[governance] Draft Statement re UN Human Rights Council

Sun Feb 26 15:26:23 EST 2012

Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no
easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous
issues to a cohesive succint statement.

The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and
contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this
up in time by at least the 28th February, 2012.

Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:20 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think we can speak for the entire IGF.
>
> I think it can be cut down by about 50%.  We don't need to reference
> evangelists or  the SOPA/PIPA bills for example.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
> On 2/26/12, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Below is a brief statement on "Human Rights on the Internet".  I have to
> go
> > offline for two and a half hours but then will be back online in case
> > anyone has comments, questions or additions to the text below.  At that
> > point I would hope to make some changes if any are suggested, then have
> it
> > posted for comment.    In general, I didn't like the title "Human Rights
> on
> > the Internet" because it makes as little sense to me as raising the
> > question of human rights on the mountains or in the valleys, or on the
> > oceans, etc.  Human rights exist everywhere, including the internet.  The
> > question is the constant need to keep awareness of them high
> >
> > *Human Rights on the Internet *
>  >
> > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their
> > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology
> without
> > borders.
> >
> > The open architecture of the Internet facilitates and enhances many
> > pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free
> > expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly,
> > creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the
> > culture of society.  Internet technology and design choices
> simultaneously
> > extends human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders,
> at
> > a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously
> imaginable.
> >
> > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the
> > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the
> > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by
> > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought
> > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as
> > “evangelists.”  Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have
> > caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining
> > democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life”
> for
> > all, without the prominent downsides often associated with actual some
> > implementations of government and religion.
> >
> > If the Internet, as a network of networks, is a great force for human
> > flourishing, and if humans have the inborn desire to flourish under
> > conditions of self-determination, the most powerful question to ask
> > concerning rights on the Internet is not so much where these rights arise
> > from, or how they may be further enforced in ancient courts, but where
> any
> > claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises
> from,
> > and how such a right of interference can be legitimately asserted and
> > enforced.  Given that the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate
> > behaviors often called rights and freedoms, and given that the Internet
> as
> > a whole is owner-less and international, how can any business,
> government,
> > or person both obtain a right to interfere with the freedom of the
> > Internet, and also legitimately enforce that right?  In this light, any
> > lack of clarity deemed to exist by some regarding where human rights
> “come
> > from” pales in comparison to the difficulties of coherently positing and
> > persuading others of a right to interfere with the freedom of others on
> the
> > Internet.  To the extent such interference becomes known publicly, it
> will
> > be highly likely to suffer the same fate as SOPA and PIPA legislation
> > recently did, because any such right to interfere with inherent human
> > rights and freedom is far more difficult to successfully theorize and
> > explain than the human rights we all want for ourselves, but may or may
> not
> > extend to all others equally.
> >
> > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered
> > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including
> > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers,
> > administrators.    Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more
> > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the
> > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the
> > Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much
> > “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses.   Regardless
> > of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is
> > extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting
> in
> > ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully
> > understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public
> > interest as a whole.   Any such government or business that acts to
> impair
> > or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim
> > that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or
> > otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case
> of a
> > business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor
> > content, etc.)
> >
> > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules
> of
> > host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights
> > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that
> > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc., should
> be
> > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single
> > country.
> >
> > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new
> > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their
> > regulation.  Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form
> of
> > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities
> > without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the
> > countryside or wilderness.   However, the pace of innovation and
> expansion
> > on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace.
> > This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers
> and
> > others who are creating the Internet in real time.
> >
> > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of
> education
> > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the
> > context of the Internet, because important structural and design
> decisions
> > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet
> > engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it
> is
> > impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct
> > effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes
> place
> > in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers
> > making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge
> of
> > human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical
> to
> > preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about
> human
> > rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be
> > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of
> > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any
> centralized
> > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole.
> >
> > Therefore, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) declares that the Internet
> > is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human
> > freedoms and equality, the IGF condemns violations of human rights on the
> > Internet and wherever they may occur, and the IGF calls upon the United
> > Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about
> > human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of
> the
> > Internet can maximize for all the value of the Internet as an enhancement
> > of the human experience, making ever more real the human flourishing that
> > is both the reality and the promise of the Internet.
> >
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120227/8c6559f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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