[governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and principles

[linda misek-falkoff]

*----- 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 <anja at cis-india.org> 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 <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090907/361f11e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance