[governance] Reply to Milton's blog post

Tue Dec 18 22:43:17 EST 2012

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,
Without in any way wanting to detract from the wider conversation, I'd
like to point out that in the international human rights system it is
quite clear that "human rights and fundamental freedoms" (both
collective and individual) belong to people or peoples (e.g.
indigenous peoples). States or governments do not have "human rights"
- - rather they have duties to respect, protect and promote the rights
and freedoms of their citizens.
"Collective rights" are a recognised category of rights, as Parminder
correctly points out. But to my knowledge, no human rights or global
civil society groups have argued that governments or States as
"collective entities" have rights on an equal footing with the people
or peoples they govern. Nor would they: but they would argue strongly
that States should be accountable for how they represent the views of
their citizens (I see that point is on a different part of this
discussion thread).
States might have done better to argue they had obligations to provide
access to the internet and necessary infrastructure, which is the
point that Frank la Rue made in his annual report in 2011, when he
highlighted States obligations under existing international law. See
Paras 85-88 here:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf

Regards

Joy Liddicoat
www.apc.org

On 18/12/2012 4:54 a.m., parminder wrote:
> 
> On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's
>> blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please find below.
>> 
>> --- snip --- snip --- snip ---
>> 
>> But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on
>> the right of States to telecommunication services and put it on a
>> par basis with Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was
>> the same as the Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced
>> Countries, Switzerland, expressed its outrage. Tension was rising
>> fast. We got lectured by some countries that oppress their people
>> about Human Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the
>> discussion, after having intervened more than any country in the
>> past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind you that on
>> many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has assured us there
>> would be no vote. This derailment was self-inflicted and this was
>> the drop that got the vase to overflow.
> Dear Olivier,
> 
> thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of what 
> happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon. However, since
> you stress the point of vote on the clause that 'all countries have
> right to access international telecom networks' as one of the most
> important ones let me respond to you on this.
> 
> Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human rights 
> system. Why do you think that the collective entity of a country
> should *not* have a right to international telecom networks....
> Isnt it something basic that must underpin any global treaty on
> international telecom? What does an international telecom treaty
> mean without stating such a right. It is most surprising, even
> shocking, for me that people from civil society should be speaking
> against such a right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but
> global civil society ???
> 
> Before you say anything about collective entities like a country, I
> will remind you that below you do proudly refer to your
> participation in such an entity. You say that you are proud that
> 'your' country did not sign. Why would other people not
> legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their country is
> denied access to international telecom. And what would your
> response as someone from global civil society be to the plight of 
> such people - in existing sanctioned countries and potential ones.
> 
> And you also seem to be proud that you were representing 'your
> country' and were able to influence its decision.... Can other
> people not legitimately have such collective feeling, and
> collective rights....
> 
> parminder
> 
>> Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun tactics
>> are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries 
>> opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would
>> lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and
>> Match. My country, the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad
>> they did not. Yes, I had a say in the matter since I was a full
>> UK delegate, one of the many countries which brought multiple
>> stakeholders at the table and guess what, most of these countries
>> have not signed. Does this not tell you something?
>> 
>> So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at
>> the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff
>> which I would really like the Internet to be preserved from.
>> 
>> But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid
>> concerns from developing countries that they were not able to
>> participate in the multi-stakeholder model because of lack of
>> funding, lack of understanding and a lack of proactive work from
>> our “own” side. I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the
>> matter – we should do more to bridge the gap. At the moment,
>> these countries only have two fora in which they can participate
>> and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to them and the ITU where
>> they have a voice. During the hour that followed the dramatic
>> vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst
>> not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and 
>> I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are
>> intent on following up with countries that do not appear to have
>> hidden intentions are are genuine about the level of despair they
>> displayed at this conference. Because sadly, there was despair
>> too. This is the start of a better dialogue, one which we must
>> make efforts in promoting, reaching out, building capacity.
>> 
>> In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs
>> and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil
>> Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several
>> governments that have understood this. Let’s work together to
>> ensure we will never live again a similar WCIT full of mistrust
>> and despair.
>> 
>> Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf)
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0TfVAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6OwH/3jREjRRVMRX4yZS7rjteqS5
7YLeCX9fHQ305K0agxtD/YzzMVsc7eIzkwvlYVQSHh/xCiDwFVc63+Wsp7zaLPtq
8gzJg8oI5JS6bxkOazB5jrBcnR2ec/eBe0ZngVTryoVh1WPI5tc7twU8Dr2rpmXX
pj39REkMZAzDxr6Y4+LXgkryjevZKNqTznHcksSsQC6DDkzJ3kfADwGFXof+gFBt
FApJysq0zGtTfL8zXvg0joF+Uqxfl0qVUDK8yUmT4LGcPuG5XnpmRTay9OnMeUOh
WM4u1NJWaPY+3bXcve/btZrR2D3lWKvLd5DlJAC1WeJF0975Vtss01pID4AuwZ0=
=yGLG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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