[governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

Mon Dec 13 08:31:02 EST 2010

Hi Wolfgang,

Involving Frank La Rue is a great idea. 

His report to HRC is due in June and currently he is running various
regional consultations. This issue can make an essential part of his report.
All of us can lobby for that too if need be. 

Best wishes and regards

Shahzad

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang
(wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:27 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez; Drake William
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

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/ad17f936/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