[governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)

Sun Feb 7 15:03:33 EST 2010

A reasonable question is "how does this right apply to concrete
situation X?"  That gets both the concrete and the rights involved.

More often than not, disagreement is the result of differing
underlying values, principles and rights conceptions.  I would agree
with Jeanette to the extent that an agenda item were of the nature
"what are our rights?"  The answer to such hesitancy is nearly always
going to be "none" unless one is asking someone with a special
fiduciary duty to the person asking the question, such as an attorney
answering a client.

Fundamental rights are not made, they are asserted.  Even a real
right, when set forth hesitantly or tentatively, loses something in
the hesistancy.

However, I concur with Jeannette to avoid open-ended discussions, if
that's what's happened, over whether or not rights even exist, for
example.  Such discussion is self-defeating and academic and not
concrete in a way I tend to agree isn't good.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Lehto wrote:
>> There simply is no action, concrete or otherwise, that is not preceded
>> by ideas and principles, even if the principles are pragmatism,
>> hedonism, greed or whatever.
>
> I don't deny this but this discussion is not a conceptual one, it is
> about agenda setting. We discuss the issue of how to make rights and
> principles the subject of a main session at the next IGF.
> The MAG works by consensus. We won't get any topic accepted that one or
> several of the members don't want.
> I will leave it at that. I am not even sure anymore if we are arguing
> about the same goals.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> Thus, there is no "concrete" without
>> rights and/or principles, so a preference for "concrete" is not a
>> "second way", it's just an application of principles to a single
>> context, with no claim for their broader applicability (whenever
>> rights or principles are not expressly identified for purposes of
>> such)
>>
>> A "concrete" proposal will have principles (for certain) and may have
>> rights that underlay its actual text, so the question is, are those
>> principles and rights that necessarily exist in all cases just
>> undisclosed in the text of a particular case example, or have the
>> rights instead been abandoned in favor of some other de facto vision
>> of internet governance?
>>
>> If it is the latter, we can all be thankful that, in the rights we do
>> have, other people and prior generations did not give up after the
>> first few rejections.  That's the key to success in fields as
>> disparate as sales, politics, rights and training for the olympic
>> games.
>>
>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>>
>> On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Paul Lehto wrote:
>>>> Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it.
>>>>
>>>> Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the
>>>> best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some
>>>> ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get
>>>> the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a
>>>> revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet
>>>> users.
>>> I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the
>>> rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost
>>> every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the
>>> WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you
>>> hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out
>>> on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session.
>>>
>>> What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete
>>> organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal
>>> title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most.
>>>
>>> I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically
>>> lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would
>>> allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>> Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever
>>>> random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to
>>>> keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy.
>>>>
>>>> All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people.
>>>> The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights.
>>>> To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number
>>>> of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>>>>
>>>> On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss
>>>>> it -
>>>>> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF.
>>>>> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased
>>>>> enough so that we can better make an issue of it.
>>>>> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that
>>>>> authoritarians
>>>>> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual
>>>>> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone
>>>>> knows
>>>>> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it.
>>>>>
>>>>> --MM
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder
>>>>> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main
>>>>> session
>>>>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy
>>>>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more
>>>>> abstract
>>>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of
>>>>> anything
>>>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions'
>>>>> would
>>>>> work? "
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it.
>>>>> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I
>>>>> hope
>>>>> we
>>>>> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at
>>>>> Les
>>>>> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other
>>>>> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to
>>>>> address
>>>>> IRP.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to
>>>>> consider:
>>>>>
>>>>> legal provisions (Jeanette)
>>>>> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance
>>>>> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance
>>>>> Internet governance and the position of individuals
>>>>> Internet governance and individuals
>>>>>
>>>>> gp
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> William Drake wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was
>>>>> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't
>>>>> find a definition of it in any of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> McTim, Parminder, you are both right.  R&P is a broad and
>>>>> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the
>>>>> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support
>>>>> here.  The latter trumps the former,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Majority trumps reason?
>>>>>
>>>>> so it should be included in the
>>>>>
>>>>> statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main
>>>>> session
>>>>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy
>>>>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more
>>>>> abstract
>>>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of
>>>>> anything
>>>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions'
>>>>> would
>>>>> work?
>>>>>
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill____________________________________________________________ You
>>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> To be
>>>>> removed
>>>>> from the list, send any
>>>>> message to:
>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>
>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
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

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