[governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

Mon Dec 13 03:27:08 EST 2010

Why not involve the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank LaRue, who was with us in the last two IGFs and is preparing a report with a focus on FoE in the Internet anyway?

Regards

Wolfgang Benedek

Am 12.12.10 20:09 schrieb "Katitza Rodriguez" unter <katitza at eff.org>:

  Hi Bill

 No. I am not interested in recommendations. We already have international instruments and international human rights courts.  Any recommendation on this issue, at this point, will be to control content rather than to open it. This is a FoE case. This is how, I believe, is the right way and we should frame the discussion. Katitza

Hi

On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

 Hi William,

 We already have international instruments that protects freedom of expression. It sets precedents of what it can be disclosed. Why we need new rules? Can you explain me?

 There's a draft IGC text saying that this case shows we need a new framework of principles to guide global IG, which presumably would affect such things, so I asked why how what do people have in mind.  You replied you were thinking of the HRC.  The HRC is a deliberative body, populated by China, Saudi Arabia et al, that is supposed to make recommendations to the General Assembly.  So I assumed you meant the HRC should make recommendations on new principles per the draft IGC text.   If instead you meant that the HRC could assess this as a freedom of expression case in accordance with existing international rights instruments and make recommendations, ok, but the same question applies: Which of the HRC's member governments could we expect to argue that case and make recs we'd find congenial?  One would like to think that some would, but with classified national security information it could be a tough sell. In any event, a FOE majority seems unlikely, and even if one could be assembled, it's questionable whether HRC recs (not heretofore highly impactful AFAIK) would alter any behavior.  It'd certainly be an interesting debate though, and I'd be happy to have it unfolding down the street from me.  Prospects might be better in an international court setting with nominally independent judges and legal experts etc, rather than an intergovernmental negotiation body...

 As Frank La Rue said: ""If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak, and not of the media that publish it." Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089025.htm <http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3089025.htm> "

 Sure

 Amnesty International: "On the leaking of national defence information: While employees of a government have the right to freedom of expression, they also have duties as an employee, so a government has more scope to impose restrictions on ...its employees than it would have for private individuals who receive or republish information. However, Amnesty International would be concerned if a government were to seek to punish a person who, for reasons of conscience, released in a responsible manner information that they reasonably believed to be evidence of human rights violations that the government was attempting to keep secret in order to prevent the public learning the truth about the violations." http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression-2010-12-09 <http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression-2010-12-09>

 By these criteria, Bradley Manning's in trouble.

On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

 I think the argument here is that we (?) should get in soon with some sort
 of suggested approach to a broad governance framework because the "powers
 that be" will be feverishly working on their approach and it will emerge
 very quickly and very forcefully.

Neither half of this is very clear to me but I'm certainly open to persuasion…

Cheers,

Bill

Hi Katitza,

On Dec 12, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:

I am not familiar with United Nations structure but I was thinking within the Human Rights Council, to upheld International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Expression. Wikileaks is a Freedom of expression issue.  But again: I am not familiar of how those Council's work. It would be good to know more about it.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm

Which of those governments could we expect to adopt international rights-based principles protecting the nationally illegal disclosure of what they deem to be classified national security information?  It's doubtful there'd be one, much less a majority, in this or any other international body.

Best,

Bill

On 12/12/10 9:10 AM, Drake William wrote:

Hi Lee,

On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

I also appreciate many IGC members and member organizations wish to comment on the WikiLeaks case for their own reasons, but personally would be - depressed - if IGC couldn't manage to comment at all, itself.

If so, then it would be helpful if you could specify the linkages to global Internet governance.  Simply asserting that Wikileaks shows we need a global framework of principles will not by itself be terribly compelling to nonbelievers.  What kinds of principles would address which aspects of the whole phenomenon?  Where would they be established, who would adopt them, how would implementation and compliance be handled, etc…?

I've added other comments on the site; didn't know digress.it <http://digress.it> , handy tool, thanks Jeremy.

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101213/1d2f99a1/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t