement: > > > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > > Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights > > and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead > > to discourse at the IGF meetings moving 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 > > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to > > access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > > keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and > > relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > > discussions. > > > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > > It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > In terms of practical suggestions, I wonder if it's worth suggesting > > > that the IGC (and/or IRP coalition) is given the opportunity to work > > > with all main session panel coordinators, panelists and moderators > > > to ensure that the human rights dimension of the subject matter at > > > hand is considered in all panel sessions. In my mind, human rights > > > are relevant to all of them (access, diversity, critical resources > > > etc), both in terms of the protection of human rights standards and > > > in terms of making sure that the internet supports the positive > > > dimensions of human rights and development (access to information, > > > education, resources etc). (We'd also need some internal > > > organisation amongst us to attend and contribute to sessions to > > > ensure that rights dimensions are included in discussions). > > > > > > The human rights framework can also be used to balance competing > > > "public interest" concerns, for example between security and freedom > > > of expression, and contains specific guidance on when it is > > > acceptable to limit certain rights in the name of protecting others. > > > We could ask for such guidelines to be used or borne in mind in > > > relevant discussions. > > > > > > We could also call for some space in the "emerging issues" session > > > to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles" in the context > > > of internet governance, drawing on discussions held in the regional > > > and international IGF. This would address the issue of "righst and > > > principles" being rejected as a main session due to a lack of > > > consensus about its meaning. > > > > > > Finally, we could call for space in the "Internet governance in the > > > light of WSIS principles" session to reflect on the extent to which > > > the IGF has reflected the WSIS recognition of the centrality of > > > human rights to the information society. > > > What do people think? > > > > > > NB, after today I'm away for a few days, but would be happy to draft > > > a short statement when I'm back next week. I can't find the > > > statement that we submitted in April - does anyone have a copy or > > > know where to find it? > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Fri 28/08/2009 11:57 > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > > > principles for upcoming IGF OC > > > > > > > > > Hi Lisa and all, > > > I was thinking of a similar statement to Lisa's and the IGC > > > statement in April. Normally we submit the statement by email so the > > > translators have a copy, but it should also be read at the meeting. > > > Since this meeting is specifically for planning of the workshops and > > > agenda, it should offer specific suggestions in support of all > > > rights related events (the IRP workshop, for instance) and its > > > inclusion, if too late for this year, in laying the groundwork for > > > next year. Personally, I think that if it is short, concise and to > > > the point people retain the message better. > > > Thanks for coming back to this, > > > Ginger > > > > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > > > Hi all > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response to this. What kind of statement were > you thinking of Ginger? Something to submit by email, or feed in orally to > the Geneva planning meeting? > > > > > > > > Do people feel that it should be something different to the statement > that Anja put together a couple of weeks ago (pasted below). Maybe we want > to include specific rights and issues - we started with free expression, and > Katitiza emphasised the importance of privacy. We might also want to link > it to what's already been proposed for the "security, openness and privacy" > session (also pasted below) - does anyone have any specific comments on > what's been proposed so far? > > > > > > > > Just to note again, the IRP coalition is meeting in Geneva on Sunday > 13th - all are welcome, in person and virtually. > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > > Previous statement: > > > > > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and > disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an > item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was > suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of > actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread > support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not > include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the > main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis > Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make > these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is > made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning > of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the > Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so > . > > > > > > > > The proposed IGF session: > > > > > > > > > > > > Security, Openness and Privacy: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The discussion of this cluster of issues will be the focus of the > afternoon of the second day. It will be introduced by a compact panel of > practitioners to set the stage for the discussion and bring out options for > how to deal with the policy and practical choices related to the different > clusters of issues. The discussion should cover practical aspects of the > coordination needed to secure the network (e.g. to fight spam) and their > relationship to issues pertaining to openness (e.g. ensuring the open > architecture of the Internet). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Issues to be discussed will include: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > · The respect for privacy as a business advantage; > > > > > > > > · Identity theft, identity fraud, and information leakage. > > > > > > > > · Web 2.0; > > > > > > > > · Social networks; > > > > > > > > · Cloud computing and privacy, e.g. control of one's own data > and data retention; > > > > > > > > · Cultural and technical perspectives on the regulation of > illegal Web contents; > > > > > > > > · Regulatory models for privacy; > > > > > > > > · Ensuring the open architecture of the Internet; > > > > > > > > · Net Neutrality; > > > > > > > > · Enabling frameworks for freedom; > > > > > > > > · Ethical dimensions of the Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Sun 23/08/2009 15:01 > > > > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > > > > Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles for upcoming IGF OC > > > > > > > > > > > > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good overview of the > importance of the Internet for Communication, and the need to keep it as a > "free space". While we may disagree on any specific topic, I think we all > agree on the general idea that freedom of expression and communication must > be protected. Internet Governance is an important tool for that protection, > as it can strategize across borders. It reminds me that I think that the the > IGC should take a strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will > be Open Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should > have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to be > emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late to make > any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is important to keep > our point in the discussion, even if it is just in laying the groundwork for > next year. > > > > > > > > Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working > draft? > > > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rages-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in Iran following > this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter messages sent by > activists let the world know about the brutal policing that followed. A few > months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used Facebook to organise protests > against the country's communist government, and elsewhere too the internet > is playing an increasing role in political dissent. > > > > > > > > **Now governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their > efforts to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of > information and the ability to communicate.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4361 (20090823) __________ > > > > > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 13:50:46 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 20:50:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: > > DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: > •       Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. How on earth can we justify saying this? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 16:12:34 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:42:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Sep 7 16:18:48 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:18:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C85F@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Couldn't agree more, Lisa. To this need for transparency I would add the need to ensure that no search engine is assisted to monopolise the space by a variety of anti-competitive measures. These might include * bundling with operating systems * mobile phone deals for special search links * carrier preferred supplier deals I am sure there are many more - and I'm not yet convinced that user choice will be all that strong a factor in determining which search engines (with accompanying biases) people use. On 7/09/09 6:37 PM, "Lisa Horner" wrote: > Hi > > I think what's important here is the principle of transparency. As long > as gatekeepers of information (such as search engines) are transparent > about how they select content, including political, economic, cultural > etc criteria, it's not necessarily a problem. Transparency needs to be > coupled with "media literacy" amongst users. They need to know that > information presented to them can be affected by the values and bias of > gatekeepers, and know how to find out about it and navigate around > information to find what they need. Whilst the medium is very > different, the issues are similar to newspapers and broadcasters having > political bias. > > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: 06 September 2009 22:59 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter; Avri Doria > Subject: RE: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > You can pay to be listed in the CLEARLY MARKED and SEPARATED sponsored > links, which in fact attract far fewer clicks than the regular ones. > Google was the first to clearly separate them and NOT make their regular > rankings depend in any way on payments, and that of course is why it won > the market - it really was better for finding what you were looking for > than the alternatives. That set the standard for Bing, which is actually > a very good competitor now if you haven't tried it. All hail market > competition! What a friend we have in....Mammon!! Genuflect to Market > FUNDAMENTALISM ;-) > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> ( a couple of people disputed this) >> >> The most obvious example is that on any common Google search the first > few >> results that come through may be sponsored links - identified as such > if >> you >> have good eyes and bother to look, but the first results nevertheless. > You >> can pay to be number one on a Google search results listing, that's > the >> bottom line. >> >> Beyond that - because Google doesn't release its algorithms this is >> unproven. But articles such as this > http://www.seobook.com/google-branding >> do tend to suggest new factors coming into results. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4401 (20090906) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Sep 7 16:23:55 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:23:55 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A87194F3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> There will be a Danish IGF in Copenhagen, October 6. And the German one will be probably on November 3, 2009 in Berlin. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it] Gesendet: Mo 07.09.2009 17:08 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle Betreff: Re: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs Dear all, We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the IGF. I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard about with, if possible, the following information : Bertrand, you know the event; in any case, here you find the data: * Title of the event IGF Italia 2009 * Date 5 - 7 October 2009 * Location Pisa, at Research area of National Research Council * Main organizers IIT/CNR, ISOC Italia and W3C Italia * Address of the web site where more information can be found www.igfitalia.it Stefano * This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. Thank you in advance for your help. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Sep 7 16:37:23 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:37:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> Bertrand, Did you get info on the LA&C regional one already (Rio, Aug.11-13)? In any case, the website is http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/. We hope to get summary reports in Spanish, Portuguese and English online soon. [] fraterno --c.a. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at > national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the > IGF. > > I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. > Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard > about with, if possible, the following information : > > - Title of the event > - Date > - Location > - Main organizers > - Address of the web site where more information can be found > > This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, and > we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. > > Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa > regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, > Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. > > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 7 16:58:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 13:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <693741.33241.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think McTim meant to write:   How on earth can a thinking person not say this? --- On Mon, 9/7/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 8:12 PM McTim, could you explain why you say: "How on earth can we justify saying this?" I am sorry that I do not have time to document any cases, but I hope someone else will. These are some quick links I found, but did not review: There have been proposals by governments to implement some kind of filtering or censorship in several countries (I believe) See: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Austrailia http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship http://koeus.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/france-joins-the-list-of-internet-censoring-countries/ Germany. http://netzpolitik.org/2009/the-dawning-of-internet-censorship-in-germany/ http://opennet.net/blog/2009/01/internet-censorship-germany While I do agree that one has the right to JOIN an network that includes and excludes certain topics, much as any association or club might do, I do not think a government can IMPOSE these restrictions on a segment of the Internet. I am in a rush today, so I may have missed something obvious here. Sorry if that is the case. Either way, I would appreciate a clarification. Thanks, Best, Ginger McTim wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: •       Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. How on earth can we justify saying this? -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Sep 7 17:51:09 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 02:51:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call: Realizing our Human Rights as the foundation of Internet Rights Message-ID: <701af9f70909071451k7e03c697j66d7558d4e9ad426@mail.gmail.com> Realizing our Human Rights as the foundation of Internet Rights - Call to both IGC, IGF, United Nations, its multistakeholders and the Youth of the World to accept the UDHR as the foundation of Human Rights recognition on the Internet (termed as Internet Rights) Originated from: Fouad Bajwa (Pakistan) member IGC I would request all stakeholders to fundamentally approach the issue of Internet Rights and propose it to the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and its multistakeholders that the basis of furthering any efforts with regards to Internet Governance and to strengthen Internet Governance efforts, all should be based on fundamental Human Rights without discrimination, and that, while collectively agreed by all member states participating, including their private sector and Civil Society stakeholders should mutually respect Human Rights both offline in their countries and online on the Internet while continuing to further the Internet Governance Forum and seek an Internet Governance Development Agenda. I believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the building foundation of Internet Rights. It calls for progressive measures, national and international, to secure our universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of the territories under their jurisdiction. Human Rights are the foundation of Human Development both social and economic and the building blocks of legislation. In order to further any process on the platform of the United Nations, its member countries agree, recognize and further the UN Charter. Though, the term “Internet Rights” appears to be vague at this stage but I believe that it is both the foundation of Internet Governance and the future of the Internet with respect to the fundamental rights that all the users of the Internet and those that are yet to use it, are entitled to, without any discrimination as the Internet itself is an extension of human mind and endeavor evolved through human based on progressive, conceptualization, evolution, communication, innovation and usage by all of us human beings despite the prevailing polities today. For the past few days I have been motivated to explore my own realization of Human Rights in an era where there are massive rights violations in a developing region like my own and many others. I believe that a right is a freedom of some kind; it is something to which you, I or all of us are entitled to by default but our individual, mutual, realization, respect and practice is the fundamental guidance for all multistakeholders to respect these freedoms in Governance and Policy Making with regards to the Internet. Today there are 192 countries that are members of the United Nations and this organization came into being in 1945 shortly after the end of World War II initiated by five major powers that won the war namely, Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union and United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was created in 1948 and agreed upon by the members of the United Nations. The UDHR was adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948 and the United Nations called upon all its member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries and territories.” The UDHR document lists 30 rights to which everyone are entitled – no matter who they are or where they live – simply because they are human being – where as the recognition of (according to the UDHR preamble) the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all the members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Despite the fact that this Declaration was adopted by only 58 countries (that were UN members at that time), today there are 192 member countries that sign and accept the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while many laws exist to protect human rights. Human Rights are defined as: “The basic rights and freedoms, to which all human beings are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.” The 30 human rights in the UDHR (summarizing) include the right to live in freedom and safety; the right to travel; the right to belong to a country; the right to own things and share them; the right to believe what you want to believe; and the right to say what you think. They even include the right to enjoy the things you enjoy doing and all universally accepted (by the United Nations and its member countries) rights have been laid out at the end of this discussion. Yet, millions of people continue to suffer because their rights are not respected although the UDHR protects the right to adequate food; more than 15000 children die of starvation every day. The UDHR also protects the right to free speech, but thousands are in prison for saying what they believed to be true and the UDHR accepted by 192 member countries of the United Nations accept the UDHR but still their citizens continue to be abused. The UDHR forbids slavery, but 27 million people live as slaves today – more than twice the number in the days of the slave trade and more than a billion people are unable to read, although the UDHR includes the right to an education. These are very serious abuses of human rights but it is also true that possibly 90% of the human population of the world, both offline in the physical world and online in the virtual Internet world are unable to name to name more than three of their thirty rights universally accepted by 192 member countries and the United Nations. Who then will tell these people? I believe the answer today lies with us in the form of a guideline by the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan: “Young friends all over the world, you are the ones who must realize these rights, now and for all time. Their fate and future is in your hands!” We must realize and formally accept that with the invention of the Internet and now after over three decades, where human advancement has taken place with the advent of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the Internet in particular, the violations of Human Rights and human abuse with (respect to not recognizing the UDHR) continue to take place throughout the world in the various 192 member nations of the United Nations. There is a need to revisit the UDHR, recognize and respect these fundamental human rights both in the offline and online world. I believe that if the United Nations Internet Governance Forum does not formally recognize the UDHR to be the basis and foundation of Human Rights over the Internet and/or does not include a main first theme and session on Internet Rights in its proceedings in 2009 at Sharam, Egypt, both the participating members from 192 countries accepting and respecting both the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are in direct violation of the fundamental Human Rights and entitlement of these rights to their citizens in light of the United Nations Charter. For the Internet Governance Forum to continue into its next era after its review by the General Assembly for its continuation, it is fundamental for the forum to revisit the UDHR and revive the recognition of this Declaration by its member multistakeholders and accept that the UDHR is the fundamental building block of Human Rights over the Internet. This recognition may be termed formally as the declaration of “Internet Rights” with mutual agreement and consensus. Only then the process towards Internet Governance for Development or the Internet Governance Development Agenda will evolve with the mutual respect for Human Rights without any discrimination. I would like to call upon the members of the IGC, the organizers of the IGF, the United Nations, Governments and the People of UN’s 192 Members Countries and the Youth of the world to realize our fundamental Human Rights defined in the UDHR as the foundation for evolving a universally acceptable Internet Rights charter and accept the UDHR as the foundation of Human Rights recognition on the Internet (termed as Internet Rights). The UDHR is given below for dissemination and circulation to participating Governments, Private Sector, Civil Society and Youth Members of the world: Source: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. ***** Please feel free to edit or kindly sign this call and let us forward it to the IGF Secretariat and as many stakeholders that we can reach out to! ***** -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 00:05:52 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:05:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > McTim, could you explain why you say: sure > > DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for > IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in > the information society, but human rights and associated principles have > received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: > •       Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance > processes and practice. It's overly broad. It paints ALL IG processes as threatening, when in fact, most of them are absolutely not. It's a bit strident as well, politically not wise, these governments are going to dismiss this out of hand. If we are concerned about censorship and filtering, then we should state that specifically. AFAIAC, this para needs to go, or be rewritten. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Sep 8 03:29:52 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:29:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:05 AM, McTim wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> McTim, could you explain why you say: > > sure > >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> programme for >> IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The >> WSIS >> Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human >> rights in >> the information society, but human rights and associated principles >> have >> received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is >> problematic as: >> • Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, >> privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance >> processes and practice. > > It's overly broad. It paints ALL IG processes as threatening, when in > fact, most of them are absolutely not. > > It's a bit strident as well, politically not wise, these governments > are going to dismiss this out of hand. If we are concerned about > censorship and filtering, then we should state that specifically. > > AFAIAC, this para needs to go, or be rewritten. How about this? Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by the policies and practices many governments are pursuing at the national level. This is the focus of Ginger's examples, not global Internet governance. Of course, one could make the case that some instances of the latter also restrict internationally recognized rights, e.g. WHOIS, but that'd require some nuance and specificity that it might be difficult to get quick agreement on. Bill____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 04:54:13 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 06:54:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:29 AM, William Drake wrote: > How about this? > >  Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy and education are threatened by the policies and practices many > governments > are pursuing at the national level. much better. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 8 05:15:51 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:15:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Hi, Le 8 sept. 09 à 09:29, William Drake a écrit : > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:05 AM, McTim wrote: > >>> DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES >>> >>> • Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, >>> privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance >>> processes and practice. >> >> It's overly broad. It paints ALL IG processes as threatening, >> when in >> fact, most of them are absolutely not. >> >> It's a bit strident as well, politically not wise, these governments >> are going to dismiss this out of hand. If we are concerned about >> censorship and filtering, then we should state that specifically. >> >> AFAIAC, this para needs to go, or be rewritten. > > How about this? > > Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy and education are threatened by the policies and practices > many governments > are pursuing at the national level. > > This is the focus of Ginger's examples, not global Internet > governance. Of course, one could make the case that some > instances of the latter also restrict internationally recognized > rights, e.g. WHOIS, but that'd require some nuance and specificity > that it might be difficult to get quick agreement on. I don't think we should restrict to "policies and practices many governments are pursuing at the national level". Private companies also show such policies and practices, and implement them. Same case with IGOs, through international agreements and "technical" projects. Same for "multistakeholder organizations". Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general enough. If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", showing that the statement makes a difference between these policies at different levels. Meryem____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Sep 8 05:38:22 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:38:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Meryem, On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi, > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 09:29, William Drake a écrit : >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:05 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>>> DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES >>>> >>>> • Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of >>>> expression, >>>> privacy and education are threatened by current internet governance >>>> processes and practice. >>> >>> It's overly broad. It paints ALL IG processes as threatening, >>> when in >>> fact, most of them are absolutely not. >>> >>> It's a bit strident as well, politically not wise, these governments >>> are going to dismiss this out of hand. If we are concerned about >>> censorship and filtering, then we should state that specifically. >>> >>> AFAIAC, this para needs to go, or be rewritten. >> >> How about this? >> >> Fundamental human right such as the rights to freedom of expression, >> privacy and education are threatened by the policies and practices >> many governments >> are pursuing at the national level. >> >> This is the focus of Ginger's examples, not global Internet >> governance. Of course, one could make the case that some >> instances of the latter also restrict internationally recognized >> rights, e.g. WHOIS, but that'd require some nuance and specificity >> that it might be difficult to get quick agreement on. > > I don't think we should restrict to "policies and practices many > governments are pursuing at the national level". Private companies > also show such policies and practices, and implement them. Same case > with IGOs, through international agreements and "technical" > projects. Same for "multistakeholder organizations". > Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on the > table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general enough. > If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be watered > down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current IG > processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. > Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final > paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", > showing that the statement makes a difference between these policies > at different levels. My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by current internet governance processes and practice" seems too sweepingly totalizing. Cheers, Bill____________________________________________________________ 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 8 05:41:38 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:41:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Thanks Lisa for this new version. I am not sure we should name the two Covenants. The point is that there are many other international instruments that also apply (have a look at e.g. http:// www2.ohchr.org/english/law/). Some are even of direct concern in our field of interest. Why naming only ICERD and ICCPR when talking of legally binding instruments? I think it's better to refer to "International human rights instruments". What about these minor changes: > Le 7 sept. 09 à 18:33, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> DRAFT STATEMENT - RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES >> >> [...] >> • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the >> International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights are >> legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have >> a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' >> human rights actively, in the Internet era as before. • INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS are legally binding. Governments ... >> • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. >> It balances different rights against each other to preserve >> individual and public interest. As well as having legally binding >> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for >> addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with >> security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to >> freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >> obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows >> us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that ALSO has practical ...public interest. IN ADDITION TO ITS legally binding ... Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 8 05:49:38 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:49:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > Hi Meryem, > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general enough. >> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >> policies at different levels. > > My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of > national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest > more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get > consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by > current internet governance processes and practice" seems too > sweepingly totalizing. If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable to you and Mc Tim? Meryem____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Sep 8 06:06:44 2009 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:06:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >> Hi Meryem, >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>> enough. >>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>> policies at different levels. >> >> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >> sweepingly totalizing. > > If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > to you and Mc Tim? Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no misunderstanding. Cheers, Bill____________________________________________________________ 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 06:22:31 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:22:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place in the wider Africa, Central Asia, Asia, South Asia, South East Asia & the Pacific and Australasia. Would this be a key point to include in regional IGFs and the IGF itself to help build and lift the capacity of these regions to stimulate country or regional level IGF activities? This would also make clear why some countries that are member of the UN adopt a very radical approach to finishing the Internet Governance Forum like what happened during the last Open Consultations? I feel happy to see that your regions are making good amounts of progress, Brazil and Europe in particular whereas the rest of the world needs some IG related stimulation and capacity building and inclusiveness is a very big area for Internet Governance. It is just like Human Rights that more than 90% population on the planet isn't aware of their human rights. That figure is way over for IG. On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Bertrand, > > Did you get info on the LA&C regional one already (Rio, Aug.11-13)? In > any case, the website is http://www.nupef.org.br/igf/. We hope to get > summary reports in Spanish, Portuguese and English online soon. > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at >> national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the >> IGF. >> >> I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. >> Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard >> about with, if possible, the following information : >> >>    - Title of the event >>    - Date >>    - Location >>    - Main organizers >>    - Address of the web site where more information can be found >> >> This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, and >> we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. >> >> Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa >> regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, >> Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. >> >> >> Thank you in advance for your help. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Tue Sep 8 07:03:45 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:03:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of communications technologies and whether they support or undermine human rights. However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's suggestions about rights instruments. Thanks, Lisa --------------------------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. * International human rights instruments are legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, in the Internet era as before. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >> Hi Meryem, >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>> enough. >>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>> policies at different levels. >> >> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >> sweepingly totalizing. > > If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > to you and Mc Tim? Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no misunderstanding. Cheers, Bill____________________________________________________________ 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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Tue Sep 8 07:05:02 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:05:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <45ed74050909071044m12791111q54703807cba48bc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <45ed74050909071044m12791111q54703807cba48bc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C929@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Linda That sounds like an interesting idea. Would you be able to take the lead with that? It could be a useful illustrative and educational resource. All the best, Lisa From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff Sent: 07 September 2009 18:44 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anja Kovacs Cc: l.d. misek-falkoff; respectful.interfaces at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles ----- respectful interfaces e-memo 090709 ----- Dear Anja and Lisa and All, Just adding a related thought. While we began early on discussing "Rights and Responsibilities," (more melodic than "Rights and Duties"?), with the word "Principles" coming forward it is perhaps timely to suggest a virtue of the earlier phrasing as well - for where the group feels it fits. A reason is that "right" now it is felt that "rights" are being exercised by some 'actors' exlusive of full participation by Civil Society at large. Pointing out that those with rights also have responsibilities, and envisioning for simplification sake a little 4 x 4 chart (or related knowledge representation format) could do some real good work that seems to be desired across the broad base here. Warm regards to all and all laboring on USA's labor day, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D). Internet ARPAnet fwd. 2007Candidate GAID. Other Affiliations on Request. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, rather than including it in a written statement already now. I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country like France as much as it would, say, China. Cheers, Anja On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 07:30 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Lisa, Thanks! > > I like your suggestion that the IRP be given the opportunity to work > with all main sessions, and offer to work with all others--perhaps by > posting guidelines or suggestions to them by email or a link on the > IGF page. > > I would appreciate it if you can propose a short statement on the list > as soon as possible for comment and discussion. > > Here is the April IGC statement: > > IGC Submission - April 2009: > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus. > > The Internet Governance Caucus continues to support "Internet Rights > and Principles" as a major theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead > to discourse at the IGF meetings moving 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 > importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet > governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to > access the content and applications of their choice. This is in > keeping with current debates regarding an "open Internet", and > relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality > discussions. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination of the principles that should govern > the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets. > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi > > > > In terms of practical suggestions, I wonder if it's worth suggesting > > that the IGC (and/or IRP coalition) is given the opportunity to work > > with all main session panel coordinators, panelists and moderators > > to ensure that the human rights dimension of the subject matter at > > hand is considered in all panel sessions. In my mind, human rights > > are relevant to all of them (access, diversity, critical resources > > etc), both in terms of the protection of human rights standards and > > in terms of making sure that the internet supports the positive > > dimensions of human rights and development (access to information, > > education, resources etc). (We'd also need some internal > > organisation amongst us to attend and contribute to sessions to > > ensure that rights dimensions are included in discussions). > > > > The human rights framework can also be used to balance competing > > "public interest" concerns, for example between security and freedom > > of expression, and contains specific guidance on when it is > > acceptable to limit certain rights in the name of protecting others. > > We could ask for such guidelines to be used or borne in mind in > > relevant discussions. > > > > We could also call for some space in the "emerging issues" session > > to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles" in the context > > of internet governance, drawing on discussions held in the regional > > and international IGF. This would address the issue of "righst and > > principles" being rejected as a main session due to a lack of > > consensus about its meaning. > > > > Finally, we could call for space in the "Internet governance in the > > light of WSIS principles" session to reflect on the extent to which > > the IGF has reflected the WSIS recognition of the centrality of > > human rights to the information society. > > What do people think? > > > > NB, after today I'm away for a few days, but would be happy to draft > > a short statement when I'm back next week. I can't find the > > statement that we submitted in April - does anyone have a copy or > > know where to find it? > > > > All the best, > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Fri 28/08/2009 11:57 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > > principles for upcoming IGF OC > > > > > > Hi Lisa and all, > > I was thinking of a similar statement to Lisa's and the IGC > > statement in April. Normally we submit the statement by email so the > > translators have a copy, but it should also be read at the meeting. > > Since this meeting is specifically for planning of the workshops and > > agenda, it should offer specific suggestions in support of all > > rights related events (the IRP workshop, for instance) and its > > inclusion, if too late for this year, in laying the groundwork for > > next year. Personally, I think that if it is short, concise and to > > the point people retain the message better. > > Thanks for coming back to this, > > Ginger > > > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response to this. What kind of statement were you thinking of Ginger? Something to submit by email, or feed in orally to the Geneva planning meeting? > > > > > > Do people feel that it should be something different to the statement that Anja put together a couple of weeks ago (pasted below). Maybe we want to include specific rights and issues - we started with free expression, and Katitiza emphasised the importance of privacy. We might also want to link it to what's already been proposed for the "security, openness and privacy" session (also pasted below) - does anyone have any specific comments on what's been proposed so far? > > > > > > Just to note again, the IRP coalition is meeting in Geneva on Sunday 13th - all are welcome, in person and virtually. > > > > > > All the best, > > > Lisa > > > > > > Previous statement: > > > > > > The undersigned would like to express their surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so . > > > > > > The proposed IGF session: > > > > > > > > > Security, Openness and Privacy: > > > > > > > > > > > > The discussion of this cluster of issues will be the focus of the afternoon of the second day. It will be introduced by a compact panel of practitioners to set the stage for the discussion and bring out options for how to deal with the policy and practical choices related to the different clusters of issues. The discussion should cover practical aspects of the coordination needed to secure the network (e.g. to fight spam) and their relationship to issues pertaining to openness (e.g. ensuring the open architecture of the Internet). > > > > > > > > > > > > Issues to be discussed will include: > > > > > > > > > > > > * The respect for privacy as a business advantage; > > > > > > * Identity theft, identity fraud, and information leakage. > > > > > > * Web 2.0; > > > > > > * Social networks; > > > > > > * Cloud computing and privacy, e.g. control of one's own data and data retention; > > > > > > * Cultural and technical perspectives on the regulation of illegal Web contents; > > > > > > * Regulatory models for privacy; > > > > > > * Ensuring the open architecture of the Internet; > > > > > > * Net Neutrality; > > > > > > * Enabling frameworks for freedom; > > > > > > * Ethical dimensions of the Internet. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sun 23/08/2009 15:01 > > > To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > > > Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles for upcoming IGF OC > > > > > > > > > This article from "New Scientist" gives a good overview of the importance of the Internet for Communication, and the need to keep it as a "free space". While we may disagree on any specific topic, I think we all agree on the general idea that freedom of expression and communication must be protected. Internet Governance is an important tool for that protection, as it can strategize across borders. It reminds me that I think that the the IGC should take a strong stance on the issue of Internet rights. There will be Open Consultations for the IGF in Geneva in September. I think we should have a short, concise statement of support for rights and principles to be emphasized in the agenda at Sharm El Sheikh. It is probably too late to make any significant changes to the agenda, but I think it is important to keep our point in the discussion, even if it is just in laying the groundwork for next year. > > > > > > Any thoughts, suggestions, comments? Can someone propose a working draft? > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.100-worldwide-battle-rage s-for-control-of-the-internet.html?full=true&print=true > > > > > > > > > > > > WHEN thousands of protestors took to the streets in Iran following this year's disputed presidential election, Twitter messages sent by activists let the world know about the brutal policing that followed. A few months earlier, campaigners in Moldova used Facebook to organise protests against the country's communist government, and elsewhere too the internet is playing an increasing role in political dissent. > > > > > > **Now governments are trying to regain control. By reinforcing their efforts to monitor activity online, they hope to deprive dissenters of information and the ability to communicate.** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4361 (20090823) __________ > > > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 07:24:56 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:54:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA63F08.2070404@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Sep 8 07:33:20 2009 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:33:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. Best, Meryem Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > Hi all > > I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > which can limit access to information and expression. > Organisations and individuals who are involved in technological > design and standard setting also need to be aware of their impact > on the nature of communications technologies and whether they > support or undermine human rights. > > However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > > "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > > New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > suggestions about rights instruments. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > --------------------------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > rights and associated principles have received very little > attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > in the Internet era as before. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for > addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with > security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to > freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations > of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive > the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation > of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they > deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit > consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect > fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy > principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and experts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >> >>> Hi Meryem, >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>> enough. >>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>> policies at different levels. >>> >>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>> sweepingly totalizing. >> >> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >> to you and Mc Tim? > > Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > misunderstanding. > > Cheers, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From shahzad at bytesforall.net Tue Sep 8 07:37:58 2009 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:37:58 +0600 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: PTA Orders Monitoring of Telephony (data and voice) Traffic Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Here goes the privacy...and privacy rights of Pakistani Citizens ;)))) The proposed monitoring system will have following features: (a) Capability to monitor, control, measure and record traffic in real-time; (b) Capability for complete signaling record, including but not limited for billing; (c) Capability to accurately measure the quality of service; (d) A complete list of the Pakistani customers; and (e) Complete details of capacity leased by the licensee(s) to their customers. "interesting" Thought that following 5 page document at the PTA website will be of interest to you: http://www.pta.gov.pk/media/draft_tel_traffic_reg_09_1.pdf Thanks and best wishes Shahzad Ahmad Bytesforall, Pakistan Pakistan ICT Policy Monitors Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 07:44:40 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:44:40 -0200 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place > in the wider Africa, I am reading this mail at the East African IGF. There is another coming up for West Africa soon. Bertrand asked for replies off list, so that's what I gave him. Pls don't assume hat silence means that nothing is happening. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Sep 8 07:56:51 2009 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:56:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place >> in the wider Africa, > > >I am reading this mail at the East African IGF. There is another >coming up for West Africa soon. > >Bertrand asked for replies off list, so that's what I gave him. > >Pls don't assume hat silence means that nothing is happening. > and the East Africa IGF is the outcome of national IGF processes in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. Bertrand, I'll try to get information for you about Burundi and Rwanda. Adam >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >____________________________________________________________ >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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 08:07:53 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:07:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >> Hi Meryem, >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on the table >>> at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general enough. >>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be watered down, >>> then we could says "... threatened by SOME current IG processes and >>> practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final paragraph >>> mentions "global, regional and national policiies", showing that the >>> statement makes a difference between these policies at different levels. >> >> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >> national level government censorship.  If you'd like to suggest more >> encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get consensus on it feel >> free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by current internet governance >> processes and practice" seems too sweepingly totalizing. > > If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no misunderstanding, > and have the statement simply says "... threatened by SOME OF THE current IG > processes and practice". Is that agreeable to you and Mc Tim? As bill says, there is still room for confusion. If we want to name and shame, let's do it. I was happy with bills language. Otherwise, let's strike the para. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 8 08:40:23 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:10:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA650B7.50903@itforchange.net> Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of communications technologies and whether they support or undermine human rights. > > However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > > "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > Meryem's objection to limiting negative references vis a vis rights violation to governmental policies at the national levels alone still remains valid. Why should we not mention as of being particular concern also the acts of corporate entities as well as other actors both at the national and global levels. I have no doubt that that these are some of the most crucial concerns vis a vis peoples rights in the emerging information society. Also have some problem with saying something is threatened by 'internet governance processes' - looking like governance as a category may be problematic vis a vis non-governance, which is a strongly held ideological stance of many which I find very problematic. Practices of 'non-governance' are often at least as dangerous, if not more, and financial crisis should taught this to us clearly. Would prefer to change the above to "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of some actors vis a vis the Internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." parminder > New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's suggestions about rights instruments. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > --------------------------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > * International human rights instruments are legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, in the Internet era as before. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >> >> >>> Hi Meryem, >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>> enough. >>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>> policies at different levels. >>>> >>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>> sweepingly totalizing. >>> >> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >> to you and Mc Tim? >> > > Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > misunderstanding. > > Cheers, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Sep 8 08:47:39 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:47:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the national level." --c.a. Meryem Marzouki wrote: > This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. > Best, > Meryem > > Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> Hi all >> >> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think >> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the >> culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in >> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or >> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright >> which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations >> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard >> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of >> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine >> human rights. >> >> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance >> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit >> enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: >> >> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the >> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." >> >> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's >> suggestions about rights instruments. >> >> Thanks, >> Lisa >> >> --------------------------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the >> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human >> rights and associated principles have received very little attention >> at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the >> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance >> these opportunities. >> * International human rights instruments are legally binding. >> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation >> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, >> in the Internet era as before. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It >> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual >> and public interest. In addition to its legally binding >> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing >> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states >> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights >> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human >> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of >> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve >> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration >> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental >> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an >> open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned >> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main >> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >> principles >> >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> >>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >>> >>>> Hi Meryem, >>>> >>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>>> >>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>>> enough. >>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>>> policies at different levels. >>>> >>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>>> sweepingly totalizing. >>> >>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >>> to you and Mc Tim? >> >> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no >> misunderstanding. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 09:06:38 2009 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:06:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA version. rgds, McTim On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > national level." > > --c.a. > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the >>> culprits is an important one.  Companies are obviously involved in >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright >>> which can limit access to information and expression.  Organisations >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine >>> human rights. >>> >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead.  How about: >>> >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." >>> >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's >>> suggestions about rights instruments. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lisa >>> >>> --------------------------------------- >>> >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) >>> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >>> rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention >>> at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: >>> >>> *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. >>> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance >>> these opportunities. >>> *    International human rights instruments are legally binding. >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, >>> in the Internet era as before. >>> *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value.  It >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual >>> and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >>> expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve >>> as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an >>> open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >>> experts. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >>> principles >>> >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hi Meryem, >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>>>> enough. >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>>>> policies at different levels. >>>>> >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>>>> national level government censorship.  If you'd like to suggest >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. >>>> >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >>>> to you and Mc Tim? >>> >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no >>> misunderstanding. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Sep 8 09:11:55 2009 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:11:55 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <23E4E75C-7F38-4A87-B782-3CAEB1093827@ras.eu.org> <1251994165.17669.121.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C8C7@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA56932.8080609@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi, thank you for the spirited discussion so far. May I just suggest a slightly different language for § 3, which highlights the international human rights acquis (new language between asterisks) * International human rights ***, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.*** ***The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation*** of ***states*** having ratified these instruments ***to respect, protect, implement*** the human rights ***of their citizens***. As Parminder: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of ***a growing number of divergent actors***, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." Kind regards Matthias -- Matthias C. Kettemann Harvard LL.M. Class of 2010 29 Garden St, Apt # 604 Cambridge, MA 02138, USA M | +1 617 229 9015 E | mkettemann at llm10.law.harvard.edu Skype | matthiaskettemann Facebook | http://www.facebook.com/matthias.kettemann -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] Gesendet: Di 08.09.2009 13:33 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. Best, Meryem Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > Hi all > > I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > which can limit access to information and expression. > Organisations and individuals who are involved in technological > design and standard setting also need to be aware of their impact > on the nature of communications technologies and whether they > support or undermine human rights. > > However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > > "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > > New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > suggestions about rights instruments. > > Thanks, > Lisa > > --------------------------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > rights and associated principles have received very little > attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > in the Internet era as before. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for > addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with > security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to > freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations > of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive > the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation > of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they > deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit > consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect > fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy > principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and experts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >> >>> Hi Meryem, >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>> enough. >>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>> policies at different levels. >>> >>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest >>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>> sweepingly totalizing. >> >> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >> to you and Mc Tim? > > Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > misunderstanding. > > Cheers, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 10:32:06 2009 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:32:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> <4AA56F03.5070203@cafonso.ca> <701af9f70909080322j1d707eb3kc15ba328e51f60db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0909080732p576182f9x1525e6a799b1d03c@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Adam, I have kenya, tanzania and uganda dates but not the organizers and a web page. Best Bertrand On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>> Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place >>> in the wider Africa, >>> >> >> >> I am reading this mail at the East African IGF. There is another >> coming up for West Africa soon. >> >> Bertrand asked for replies off list, so that's what I gave him. >> >> Pls don't assume hat silence means that nothing is happening. >> >> > > and the East Africa IGF is the outcome of national IGF processes in > Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. > > Bertrand, I'll try to get information for you about Burundi and Rwanda. > > Adam > > > -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 8 12:37:03 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Past Wrongs - Redress - respectful human interface Message-ID: <651519.57446.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Woman's day. Childrens day.   Black man in the West. Caste system in the East. Native American Indian,(No.pole to So. pole). Laborer.   I am a priviledged White Male American. I am a respectful yet not too old 51 years. My skin and high cheek bones make me quite acceptable in most surroundings. Yet as a child I was often derided because I was illigitimate, white in a non-white environment and worst of all I was very smart and loved to learn & read.   As we move forward in Internet Governance it is my hope that we eschew reverse discrimination to make things better and to not go backwards.  But we instead pay special attention to these special days in honor of those who suffered for us. And that we do this in order that the past is not forgotten and that the lessons of hatred and bias are not ignored. Let us not be ColorBlind but instead ColorGlorious. Never negative and retaliatory but always positive and a raising up not tearing down.   My five 20 something children already are forgetting and it is my duty to remind and teach them. Not just to remember and not repeat but to blast into the future with firm conviction and complete abandon and a total willingness not to sit idle. If we cloister and form groups like IGFs and NCUCs let us always strive for acceptance and equality. With the birth of my youngest next year I will never miss the chance to explain the beauty of diversity and I hope we here can promote that concept in Internet Governance. My country and the UN do it by have special "Days" as above. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From charityg at diplomacy.edu Tue Sep 8 12:38:59 2009 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:38:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bertrand, We had the IG *Pulong *("*pulong*" is a Tagalog word that means "*forum*" or "*meeting*") last February 24, 2009 in Manila during the APNIC 27 and organized by ISOC Philippines Chapter. But let me sum up the event below: - Title of the event - Internet Governance Pulong (IGP) - Date - February 24, 2009 - Location - Hotel Sofitel, Manila, Philippines - Main organizers - ISOC Philippines Chapter, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) 27, Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT 2009) - Address of the web site where more information can be found - http://isoc.ph/portal/2009/04/isoc-philippines-at-apnic-27-meeting/ ISOC PH will have an information campaign on IGF and Remote Participation and we are trying to "insert" it in some local ICT conventions/conferences. I cannot give you the exact details yet because we are still planning and finalizing with other organizers. But I can update you on this later on. Thanks! Regards, Charity G. Embley Chairperson- IGF Working Group, ISOC Philippines On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at > national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the > IGF. > > I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. > Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard > about with, if possible, the following information : > > - Title of the event > - Date > - Location > - Main organizers > - Address of the web site where more information can be found > > This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, > and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. > > Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West Africa > regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, > Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to duplicate. > > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 8 12:44:03 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <856351.15327.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> My concurrence in McTims remarks.   I believe in this situation an asterik is appropriate. Then not rewording or redrafting but simply linking to this thread.  When good people publicly air their concerns and have respectful debate on an issue it should be shared. It also may be repeated but understanding will be better with a bit of history.   We cannot ignore that some differences exist between countries and rights. It is not helpful to always criticize or attack.  But it is never helpful to pretend that it does not exist. --- On Tue, 9/8/09, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 1:06 PM This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA version. rgds, McTim On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > national level." > > --c.a. > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the >>> culprits is an important one.  Companies are obviously involved in >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright >>> which can limit access to information and expression.  Organisations >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine >>> human rights. >>> >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead.  How about: >>> >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." >>> >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's >>> suggestions about rights instruments. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Lisa >>> >>> --------------------------------------- >>> >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) >>> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >>> rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention >>> at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: >>> >>> *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. >>> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance >>> these opportunities. >>> *    International human rights instruments are legally binding. >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, >>> in the Internet era as before. >>> *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value.  It >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual >>> and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >>> expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve >>> as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an >>> open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >>> experts. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >>> principles >>> >>> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hi Meryem, >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >>>>>> enough. >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >>>>>> policies at different levels. >>>>> >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >>>>> national level government censorship.  If you'd like to suggest >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. >>>> >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >>>> to you and Mc Tim? >>> >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no >>> misunderstanding. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> >>> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ >>> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >>> >>> http://www.eset.com >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 8 19:02:10 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 18:02:10 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Message-ID: <18805727.1252450931086.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 19:52:07 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:52:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] Important: webcast trial for Open Consultations Tomorrow (13:00 GMT) Message-ID: Dear all, I forward an invitation from the IGF Secretariat. As you know the next Open Consultations will take place on 16 and 17/09, in Geneva. *The Secretariat will be testing the webcast of the Open Consultations tomorrow* (Wednesday, Sep. 09) throughout the day. They would like as many people as possible to *connect at the same time, 13:00 GMT* (15:00 Geneva time), so they will be able to test the robustness of the system. The link is: http://www.ebu.ch/en/tools/webcam/ Note: installation of Real Player is required. Everybody who takes part in the trial can send feedback to igf at unog.ch Our participation is very important to improve the quality of the webcast in future events. Please forward this message to your contacts that may be interested. Best wishes! Marilia Maciel Remote Participation Working Group Original message: We are testing the webcasting facilities for the September meeting at the EBU and we would like stress test it. It will be live all day tomorrow and we would like as many people as possible to visit the site at 3pm Geneva time to see if it can take many connections. Unfortunately, you do need realplayer to view the webcast which can be downloaded at http://www.real.com/ the link to the trail webcast is : http://www.ebu.ch/en/tools/webcam/ Please tell as many people as you can Thanks for your help. -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From anja at cis-india.org Tue Sep 8 22:48:20 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:18:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> Hi all, I prefer Parminder's formulation as reworked by Matthias minus the word "divergent", so that it reads: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of a growing number of actors, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." Cheers, Anja On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:06 -0200, McTim wrote: > This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I > find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA > version. > > rgds, > McTim > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > > national level." > > > > --c.a. > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. > >> Best, > >> Meryem > >> > >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > >>> culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > >>> which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations > >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard > >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of > >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine > >>> human rights. > >>> > >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > >>> > >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > >>> > >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > >>> suggestions about rights instruments. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Lisa > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > >>> > >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > >>> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention > >>> at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > >>> > >>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > >>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > >>> these opportunities. > >>> * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > >>> in the Internet era as before. > >>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > >>> and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing > >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security > >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > >>> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states > >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights > >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of > >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve > >>> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental > >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an > >>> open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main > >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all > >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > >>> experts. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > >>> principles > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Meryem, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on > >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general > >>>>>> enough. > >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be > >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current > >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. > >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final > >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", > >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these > >>>>>> policies at different levels. > >>>>> > >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of > >>>>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest > >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get > >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by > >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too > >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. > >>>> > >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > >>>> to you and Mc Tim? > >>> > >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > >>> misunderstanding. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From hempalshrestha at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 01:29:21 2009 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:14:21 +0545 Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0909070741g4a3c5ac0gb59e88f127dd67a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Here also in Nepal we have an informal IGF forum. This forum had and one day interaction program on IG last year jointly organized with the High Level commission for IT, Govt of Nepal. This is a group of people who cut across various sector and organization in Nepal, including private companies, development organization, media organization and ISPs. Also, most of these members are part of the ISOC Nepal initiative also Best Regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Hi Bertrand, > > We had the IG *Pulong *("*pulong*" is a Tagalog word that means "*forum*" > or "*meeting*") last February 24, 2009 in Manila during the APNIC 27 and > organized by ISOC Philippines Chapter. But let me sum up the event below: > > > - Title of the event - Internet Governance Pulong (IGP) > - Date - February 24, 2009 > - Location - Hotel Sofitel, Manila, Philippines > - Main organizers - ISOC Philippines Chapter, Asia Pacific Network > Information Centre (APNIC) 27, Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on > Operational Technologies (APRICOT 2009) > - Address of the web site where more information can be found - > http://isoc.ph/portal/2009/04/isoc-philippines-at-apnic-27-meeting/ > > ISOC PH will have an information campaign on IGF and Remote Participation > and we are trying to "insert" it in some local ICT conventions/conferences. > I cannot give you the exact details yet because we are still planning and > finalizing with other organizers. But I can update you on this later on. > > Thanks! > > Regards, > Charity G. Embley > Chairperson- IGF Working Group, ISOC Philippines > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We are trying to collate an extensive list of the various initiatives at >> national and regional levels that took place in 2009 in preparation of the >> IGF. >> >> I sollicit your help in making this list as comprehensive as possible. >> Please indicate the initiatives you have initiated, participated in or heard >> about with, if possible, the following information : >> >> - Title of the event >> - Date >> - Location >> - Main organizers >> - Address of the web site where more information can be found >> >> This information can be sent to me offlist to prevent clogging the list, >> and we'll collate it in a single document to be circulated afterwards. >> >> Information about the Carribean, Latin America, East Africa and West >> Africa regional events, as well as national events in Tanzania, Uganda, >> Kenya, Italy and the US are already gathered, so there is no no need to >> duplicate. >> >> Thank you in advance for your help. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >> Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint >> Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Sep 9 05:20:28 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:20:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all Thanks for everyone's constructive comments on the statement. I've pasted a new version (4) below. I guess we should try to move to consensus on this soon, so please could everyone make any further comments and edits by 09.00 CET tomorrow (Thursday 9th September). We can then send out a call for consensus to ask if we all support the statement (and ask the DCs), and get it submitted on Friday (if that's not too late?). All the best, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V4). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that also has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 09 September 2009 03:48 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all, I prefer Parminder's formulation as reworked by Matthias minus the word "divergent", so that it reads: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of a growing number of actors, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." Cheers, Anja On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:06 -0200, McTim wrote: > This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I > find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA > version. > > rgds, > McTim > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > > national level." > > > > --c.a. > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. > >> Best, > >> Meryem > >> > >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > >>> culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > >>> which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations > >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard > >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of > >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine > >>> human rights. > >>> > >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > >>> > >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > >>> > >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > >>> suggestions about rights instruments. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Lisa > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > >>> > >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > >>> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention > >>> at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > >>> > >>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > >>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > >>> these opportunities. > >>> * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > >>> in the Internet era as before. > >>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > >>> and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing > >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security > >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > >>> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states > >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights > >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of > >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve > >>> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental > >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an > >>> open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main > >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all > >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > >>> experts. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > >>> principles > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Meryem, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on > >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general > >>>>>> enough. > >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be > >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current > >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. > >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final > >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", > >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these > >>>>>> policies at different levels. > >>>>> > >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of > >>>>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest > >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get > >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by > >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too > >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. > >>>> > >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > >>>> to you and Mc Tim? > >>> > >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > >>> misunderstanding. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dcogburn at syr.edu Wed Sep 9 06:15:24 2009 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:15:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter Amendment Vote Message-ID: <0745A882-B12E-4697-A026-D36C40D2317F@syr.edu> Dear IGC Colleagues, As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). Cheers, Derrick Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University http://cotelco.syr.edu ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 9 06:28:46 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: <0745A882-B12E-4697-A026-D36C40D2317F@syr.edu> Message-ID: Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent voted yet- Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may not pass. Participation is really needed here! Thanks, Ian Peter On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: > Dear IGC Colleagues, > > As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have > received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active > until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. > > I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not > yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have > received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). > > Cheers, > Derrick > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > Syracuse University > http://cotelco.syr.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 From siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com Wed Sep 9 06:32:06 2009 From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:32:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: References: <0745A882-B12E-4697-A026-D36C40D2317F@syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Ian, I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for voting or no? Best Siranush Vardanyan Armenia > Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 > From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter > > Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent > voted yet- > > Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just > leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who > received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 > seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may > not pass. Participation is really needed here! > > Thanks, > > > Ian Peter > > > > > On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: > > > Dear IGC Colleagues, > > > > As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have > > received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active > > until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. > > > > I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not > > yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have > > received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). > > > > Cheers, > > Derrick > > > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > > Syracuse University > > http://cotelco.syr.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photo-gallery-edit.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com Wed Sep 9 06:33:22 2009 From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:33:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: References: <0745A882-B12E-4697-A026-D36C40D2317F@syr.edu> Message-ID: Sorry for spamming, I didn't mean to send this e-mail to the list, this was just for Ian. Thanks for understanding Siranush From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:32:06 +0000 Subject: RE: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter Dear Ian, I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for voting or no? Best Siranush Vardanyan Armenia > Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 > From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter > > Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent > voted yet- > > Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just > leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who > received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 > seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may > not pass. Participation is really needed here! > > Thanks, > > > Ian Peter > > > > > On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: > > > Dear IGC Colleagues, > > > > As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have > > received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active > > until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. > > > > I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not > > yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have > > received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). > > > > Cheers, > > Derrick > > > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn > > Syracuse University > > http://cotelco.syr.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. _________________________________________________________________ Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 9 06:37:49 2009 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:37:49 +1000 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Siranush, let me follow that up. You are on the list of those eligible to vote, and the email address of this posting is registered to receive a ballot. I¹ll follow that up and get back to you off list. On 9/09/09 8:32 PM, "Siranush Vardanyan" wrote: > Dear Ian, > > I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus > members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for > voting or no? > > Best > > Siranush Vardanyan > Armenia > >> > Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 >> > From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter >> > >> > Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent >> > voted yet- >> > >> > Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just >> > leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who >> > received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 >> > seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may >> > not pass. Participation is really needed here! >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > >> > Ian Peter >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: >> > >>> > > Dear IGC Colleagues, >>> > > >>> > > As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have >>> > > received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active >>> > > until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. >>> > > >>> > > I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not >>> > > yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have >>> > > received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). >>> > > >>> > > Cheers, >>> > > Derrick >>> > > >>> > > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >>> > > Syracuse University >>> > > http://cotelco.syr.edu >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > > 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 > > > With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. > y-edit.aspx> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 06:40:12 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:40:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: I would suggest that the last paragraph should be changed in the second line to read "... so that these standards" rather than "... so that they" as below. The requirements of grammar allow you to add emphasis :-) Deirdre > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that these standards are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. 2009/9/9 Lisa Horner : > Hi all > > Thanks for everyone's constructive comments on the statement.  I've pasted a new version (4) below.  I guess we should try to move to consensus on this soon, so please could everyone make any further comments and edits by 09.00 CET tomorrow (Thursday 9th September).  We can then send out a call for consensus to ask if we all support the statement (and ask the DCs), and get it submitted on Friday (if that's not too late?). > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V4). > >  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: > > •       Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > •       The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > •       International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > •       The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that also has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 09 September 2009 03:48 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Hi all, > > I prefer Parminder's formulation as reworked by Matthias minus the word > "divergent", so that it reads: > > "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by > actions and policies of a growing number of actors, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels." > > Cheers, > Anja > > On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:06 -0200, McTim wrote: >> This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I >> find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA >> version. >> >> rgds, >> McTim >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular >> > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the >> > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the >> > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the >> > national level." >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. >> >> Best, >> >> Meryem >> >> >> >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : >> >> >> >>> Hi all >> >>> >> >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think >> >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the >> >>> culprits is an important one.  Companies are obviously involved in >> >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or >> >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright >> >>> which can limit access to information and expression.  Organisations >> >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard >> >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of >> >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine >> >>> human rights. >> >>> >> >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance >> >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit >> >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead.  How about: >> >>> >> >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >> >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >> >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." >> >>> >> >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's >> >>> suggestions about rights instruments. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Lisa >> >>> >> >>> --------------------------------------- >> >>> >> >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) >> >>> >> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >> >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human >> >>> rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the >> >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human >> >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention >> >>> at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: >> >>> >> >>> *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >> >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet >> >>> governance processes and practices.  Of particular concern are the >> >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. >> >>> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >> >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >> >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance >> >>> these opportunities. >> >>> *    International human rights instruments are legally binding. >> >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation >> >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, >> >>> in the Internet era as before. >> >>> *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value.  It >> >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual >> >>> and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding >> >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing >> >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security >> >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of >> >>> expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states >> >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights >> >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >> >>> >> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human >> >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of >> >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve >> >>> as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration >> >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental >> >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an >> >>> open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned >> >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main >> >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all >> >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and >> >>> experts. >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 >> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki >> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and >> >>> principles >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi Meryem, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on >> >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general >> >>>>>> enough. >> >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be >> >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current >> >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. >> >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final >> >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", >> >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these >> >>>>>> policies at different levels. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of >> >>>>> national level government censorship.  If you'd like to suggest >> >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get >> >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by >> >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too >> >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. >> >>>> >> >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no >> >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened >> >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable >> >>>> to you and Mc Tim? >> >>> >> >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no >> >>> misunderstanding. >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> >> >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ >> >>> >> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >>> >> >>> http://www.eset.com >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ >> >>> >> >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >>> >> >>> http://www.eset.com >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> 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 > Dr. Anja Kovacs > Fellow > Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 4092 6283 > www.cis-india.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Wed Sep 9 08:37:39 2009 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:37:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <509555.73436.qm@web27807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Adam and all, I am pleased to attend the EA-IGF even if I come late, It was pleasure to see you there. About Burundi National IGF,we made it at the dates of 1-2 Sept 2009 and was among organizers,I ll write to Bertrand about its summary. Hope to find you again , Jean-Yves In Peace, GATETE Jean-Yves --- En date de : Mar 8.9.09, Adam Peake a écrit : De: Adam Peake Objet: Re: [governance] Help needed to list National and regional IGFs À: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Mardi 8 Septembre 2009, 13h56 >On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>  Its interesting to note that there are no regional IGFs taking place >>  in the wider Africa, > > >I am reading this mail at the East African IGF.  There is another >coming up for West Africa soon. > >Bertrand asked for replies off list, so that's what I gave him. > >Pls don't assume hat silence means  that nothing is happening. > and the East Africa IGF is the outcome of national IGF processes in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. Bertrand, I'll try to get information for you about Burundi and Rwanda. Adam >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel >____________________________________________________________ >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: -------------- 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 From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Wed Sep 9 09:58:23 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:58:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <777E909F-20B1-4F64-8E66-C5849B594DB8@graduateinstitute.ch> <92F363B0-9935-438F-8F35-F57FF4394A76@graduateinstitute.ch> <794F92CD-17EF-417D-91CD-72EF4D318197@ras.eu.org> <09E692DE-F8C6-4541-A4E0-361EEB99FDC1@graduateinstitute.ch> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C925@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <9207D4F8-0E34-4B01-A7F9-20933440247C@ras.eu.org> <4AA6526B.1000002@cafonso.ca> <1252464500.1943.7.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025C9DC@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Dear Lisa, please find enclosed your draft statement, which I basically appreciate very much, with some suggestions from my side however based on the 3rd version, also in track mode. In particular, am not clear what the last sentence means in practice. DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to the human rights dimension of the issues discussed. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, education or the right to development are threatened by some internet governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the policies that some governments are pursuing at the national level regarding access to the internet. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. * International human rights instruments are legally binding. Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, offline and in the Internet. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. (?) Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Institute for International Law and International Relations Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43 316 380 3411 Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 09. September 2009 11:20 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all Thanks for everyone's constructive comments on the statement. I've pasted a new version (4) below. I guess we should try to move to consensus on this soon, so please could everyone make any further comments and edits by 09.00 CET tomorrow (Thursday 9th September). We can then send out a call for consensus to ask if we all support the statement (and ask the DCs), and get it submitted on Friday (if that's not too late?). All the best, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V4). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received very little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: • Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. • International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. • The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that also has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: 09 September 2009 03:48 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Hi all, I prefer Parminder's formulation as reworked by Matthias minus the word "divergent", so that it reads: "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation and education are strongly threatened by actions and policies of a growing number of actors, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels." Cheers, Anja On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:06 -0200, McTim wrote: > This is a red letter day, not only does Carlos agree with me, but I > find that PJS formulation is ok!! Having said that, I prefer the CA > version. > > rgds, > McTim > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > I agree with McTim's concern, and would suggest that "Of particular > > concern are the policies that many governments are pursuing at the > > national level" be replaced by "Of particular concern are the > > restrictive policies that several governments are pursuing at the > > national level." > > > > --c.a. > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> This v.3 is fine with me. Thanks Lisa. > >> Best, > >> Meryem > >> > >> Le 8 sept. 09 à 13:03, Lisa Horner a écrit : > >> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> I agree that the original wording was too sweeping, but also think > >>> that Meryem's point that it's not just governments who are the > >>> culprits is an important one. Companies are obviously involved in > >>> online censorship and privacy violations, whether wittingly or > >>> unwittingly, and many are pushing for overly restrictive copyright > >>> which can limit access to information and expression. Organisations > >>> and individuals who are involved in technological design and standard > >>> setting also need to be aware of their impact on the nature of > >>> communications technologies and whether they support or undermine > >>> human rights. > >>> > >>> However, as has already been discussed, we need to strike a balance > >>> between a general, awareness-raising statement and being explicit > >>> enough so as not to confuse/mislead. How about: > >>> > >>> "Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level." > >>> > >>> New draft statement 3 pasted below, incorporating Meryem's > >>> suggestions about rights instruments. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Lisa > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> DRAFT STATEMENT (v.3) > >>> > >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > >>> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > >>> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the > >>> centrality of human rights in the information society, but human > >>> rights and associated principles have received very little attention > >>> at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: > >>> > >>> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > >>> expression, privacy and education are threatened by some internet > >>> governance processes and practices. Of particular concern are the > >>> policies that many governments are pursuing at the national level. > >>> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > >>> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > >>> knowledge and resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > >>> these opportunities. > >>> * International human rights instruments are legally binding. > >>> Governments who have signed these covenants have a legal obligation > >>> and responsibility to uphold their citizens' human rights actively, > >>> in the Internet era as before. > >>> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > >>> standards that has also has practical as well as ethical value. It > >>> balances different rights against each other to preserve individual > >>> and public interest. In addition to its legally binding > >>> implications, the framework is therefore a useful tool for addressing > >>> internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security > >>> concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > >>> expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states > >>> and governments, the framework also allows us to derive the rights > >>> and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >>> > >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for human > >>> rights standards to be included in the planning and implementation of > >>> all IGF sessions, so that they are given the attention they deserve > >>> as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > >>> of how global, regional and national policies affect fundamental > >>> rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an > >>> open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main > >>> plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all > >>> stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > >>> experts. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >>> Sent: 08 September 2009 11:07 > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > >>> principles > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 8 sept. 09 à 11:38, William Drake a écrit : > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Meryem, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Such a short statement, which purpose is to put the HR issue on > >>>>>> the table at IGF -- and nothing more -- should remain general > >>>>>> enough. > >>>>>> If there is real and shared insistance that the sentence be > >>>>>> watered down, then we could says "... threatened by SOME current > >>>>>> IG processes and practice". Although this seems obvious.. > >>>>>> Finally, a statement should be read in its globality. The final > >>>>>> paragraph mentions "global, regional and national policiies", > >>>>>> showing that the statement makes a difference between these > >>>>>> policies at different levels. > >>>>> > >>>>> My suggestion pertained to the examples Ginger gave, which were of > >>>>> national level government censorship. If you'd like to suggest > >>>>> more encompassing yet differentiated language and try to get > >>>>> consensus on it feel free, but as McTim notes, "are threatened by > >>>>> current internet governance processes and practice" seems too > >>>>> sweepingly totalizing. > >>>> > >>>> If it seems totalizing, then let's make sure there is no > >>>> misunderstanding, and have the statement simply says "... threatened > >>>> by SOME OF THE current IG processes and practice". Is that agreeable > >>>> to you and Mc Tim? > >>> > >>> Sure it's agreeable, but I doubt it ensures there'll be no > >>> misunderstanding. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4404 (20090907) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > >>> signature database 4405 (20090908) __________ > >>> > >>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > >>> > >>> http://www.eset.com > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFT STATEMENT suggestions Benedek (9 9 ).doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: DRAFT STATEMENT suggestions Benedek (9 9 ).doc URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 9 12:10:50 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:10:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA7D38A.7040505@cafonso.ca> I did not receive any ballot either. --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Siranush, let me follow that up. You are on the list of those eligible to > vote, and the email address of this posting is registered to receive a > ballot. > > I¹ll follow that up and get back to you off list. > > > On 9/09/09 8:32 PM, "Siranush Vardanyan" > wrote: > > >> Dear Ian, >> >> I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus >> members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for >> voting or no? >> >> Best >> >> Siranush Vardanyan >> Armenia >> >> >>>> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 >>>> From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter >>>> >>>> Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent >>>> voted yet- >>>> >>>> Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just >>>> leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who >>>> received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 >>>> seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may >>>> not pass. Participation is really needed here! >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Dear IGC Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have >>>>>> received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active >>>>>> until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not >>>>>> yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have >>>>>> received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Derrick >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >>>>>> Syracuse University >>>>>> http://cotelco.syr.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >> With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. >> > y-edit.aspx> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Sep 9 10:56:52 2009 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:56:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA7C234.7010201@cafonso.ca> Tried to communicate with Ian in a personal message but my email was refused. I did not receive any ballot either. --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: > Siranush, let me follow that up. You are on the list of those eligible to > vote, and the email address of this posting is registered to receive a > ballot. > > I¹ll follow that up and get back to you off list. > > > On 9/09/09 8:32 PM, "Siranush Vardanyan" > wrote: > > >> Dear Ian, >> >> I haven't receive any e-mail for voting, though my name is among IGC Caucus >> members, who said yes to the Charter. Can you clarify, am I eligible now for >> voting or no? >> >> Best >> >> Siranush Vardanyan >> Armenia >> >> >>>> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +1000 >>>> From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Brief Update on the Proposed IGC Caucus Charter >>>> >>>> Folks, let me stress for those of you who have received a ballot and havent >>>> voted yet- >>>> >>>> Charter amendments are not a case where those entitled to vote can just >>>> leave it to those who could be bothered. All eligible voters - everyone who >>>> received a ballot paper - really needs to participate. Please spend 60 >>>> seconds of your time and cast a ballot. Without your vote the amendment may >>>> not pass. Participation is really needed here! >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/09/09 8:15 PM, "Derrick L. Cogburn" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Dear IGC Colleagues, >>>>>> >>>>>> As a brief update on the voting on the IGC Caucus Amendments, we have >>>>>> received 46 responses so far. The ballot is scheduled to be active >>>>>> until 24h00 GMT on Tuesday, 15 September 2009. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have just sent out a reminder email to those of you that have not >>>>>> yet voted (if you have two emails registered on the list, you may have >>>>>> received a reminder as well - in this case, please ignore it). >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Derrick >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn >>>>>> Syracuse University >>>>>> http://cotelco.syr.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >> With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. >> > y-edit.aspx> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 12:37:58 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:37:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > • Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > • The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > • The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Sep 9 12:56:29 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:56:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic as: * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 13:27:15 2009 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:27:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <76f819dd0909091027i15e20755g954841bd2e69d456@mail.gmail.com> Yes, the "legally binding" frame is indeed inserted in the latest draft, you're correct, but nearly all of the other words I pointed as problematic because they suggest or infer optional-ity still remain in the latest draft. I'm suggesting a fix, if you're interested, that one can apply for themselves, in the last paragraph of this short reply. I know that the drafters of this statement "get it", but documents are best interpreted for the raw text they contain (in the abstract), and if, in a manner of speaking, "binding human rights" lack the modest power to revise the wording of the other phrases in the statement that still remain unchanged, then one might infer that they're not really binding, they're more like "standards" "guidelines" and such that can be freely ignored where deemed desirable. (and these latter terms are still used in the statement, and they sound like optional concepts to me, like informal "rules of thumb"). Even the term in the latest draft "gives the required attention to the human rights framework" is easily avoided by reasoning that the "attention due" in this case is precisely nothing. (Though I very highly suspect that's not at all the intent of the drafters) If you see my point, then I suppose anyone can take the "binding" terms from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for example, and use them as a test on the other phrases in the document to see if they all measure up. These are words like "inalienable" "nonderogable" "inviolable", and so on. This constellation of words or concepts will help to rein in the remaining loose inferences that are available to someone not eager to apply human rights and result in a strong, tightly knit document. These loose inferences, not one of them a part of the drafter's intent, are what the opponent lawyers of human rights in some particular context will seize on as ambiguities or holes or escape hatches for what you are actually, I think, wishing to COMMAND (in the name of the law, of course). Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/9/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure >> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention >> at the IGF. This is problematic as: >> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and >> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft >> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From shailam at yahoo.com Wed Sep 9 14:22:24 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to  Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's  regards Shaila     DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, despite this  human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring  these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement  with the organizers of the main plenary sessions  to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing  relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. thanks Shaila   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!                                     ________________________________ From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times.  Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF.  This is problematic as: > *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF IBR edits to V from SM 9-9-09 DRAFT STATEMENT.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29184 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 From shailam at yahoo.com Wed Sep 9 14:32:40 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN...  as in add strength.... not straighten..glad I spotted this !!! shaila Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to  Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's  regards Shaila     DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, despite this  human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring  these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement  with the organizers of the main plenary sessions  to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing  relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. thanks Shaila   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!                                     ________________________________ From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times.  Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF.  This is problematic as: > *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 14:46:46 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:16:46 -0430 Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AA7F816.6090600@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 9 15:06:01 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <4AA7F816.6090600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <840113.91469.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Substantive changes and including what amount to demands in the "Last Second" flurry of activity in creating a document is bad governance.  There are grammatical and spelling and punctuation issues in the document that change meaning.   Your core issues of what do we want this document to accomplish were never settled.  Are you changing a declaration of purpose document now into a demand for Rights document?   Are you now changing a concilliatory tone into a justifiable indignation rant?   Careful what you do with endorsements before and after such changes that effect how affected governments may fund your agenda.   My opinions are clear. I am a fundamentalist purist when it comes to demanding rights.  But I do not seek contributions to fund my agenda. The people that fund me do it because I make them money.  The people that fund your cause do it because they want progress in this area. Are you sure you can make progress by slapping governments in their face and drawing lines in the sand.   I think protests and ranters are better left out of your document. --- On Wed, 9/9/09, Ginger Paque wrote: From: Ginger Paque Subject: Re: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 6:46 PM Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out unequivocally on this topic. I agree. Best, Ginger shaila mistry wrote: Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN...  as in add strength.... not straighten..glad I spotted this !!! shaila     Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested changes to  Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's  regards Shaila     DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, despite this  human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring  these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement  with the organizers of the main plenary sessions  to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing  relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. thanks Shaila   Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!                                      From: Lisa Horner To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an earlier version. I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had today. The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving towards consensus... Thanks, Lisa -------------------- DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society, but human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far.  This is problematic as: *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. The true status of international human rights is more as follows: (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and respecting them at all times.  Ignoring rights and principles, even if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and often deadly quite soon. (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the new context. (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to the Germans). As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two decades. In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain (a) why > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's comments > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to ensure > that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment about > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally think we > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in positive > rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should of > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation of > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and engagement > with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including it in > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include as > guidance for session organizers? > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions for > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult to > incorporate into amendments. > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > All the best, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus. > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention in > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, but > human rights and associated principles have received very little attention > at the IGF.  This is problematic as: > *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and privacy are > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and resources. It > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of standards > that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines on how > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers both > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be addressed > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This should > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer assistance to > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and > experts. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > To: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles > > Dear all, > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week with > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to draft > a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not to > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support for > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only of > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > Cheers, > Anja > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Wed Sep 9 15:39:31 2009 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Wolfgang Benedek) Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:39:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Lisa, I'm fine, also with the latest version, fearing only it is getting too complex to have much impact. See You soon, Wolfgang Am 09.09.09 18:56 schrieb "Lisa Horner" unter : > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure >> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention >> at the IGF. This is problematic as: >> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and >> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft >> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 16:40:11 2009 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:40:11 -0400 Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <4AA7F816.6090600@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA7F816.6090600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74050909091340u7725157ew35c2768c42173933@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ginger and all: Thanks much for sending this statement out (*process*) and for all the good thought and substantive work (*merits*) that went into it. I'd like to look at "The Four Freedoms" which are often cited internationally though penned in a national context (Pres. F. D. Roosevelt) and see how such virtual gold standards fan out to the Rights , Responsibilities, and Principles now sought, claimed, elucidated, and even if partially - achieved.. Freedom of Speech and Expression Freedom of Religion (or Belief Systems) Freedom from Want Freedom from Fear. Hope there are 'takers on this'; With warm regards, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.) for i.d. here: Respectful Interfaces Programme, Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N., World Education Fellowship. Law; Computing; Humanities; cyberspace ARPANet forward. On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft > (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out > unequivocally on this topic. > > I agree. > Best, Ginger > > shaila mistry wrote: > > Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not > straighten..glad I spotted this !!! > shaila > > > > Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. > > Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back > and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. > > I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested > changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the > statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can > present our cause for human rights with greater determination.. > > I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut > and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes > are tracked.Also corrected some typo's > > regards > > Shaila > > > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority > > to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda stronglyreaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, despite this human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights > implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human > rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement with > the > organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines > and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. > > The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as > > renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > thanks > Shaila > > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > > * > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Lisa Horner > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why > > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments > > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure > > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about > > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we > > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive > > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of > > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of > > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement > > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in > > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as > > guidance for session organizers? > > > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for > > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to > > incorporate into amendments. > > > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > -------------------- > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet > > Governance Caucus. > > > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in > > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda > > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but > > human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention > > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are > > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human > > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It > > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards > > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how > > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and > > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both > > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed > > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should > > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, > > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to > > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to > > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and > > experts. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] > > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > > To: governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with > > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft > > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to > > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for > > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of > > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > > > Cheers, > > Anja > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 9 17:57:43 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:57:43 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <24625263.1252533463772.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Carlos and all, Closed door meetings go on all the time on Intranets, some for good reasons and some not, meaning that if public policy issues regarding the Internet are part of the subject matter it would seem more reasonable that those meetings should be pre announced, open to the public, and at a minimum avaliable for public comment before and after the fact. Unfortunately there are some stakeholders that strongly disagree with such a principal. This is unfortunate as such an attitude leads only to distrust, and rightly so. Certainly ICANN has been a catalist for breading such distrust in such a manner accordingly. It now seems that the NCUC is making the same "Noises" in the very same direction internally, while outwardly professing the opposite. Quite a principal paradox, eh? -----Original Message----- >From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >Sent: Sep 5, 2009 6:33 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Milton L Mueller >Cc: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > >It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net >are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite >grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all >closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? > >--c.a. > >Milton L Mueller wrote: >> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale seems incoherent to me. >> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict itself if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >> >> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to Internet Governance is not a good idea... >> >> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >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, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 9 18:07:43 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:07:43 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <18370753.1252534063821.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Avri and all, There are no "Gods" as referred below, never have been. Google's search engine is unique in it's own right, but such does not make it a Internet "God" or "God like" in any fashion. Google's search engine does violate searchers PII, and that is and has been documented so many times I don't believe I can recall the actual number. As such, I nor any of our members will use their search engine. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria >Sent: Sep 6, 2009 8:38 AM >To: Governance/IGC List >Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > > >On 6 Sep 2009, at 01:51, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka >> Google) >> which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who >> pay for >> certain types of advertising services though the same company. > > >I am not disputing this, but am wondering how you know. Has ths been >documented and proven? I may have missed it, but don't remember >seeing it. > >that is not to say I haven't heard the accusation before, I have just >seen seen the evidence. > >Also, calling Google - Mammon is derogatory and refers to evil and to >false gods. it is not the same as saying the secular profit making >search engine. i am not sure whether you meant evil when compared to >the Halal search engine that refers to real gods while google refers >to false gods. or just thought of it as a way to say secular. > >(leaving aside the whole discussion of whether profit is theft and >whether all theft is evil and where gods of good and evil exist >etc ... - all wonderful topics in their opwn right) > >thanks >a. >____________________________________________________________ >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, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 9 18:11:00 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:11:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Halal Search Engine Message-ID: <30015137.1252534260930.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Deirdre and all, Right! Everyone has the right and opertunity to stick their head in the sand, as it were so they do not hear/read/or have knowledge of some expressed, known, or factual information. They do so at their own risk, and sometimes as a result at the risk of others later accordingly. Ergo it is unwise to intently not listen/read/or make onself self aware as possible. -----Original Message----- >From: Deirdre Williams >Sent: Sep 6, 2009 8:44 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine > >Freedom of expression becomes anathema if coupled with compulsion to >"listen". The greatest freedom of all is the freedom to be selective >about what one "hears". It's such a great freedom that I don't think >anyone bothers to write it down, and it's often forgotten in this type >of discussion. Without it "freedom of expression" becomes enslavement >of everyone else. >So everyone may have the right of free expression (which presumably >includes the right to categorise things as more or less "Halal", and >indeed the right to create search engines of all kinds), just so long >as everyone retains the right to withhold attention, and not to use >the search engine if that is their choice. >Deirdre > >2009/9/6 Tijani BEN JEMAA : >> Thank you Ian. You are 100% right. It was not a single case. The distortion >> is general. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Vice Président de la CIC >> Fédération Mondiale des Organisation d'Ingénieurs >> Tél : + 216 98 330 114 >> Fax : + 216 70 860 861 >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] >> Envoyé : dimanche 6 septembre 2009 06:52 >> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso >> Objet : Re: [governance] Halal Search Engine >> >> Doesn't sound much different to me to the Mammon search engine (aka Google) >> which includes in its search algorithms higher ratings for those who pay for >> certain types of advertising services though the same company. >> >> But as we get beyond names for identifying sites to a greater reliance on >> search results there is an issue here as regards truth in search results >> reporting. As the search engine becomes our primary means of identifying >> news or information on any given subject, to what degree should religious or >> political beliefs or monetary considerations of search engine owners play a >> part in the results reported? >> >> We are in danger of becoming like mainstream media here, where these >> distortions are common. I guess we all hoped for something better.... >> >> >> On 6/09/09 9:33 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >>> It seems some of us have suddenly discovered that intranets on the Net >>> are anathema, for whatever reason. I am probably dumb, cannot quite >>> grasp why this has popped up. It seems equivalent to prohibiting all >>> closed doors meetings anywhere. What is going on? >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> By the way, Siva, your apparent rejection of a "rights-based" rationale >> seems >>>> incoherent to me. >>>> On what basis are you challenging the right of a community to restrict >> itself >>>> if not on the basis of rights - of either individuals or groups? >>>> >>>> One of the reasons why I feel that the "rights-based approach" to >> Internet >>>> Governance is not a good idea... >>>> >>>> If "rights" are not a good idea, what is? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 8.5.409 / Base de données virale: 270.13.78/2347 - Date: 09/05/09 >> 05:51:00 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > >-- >“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >____________________________________________________________ >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, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 9 18:27:23 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:27:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Milton is wrong, Segragation is wrong Message-ID: <32436369.1252535243286.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 9 18:29:14 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:29:14 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Re: Respectful Interface Message-ID: <10107505.1252535354878.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 9 18:45:00 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:45:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Google Japan To Help Victims of Street View Abuse Message-ID: <7595877.1252536300878.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, See: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/09/06/0152201 And: "After repeated concerns from Japanese citizens over privacy rights violations involving Street View and a probe by Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, http://www.google.co.jp/ Google Japan has announced that http://www.examiner.com/x-16352-Japan-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m9d4-Google-Japan-fights-concerns-about-Street-View it will help victims of Street View photo abuse take action against offending sites. Google Japan said it would send requests to the sites for removal of maliciously used Street View images. It will also potentially block the site from Google's search engine and consider legal action for those sites which ignore or refuse the request. Action to this extent against secondary-use abusers is reportedly a first in relationship to http://www.google.co.jp/help/maps/streetview/ Google's Street View worldwide." About time IMO. After all Google were the originators of this mess... Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 10 04:37:58 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:07:58 +0530 Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> Shaila thanks for your edit. However regarding the edited text below >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement with the organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would >like to support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. I much prefer the original, which is >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like >to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. I cant see why or how can IGC be offering experts from the private and public sectors. (In any case, I see any person employed in any private enterprise offering expertise that is purely for public interest, and that is completely detached from the interests of the private entity, as doing so in the capacity of a civil society member.) I also prefer the term 'assistance' to 'volunteer active involvement'. Thanks. parminder shaila mistry wrote: > Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not > straighten..glad I spotted this !!! > shaila > > > > Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. > > Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got > back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. > > I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few > suggested changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to > straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I > just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater > determination.. > > I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have > cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the > changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's > > regards > > Shaila > > > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority > > to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly > reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, despite this human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights > implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, > globally. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human > rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active > involvement with the > organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines > and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. > > The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as > > renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > thanks > Shaila > > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > ** > ** > * > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Lisa Horner > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com > ] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Lisa > Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner > wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why > > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments > > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure > > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about > > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we > > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive > > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of > > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of > > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement > > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in > > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as > > guidance for session organizers? > > > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for > > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to > > incorporate into amendments. > > > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > -------------------- > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet > > Governance Caucus. > > > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in > > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda > > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but > > human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention > > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are > > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human > > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It > > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards > > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how > > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and > > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both > > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed > > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should > > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, > > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to > > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to > > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and > > experts. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org > ] > > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > > To: governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with > > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft > > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to > > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for > > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of > > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > > > Cheers, > > Anja > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 10 04:38:12 2009 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:08:12 +0530 Subject: correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AA8BAF4.30704@itforchange.net> Shaila thanks for your edits. However regarding the edited text below >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement with the organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would >like to support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. I much prefer the original, which is >The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like >to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. I cant see why or how can IGC be offering experts from the private and public sectors. (In any case, I see any person employed in any private enterprise offering expertise that is purely for public interest, and that is completely detached from the interests of the private entity, as doing so in the capacity of a civil society member.) I also prefer the term 'assistance' to 'volunteer active involvement'. Thanks. parminder shaila mistry wrote: > Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not > straighten..glad I spotted this !!! > shaila > > > > Hi Lisa and Max and everyone. > > Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got > back and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late. > > I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few > suggested changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to > straightened the statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I > just felt that we can present our cause for human rights with greater > determination.. > > I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have > cut and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the > changes are tracked.Also corrected some typo's > > regards > > Shaila > > > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09 > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority > > to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly > reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, despite this human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights > implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, > globally. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human > rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active > involvement with the > organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines > and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society.. > > The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as > > renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > thanks > Shaila > > > *Life is too short ....challenge the rules*** > > *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly*** > > *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! *** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * > ** > ** > * > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Lisa Horner > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com > ] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Lisa > Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner > wrote: > > Hi all > > > > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why > > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think > > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. > > > > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments > > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure > > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about > > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we > > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive > > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of > > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of > > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement > > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in > > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start > > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as > > guidance for session organizers? > > > > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for > > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to > > incorporate into amendments. > > > > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > -------------------- > > > > DRAFT STATEMENT > > > > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet > > Governance Caucus. > > > > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in > > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda > > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but > > human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention > > at the IGF. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are > > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human > > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It > > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards > > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how > > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and > > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet > > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with > > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both > > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. > > > > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed > > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should > > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, > > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to > > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to > > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and > > experts. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org > ] > > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 > > To: governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > > > Dear all, > > > > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with > > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. > > > > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft > > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of > > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to > > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues > > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, > > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last > > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their > > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for > > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge > > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it > > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this > > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end > > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a > > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can > > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, > > rather than including it in a written statement already now. > > > > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using > > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of > > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but > > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments > > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too > > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country > > like France as much as it would, say, China. > > > > Cheers, > > Anja > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > > database 4389 (20090902) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Thu Sep 10 07:16:47 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:16:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <76f819dd0909091027i15e20755g954841bd2e69d456@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909091027i15e20755g954841bd2e69d456@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA67@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi Paul Whilst human rights are legally binding and inviolable, I do think that the rights "framework" of treaties, covenants and jurisprudence that has built up over the past 60 years can be presented and used as a "positive" tool for making decisions and influencing policy, rather than simply being a case of "negative" compliance. Many people that I've spoken to recently in the government and private sectors have said that they're much more willing to engage with human rights compliance issues when presented in this more positive light. I think coming at it from both directions is important, balancing emphasis on the legally binding and inviolability of human rights with discussions of how human rights can actually help policy makers to make sound and fair decisions. For example, we don't need to start from scratch in discussing how to balance the public interest with individual interest on the internet, as it's already all there in the international human rights framework (which is of course also legally binding). People who were concerned that the legally binding, fundamental aspect of human rights didn't come out strongly enough in the first draft of the statement have indicated that they're now happy with subsequent drafts. So, as it's late in the day now and we have to move for consensus, I hope you don't mind if we leave the statement as it is for now. We can of course continue this discussion on the list. All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 18:27 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Yes, the "legally binding" frame is indeed inserted in the latest draft, you're correct, but nearly all of the other words I pointed as problematic because they suggest or infer optional-ity still remain in the latest draft. I'm suggesting a fix, if you're interested, that one can apply for themselves, in the last paragraph of this short reply. I know that the drafters of this statement "get it", but documents are best interpreted for the raw text they contain (in the abstract), and if, in a manner of speaking, "binding human rights" lack the modest power to revise the wording of the other phrases in the statement that still remain unchanged, then one might infer that they're not really binding, they're more like "standards" "guidelines" and such that can be freely ignored where deemed desirable. (and these latter terms are still used in the statement, and they sound like optional concepts to me, like informal "rules of thumb"). Even the term in the latest draft "gives the required attention to the human rights framework" is easily avoided by reasoning that the "attention due" in this case is precisely nothing. (Though I very highly suspect that's not at all the intent of the drafters) If you see my point, then I suppose anyone can take the "binding" terms from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for example, and use them as a test on the other phrases in the document to see if they all measure up. These are words like "inalienable" "nonderogable" "inviolable", and so on. This constellation of words or concepts will help to rein in the remaining loose inferences that are available to someone not eager to apply human rights and result in a strong, tightly knit document. These loose inferences, not one of them a part of the drafter's intent, are what the opponent lawyers of human rights in some particular context will seize on as ambiguities or holes or escape hatches for what you are actually, I think, wishing to COMMAND (in the name of the law, of course). Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/9/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic as: > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain > (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's > comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure >> that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment > about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should > of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including > it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention >> at the IGF. This is problematic as: >> * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines > on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and >> public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers > both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This > should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft >> a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support > for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Thu Sep 10 07:18:34 2009 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:18:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 10 08:30:23 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights In-Reply-To: <4AA8CFAB.7030203@gmail.com> Message-ID: <671233.75951.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Privately a very dedicated person wrote me this.   (altered a bit to protect the pure)   (((((((...... "this explains your occasional reference to funding... (Theris funding [for many poeple] on this list."  ......".I still think that as Civil Society we should raise the voice that belongs to each of us as individuals, we also should raise our collective voice, if not in a demanding and self-righteous voice, in a straightforward and clear support for HR. If CS is not very strong and clear--who will be? Our counter-part is very clear."........)))))))   I am very proud to be associated with such good and caring people.  Perhaps the best way for this list to be very strong and clear is to make sure those of us who are a bit radical on the issues of HR are never silenced........   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 10 08:56:00 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles, GuidePosts In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA67@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <873580.6309.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Diversity is more than a popular buzz word. Celebrate Diversity is more than a call to honor all who different.  One of the most important factors of diversity is recognizing the good attributes of the different walks of life.       What the hell does this have to do with this thread??  You ask.   Every group and every person contributing hereto has a different "gift", agenda and role to play. AS a group this is a good document. Personally I am well pleased that it became a stronger voice in these last drafts. We must be adamant but not so adamant as to alienate. We must be fervent and strong and steadfast. But we must never bludgeon or force or deride lest we become that which we disdain. Our document should be a beacon and light that others are attracted to, and not a whip used to enslave to a doctrine.   "A caretaker of a good cause must remain vigilante that his banner is not taken up because it is politically correct" ed 2001 --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Lisa Horner wrote: From: Lisa Horner Subject: RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 11:16 AM Hi Paul Whilst human rights are legally binding and inviolable, I do think that the rights "framework" of treaties, covenants and jurisprudence that has built up over the past 60 years can be presented and used as a "positive" tool for making decisions and influencing policy, rather than simply being a case of "negative" compliance.  Many people that I've spoken to recently in the government and private sectors have said that they're much more willing to engage with human rights compliance issues when presented in this more positive light.  I think coming at it from both directions is important, balancing emphasis on the legally binding and inviolability of human rights with discussions of how human rights can actually help policy makers to make sound and fair decisions.  For example, we don't need to start from scratch in discussing how to balance the public interest with individual interest on the internet, as it's already all there in the international human rights framework (which is of course also legally binding). People who were concerned that the legally binding, fundamental aspect of human rights didn't come out strongly enough in the first draft of the statement have indicated that they're now happy with subsequent drafts.  So, as it's late in the day now and we have to move for consensus, I hope you don't mind if we leave the statement as it is for now.  We can of course continue this discussion on the list. All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: 09 September 2009 18:27 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles Yes, the "legally binding" frame is indeed inserted in the latest draft, you're correct, but nearly all of the other words I pointed as problematic because they suggest or infer optional-ity still remain in the latest draft. I'm suggesting a fix, if you're interested, that one can apply for themselves, in the last paragraph of this short reply. I know that the drafters of this statement "get it", but documents are best interpreted for the raw text they contain (in the abstract), and if, in a manner of speaking, "binding human rights" lack the modest power to revise the wording of the other phrases in the statement that still remain unchanged, then one might infer that they're not really binding, they're more like "standards" "guidelines" and such that can be freely ignored where deemed desirable. (and these latter terms are still used in the statement, and they sound like optional concepts to me, like informal "rules of thumb"). Even the term in the latest draft "gives the required attention to the human rights framework" is easily avoided by reasoning that the "attention due" in this case is precisely nothing.  (Though I very highly suspect that's not at all the intent of the drafters) If you see my point, then I suppose anyone can take the "binding" terms from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for example, and use them as a test on the other phrases in the document to see if they all measure up.  These are words like "inalienable" "nonderogable" "inviolable", and so on.  This constellation of words or concepts will help to rein in the remaining loose inferences that are available to someone not eager to apply human rights and result in a strong, tightly knit document. These loose inferences, not one of them a part of the drafter's intent, are what the opponent lawyers of human rights in some particular context will seize on as ambiguities or holes or escape hatches for what you are actually, I think, wishing to COMMAND (in the name of the law, of course). Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 9/9/09, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense. > > Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that > rights are legally binding.  I hope it addresses your concerns. > > Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last > sentence.  In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers > with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to > consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are > discussing.  Does that make sense?  I tried to incorporate the gist of > your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an > earlier version. > > I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had > today. > > The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving > towards consensus... > > Thanks, > Lisa > > -------------------- > > DRAFT STATEMENT (V5). > >  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human > rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality > of human rights in the information society, but human rights and > associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far.  This is problematic as: > > *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to > development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies > of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state > and private actors at both national as well as global levels. > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance > these opportunities. > *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies > has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these > instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their > citizens. > *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights > are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, > such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance > with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating > the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework > also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other > stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This > should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and > national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive > policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The > Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the > organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles > > In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights > *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework > with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of > standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes > "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to > "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital." > > All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human > rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word > that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how > mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger > to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case > with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to > be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard" > to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the > person or entity being urged to take appropriate action. > > The true status of international human rights is more as follows: > > (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the > rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society > goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their > most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and > respecting them at all times.   Ignoring rights and principles, even > if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and > often deadly quite soon. > > (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do > in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal > constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as > federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher > than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference > into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as > supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty > ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human > rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's > opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally > applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans). > > (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are > nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the > countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty > ratification procedures.  Nobody is free to ignore them.  Nobody is > free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they > were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly. > > (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for > issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are > applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying > principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the > new context. > > (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact > binding legal requirements to uphold.  "Uphold" is often a word used > in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional > scheme but more than that:  It obliges the person taking the oath to a > "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a > trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on > behalf of another (We the People).  Upholding rights means giving them > wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to > narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to > respect the rights.  If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase > "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is > joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with > the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law. > > (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it > exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of > the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on > torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international > law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification, > under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases > of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no > defense).  The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to > violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation. > (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief > Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles > apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to > the Germans). > > As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right > doesn't exist.  Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes > in recent US history.  No amount of violations will make the right go > away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in > the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus > perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds. > If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual > rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at > Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two > decades. > > In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS, > but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold > their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding > them vigorously, and giving them a  reasonably expansive > interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner wrote: >> Hi all >> >> I've pasted a statement below for discussion.  I've tried to explain > (a) why >> it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think >> should be done.  Over to everyone else for comments and edits. >> >> Anja - thanks for your thoughts.  In response to yours and Ginger's > comments >> I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to > ensure >> that rights issues are addressed.  In relation to your last comment > about >> being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally > think we >> should try and present the rights and principles discussion in > positive >> rather than negative terms in a statement like this.  Whilst we should > of >> course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation > of >> them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and > engagement >> with the issues rather than scare people off?  Rather than including > it in >> this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start >> compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include > as >> guidance for session organizers? >> >> As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions > for >> changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult > to >> incorporate into amendments. >> >> Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this? >> >> All the best, >> Lisa >> >> -------------------- >> >> DRAFT STATEMENT >> >> The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet >> Governance Caucus. >> >> The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention > in >> the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis > Agenda >> reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society, > but >> human rights and associated principles have received very little > attention >> at the IGF.  This is problematic as: >> *    Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and > privacy are >> threatened by current internet governance processes and practice. >> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human >> rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and > resources. It >> is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> *    The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of > standards >> that has practical as well as ethical value.  It contains guidelines > on how >> to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual > and >> public interest.  This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet >> governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with >> concerns for security on the internet.  The framework also considers > both >> rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be > addressed >> during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions.  This > should >> include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental > rights, >> and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and >> accessible internet for all.  The Caucus would like to offer > assistance to >> the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like > to >> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant > guidelines and >> experts. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] >> Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49 >> To: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and > principles >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week > with >> only sporadic, very slow, Internet access. >> >> Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to > draft >> a text.  There were just two things I wanted to note.  In terms of >> strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not > to >> include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues >> session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles".  Why, >> after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last >> session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their >> implications in IG practice in all preceding ones?  If wider support > for >> putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge >> during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it >> too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this >> discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end >> of the IGF.  If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a >> discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can >> get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then, >> rather than including it in a written statement already now. >> >> I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using >> somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only > of >> the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but >> also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments >> effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too >> impatient here?  Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country >> like France as much as it would, say, China. >> >> Cheers, >> Anja >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature >> database 4389 (20090902) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box #1 > Ishpeming, MI  49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI  49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Sep 10 09:00:10 2009 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <673847.77780.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I concur and consent and endorse wholeheartedly this document   "I may perspire over the details and find fault with a word, but I would gladly die for the principles" --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Lisa Horner wrote: From: Lisa Horner Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 11:18 AM Hi all   We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call.  Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not.  I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting.  I’ll also get in touch with the DCs.   Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense.  Hope that’s acceptable to you.   Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I think it’s a strong statement now.   All the best, Lisa   ------------------------------------------------------------------------   FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call   The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders.  The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme.           -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 09:12:46 2009 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:42:46 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 09:23:29 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:23:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Dear All [and a hearty *abraço* to those of did the thankless slog] I support and endorse the statement. Regards, Rui 2009/9/10 Lisa Horner > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 10 09:35:45 2009 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:35:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE2B863AF1@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I support and thank the drafters. Lee ________________________________________ From: Rui Correia [correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting Dear All [and a hearty abraço to those of did the thankless slog] I support and endorse the statement. Regards, Rui 2009/9/10 Lisa Horner > Hi all We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ 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 From shailam at yahoo.com Thu Sep 10 09:53:40 2009 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <649829.45486.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Thanks Lisa for once again working on the draft and incorporating my edits. We now have a stronger statement . Parminder , thank you for your observations, I see your point. Yes I support this document regards Shaila Lisa Horner wrote: > >Hi >all > >We’re >now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve >pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you >send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. >I’ll >now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting >read out >at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > >Shaila >– this version includes your edits, apart from >in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope >that’s acceptable to you. > >Thanks >everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a >strong statement now. > >All >the best, >Lisa > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > >>The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the >programme for >IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of >human rights >in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated >principles >have received too little attention at the IGF so >>far. This is problematic because : > >>* Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are >strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a >growing number >of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at >both >national as well as global levels. > >>* The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and >advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to >knowledge and >common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these >opportunities. >Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious >opportunity >cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > >>* International human rights, as contained in the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights >treaties and >other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The >growing role of information and communication technologies has not >changed the >legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to >respect, >protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > >>* The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set >of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human >rights >are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, >such as >how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with >the >rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >allows >us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > >>The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >rights >dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >planning and >implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are >given the >attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include >explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >affect >human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >build an open >and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] >would >like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions >to do >this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing >access to >relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and >future >IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 09:54:14 2009 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:54:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Off Topic - Access to information: court records and terror watch list data Message-ID: Two items Washington Post, September 6 Why the records of Supreme Court justices should be governed by rules -- not individuals http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502349.html?wpisrc=newsletter Administration Seeks to Keep Terror Watch-List Data Secret http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502240.html?wpisrc=newsletter Regards, Rui -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ 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 From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Sep 10 10:08:29 2009 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: 43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local Message-ID: I respectfully 'Decline' an endorsement. It would not be proper to offer my opinion at this time. You have worked very hard to craft a statement, and worked even harder to work with the List to wordsmith the final edification. I applaud you for endeavoring that task. Respectfully, ykatz ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 10:09:12 2009 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:09:12 +0700 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> I agree with this statement and congratulate all who were involved in drafting it. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:13 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and opining. Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. Best, Ginger Lisa Horner wrote: Hi all We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From balbornoz at flacso.org.ec Thu Sep 10 10:21:54 2009 From: balbornoz at flacso.org.ec (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mar=EDa_Bel=E9n_Albornoz?=) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:21:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006e01ca3222$0c631f60$25295e20$@org.ec> I support and endorse the document. Best regards Belén De: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Septiembre de 2009 8:13 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Asunto: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and opining. Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. Best, Ginger Lisa Horner wrote: Hi all We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. MailScanner agradece a transtec Computers por su apoyo. -- Este mensaje ha sido analizado por MailScanner en busca de virus y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio. For all your IT requirements visit: http://www.transtec.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 12:03:35 2009 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:03:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <701af9f70909100903n3500e538pd61e173d15fa4765@mail.gmail.com> Hi Lisa, I fully support the statement. I would also like to emphasize that as long as the IGF Secretariat does not actively involve the Human Rights Council like it involves UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD, UNDP etc, the Internet Rights statements will remain vague, if we even have .01% of participation and support from the Human Rights Council, consider the issue of Internet Rights entering main theme setting and discussion in a much shorter anticipated time period. On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call.  Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not.  I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting.  I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I > think Parminder’s comments made sense.  Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for > IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS Declaration > and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the > information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles > have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa @skBajwa Answering all your technology questions http://www.askbajwa.com http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ 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 From javier at funredes.org Thu Sep 10 12:38:01 2009 From: javier at funredes.org (Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pinz=F3n?=) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:38:01 -0400 (AST) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <701af9f70909100903n3500e538pd61e173d15fa4765@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <701af9f70909100903n3500e538pd61e173d15fa4765@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1393.200.116.231.239.1252600681.squirrel@funredes.org> I endorse the statement. Thanks to Lisa and all people who contribute to build up this consensus. Best, Javier > I fully support the statement. > > I would also like to emphasize that as long as the IGF Secretariat > does not actively involve the Human Rights Council like it involves > UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD, UNDP etc, the Internet Rights statements will > remain vague, if we even have .01% of participation and support from > the Human Rights Council, consider the issue of Internet Rights > entering main theme setting and discussion in a much shorter > anticipated time period. > ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anja at cis-india.org Thu Sep 10 13:46:59 2009 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:16:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <1252604819.4295.41.camel@cis5-laptop> I support and endorse this statement. Thanks to Lisa and all who were involved in drafting it. Anja On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 12:18 +0100, Lisa Horner wrote: > Hi all > > > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final > version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message > to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand > over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out > at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final > para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s > acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. > The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the > centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, > human rights and associated principles have received too little > attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have > ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human > rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human > rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance > issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in > compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. > Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human > rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as > cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of > how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and > the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would > like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity > to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > > > plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt) > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Dr. Anja Kovacs Fellow Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 4092 6283 www.cis-india.org ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dave at isoc-mu.org Thu Sep 10 13:47:37 2009 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:47:37 +0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> Message-ID: <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> I endorse this statement and thank all for your tremendous efforts in drafting it. Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:13 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and opining. Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. Best, Ginger Lisa Horner wrote: Hi all We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. Shaila - this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's acceptable to you. Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. All the best, Lisa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From graciela at nupef.org.br Thu Sep 10 13:56:50 2009 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:56:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> Message-ID: <4AA93DE2.2080508@nupef.org.br> Hello, I endorse the statement. regards, Graciela Selaimen Dave Kissoondoyal escreveu: > > I endorse this statement and thank all for your tremendous efforts in > drafting it. > > Dave Kissoondoyal > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:13 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC > supporting > > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it > and opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their > agreement or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short > discussion, but we had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given > the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final > version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a > message to the list to say if you support the statement or not. > I’ll now hand over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it > getting read out at the IGF planning meeting. I’ll also get in > touch with the DCs. > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final > para as I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s > acceptable to you. > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > All the best, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed > the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite > this, human rights and associated principles have received too > little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and > development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive > policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, > including state and private actors at both national as well as > global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold > human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being > of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that > have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement > the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, > human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on > the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of > expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states > and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to > derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they > deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit > consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect > human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and > undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers > of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support > all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines > and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as > renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > -- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From valeriab at apc.org Thu Sep 10 13:58:10 2009 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:58:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> Message-ID: Count me in. I endorse the statement. Thanks to all involved in the drafting. Valeria 2009/9/10 Dave Kissoondoyal > I endorse this statement and thank all for your tremendous efforts in > drafting it. > > > > Dave Kissoondoyal > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:13 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC > supporting > > I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and > opining. > > Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement > or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we > had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints. > > We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement. > > Best, Ginger > > Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version > below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message to the list > to say if you support the statement or not. I’ll now hand over to Ginger > and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning > meeting. I’ll also get in touch with the DCs. > > Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as > I think Parminder’s comments made sense. Hope that’s acceptable to you. > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it’s a strong statement now. > > All the best, > > Lisa > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme > for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS > Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human > rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated > principles have received too little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, > privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly > threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of > actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both > national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing > human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common > resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. > Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity > cost for the well being of peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other > universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role > of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal > obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, > protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are > therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as > how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the > rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the > obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also > allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human > rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the > planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights > are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should > include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies > affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to > build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned > DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through > providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming > IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and > Principles a core theme. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio http://lac.derechos.apc.org Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Sep 10 14:01:35 2009 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:01:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> Message-ID: <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> I endorse the statement > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed > the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite > this, human rights and associated principles have received too > little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that > have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement > the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, > human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the > internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and > privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, > the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve > as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open > and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] > would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to > make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Valeria Betancourt > Coordinadora / Coordinator > Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT > Policy Programme > http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio > http://lac.derechos.apc.org > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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 From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 14:07:13 2009 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:07:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: I support the statement. Marilia On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Katitza Rodriguez < katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > I endorse the statement > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >> >> >> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme >> for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS >> Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human >> rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated >> principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >> far. This is problematic because : >> >> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, >> privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly >> threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of >> actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both >> national as well as global levels. >> >> >> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity >> cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >> >> >> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other >> universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role >> of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal >> obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, >> protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. >> >> >> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances >> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are >> therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as >> how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the >> rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the >> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >> allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights >> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should >> include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >> affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >> build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned >> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through >> providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming >> IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and >> Principles a core theme. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Valeria Betancourt > Coordinadora / Coordinator > Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy > Programme > > http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio > http://lac.derechos.apc.org > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 14:29:55 2009 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:29:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: References: <4AA8FB4E.2020606@gmail.com> <80BB69F18CF1427B8BBB8A59B1CFD7C3@userPC> <0EB3EBDE2BBD4C828338B714FCC69BD6@apollo.local> <1B23559F-25A1-4D22-8CFE-9662E24C25E8@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: I support the statement. Deirdre Williams Saint Lucia 2009/9/10 Marilia Maciel : > I support the statement. > > Marilia > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: >> >> I endorse the statement >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call >>> >>> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme >>> for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights.  The WSIS >>> Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human >>> rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated >>> principles have received too little attention at the IGF so >>> far. This is problematic because : >>> >>> *    Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of >>> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are >>> strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing >>> number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors >>> at both national as well as global levels. >>> >>> *    The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing >>> human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common >>> resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. >>> Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity >>> cost for the well being of peoples, globally. >>> >>> *    International human rights, as contained in the Universal >>> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties >>> and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding.  The >>> growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed >>> the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to >>> respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. >>> >>> *    The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of >>> standards that has practical as well as ethical value.  It balances >>> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public >>> interest.  In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are >>> therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as >>> how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the >>> rights to freedom of expression and privacy.  Besides stating the >>> obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also >>> allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human >>> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the >>> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights >>> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues.  This should >>> include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies >>> affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to >>> build an open and accessible internet for all.  The Caucus [and undersigned >>> DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary >>> sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through >>> providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming >>> IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and >>> Principles a core theme. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Valeria Betancourt >> Coordinadora / Coordinator >> Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy >> Programme >> >> http://www.apc.org/es/about/programmes/programa-de-politicas-de-informacion-y-comunicacio >> http://lac.derechos.apc.org >> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for >> Progressive Communications, APC >> http://www.apc.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center of Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 10 14:51:16 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:51:16 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Off Topic - Access to information: court records Message-ID: <21653069.1252608677114.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Rui and all, Although I agree with this in principal, in practical application it is in the end that people or some person make the decision as to how and what rules apply and why. The key here is to make the rules very specific so as to not allow for overly broad interpratation to lead to a bad decision. -----Original Message----- >From: Rui Correia >Sent: Sep 10, 2009 8:54 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Off Topic - Access to information: court records and terror watch list data > >Two items > >Washington Post, September 6 > >Why the records of Supreme Court justices should be governed by rules >-- not individuals >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502349.html?wpisrc=newsletter > >Administration Seeks to Keep Terror Watch-List Data Secret >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/05/AR2009090502240.html?wpisrc=newsletter > >Regards, > >Rui > >-- >________________________________________________ > > >Rui Correia >Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant >2 Cutten St >Horison >Roodepoort-Johannesburg, >South Africa >Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 >Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 >_______________ >áâãçéêíóôõúç >____________________________________________________________ >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, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 10 14:53:25 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:53:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting Message-ID: <19754005.1252608805199.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 10 15:05:11 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:05:11 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [governance] Fw: [ga] Public Comment and Discussion: Document Publication Operational Policy Message-ID: <357250.1252609512089.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> All, For those interested, please opine. -----Forwarded Message----- >From: Glen de Saint Géry >Sent: Sep 9, 2009 1:09 AM >To: "ga at gnso.icann.org" >Subject: [ga] Public Comment and Discussion: Document Publication Operational Policy > > >[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08sep09-en.htm >Public Comment and Discussion: Document Publication Operational Policy > >8 September 2009 > >A public comment period has opened today for 30 days on a proposed document publication operational policy for ICANN's international public meetings. > >That policy includes: >A single 15-working-day deadline for documents, including meetings agendas >Best practice guidelines on the production of meeting agendas, cover sheets and executive summaries >Emphasis on the use of plain language and minimised use of jargon >Sections considering the issues of translation, earlier provision of presentations, and reporting on the efficacy of the operational policy >The community is encouraged to respond to the policy online and through email. The results of the comment period will be used to revise the policy, with the expectation that it will be put to the Board for formal approval in time for or at the Seoul meeting in October. > >The Board formally approved at its July meeting a single 15-working-day deadline for all ICANN international public meetings (resolution 2009.07.30.11). At the same time it requested that an operational policy providing fuller details be published for public comment with the Board Public Participation Committee reporting back to the Board with any suggested refinements (resolution 2009.07.30.12). See http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-30jul09.htm for more details. > >In addition to the public comment period, the Board Public Participation Committee will be holding a public online session in September to receive additional feedback. > >More details on both can be found below. > >Public Comment Period > >The public comment period will be experimenting with new forum software in an effort to allow for more interaction and discussion between community members. > >vBulletin is a widely used piece of forum software that is a move away from the current static email approach taken by ICANN. You can view the forum online at: https://vbulletin.dev.icann.org/ > >You will need to register to post comments online. Alternatively, email comments will be received at the address: document-deadline-policy at icann.org. > >You can view the draft Document Publication Operational Policy at: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/draft-document-publication-operational-policy-en.pdf [PDF, 148K]. > >Public Participation Committee Public Session > >The Committee will be holding an online session to discussion both the document publication operational policy and broader issues of participation with the community in September (the exact date and time will be announced soon). > >The session will use the Adobe Connect remote participation software that ICANN has been using at its international public meetings and smaller regional meetings over the past few months. > >A simple link will allow you to see and hear the Committee as well as any relevant presentations. You will be able to interact with others in a chatroom, put forward typed questions, as well as virtually raise your hand to be called upon to ask a question using your computer's microphone. > >The session is an experiment in opening up Board Committee work and discussions to the community. The URL of the session will be: http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/ppc/ and it will run for 90 minutes. > >You can find more details on the session, which will be updated as information become available on the public participation website at: http://public.icann.org/en/ppc-sep09/. > >Related links > >Document Publication Operational Policy >http://www.icann.org/en/participate/draft-document-publication-operational-policy-en.pdf [PDF, 148K] > >Public comment discussion space >https://vbulletin.dev.icann.org/ > >Public Participation Committee session details >http://public.icann.org/en/ppc-sep09/ > >Public Participation Committee online session >http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/ppc > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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 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 From wcurrie at apc.org Thu Sep 10 15:36:56 2009 From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:36:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4A914BBB.6060706@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E41@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97B821.6030909@gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B2E47@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4A97C6C2.1070000@gmail.com> <1251802135.9245.56.camel@cis5-laptop> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0215F4A@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <76f819dd0909090937k61167b13yfe9116aa9680a090@mail.gmail.com> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA3D@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <583987.31559.qm@web55202.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <715739.30335.qm@web55206.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4AA8BAE6.9010806@itforchange.net> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A025CA68@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4AA95558.2010402@apc.org> I support the statement. Many thanks to the drafters. Willie Lisa Horner wrote: > > Hi all > > > > We're now past the deadline for comments, so I've pasted a final > version below for the consensus call. Please could you send a message > to the list to say if you support the statement or not. I'll now hand > over to Ginger and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out > at the IGF planning meeting. I'll also get in touch with the DCs. > > > > Shaila -- this version includes your edits, apart from in the final > para as I think Parminder's comments made sense. Hope that's > acceptable to you. > > > > Thanks everyone for your inputs. I think it's a strong statement now. > > > > All the best, > > Lisa > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) -- for consensus call > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. > The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the > centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, > human rights and associated principles have received too little > attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have > ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human > rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and public > interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human > rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance > issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in > compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. > Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human > rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as > cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of > how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and > the development of positive policy principles to build an open and > accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would > like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity > to make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part --------