[governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR

[Norbert Bollow]

Ivar A. M. Hartmann <ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe we're on the same page, except when it comes to this need for a
> separation between two different types of Internet access right.

For context, this is about my suggestion to assert the following two
aspects as separate human rights:

(A) It is a human right that a person's access to means of communication
    must not be hindered in any way beyond the charging of reasonable
    prices for communication related goods and services.

(B) All persons have the human right that their country of residence
    shall ensure that they can afford access to means of communication
    suitable for long-distance voice conversation (e.g. telephone) and
    for the exchange of digital information (e.g. the Internet).

> I agree that there are two different types of human rights:
> negative/freedom/civil-political rights and positive/social/economic
> rights.
> Even if one accepts this distinction, however, it's inescapable that all
> rights require some negative performances and some positive performances by
> the state.

In geographical areas where many people are interested in having
internet access and where they are able to pay a monthly fee that
is economically reasonable from the perspective of commercial ISPs,
it is IMO sufficient for the government to "get out of the way" by
respecting the "negative right" that the government must not create
obstacles.

In other areas, where it's not economically feasible for
profit-oriented businesses to provide internet access services at a
price level that the people in that area can generally afford,
additional policy measures may be necessary. For example, governments
could make subsidies available for local Internet access cooperatives.

Even when both the "negative performances" and the "positive
performances" by the state are both needed, it will be different
officials who are responsible for implementing the two, and the
processes for ensuring that the state acts as it should will be
entirely different with respect to these two aspects.

When there are two aspects of a responsibilities of the state, so that
from this very practical perspective the two are part of different
categories, it will be better to state them separately.

Otherwise, if the two aspects are folded into a single assertion of a
human right, that might be logically equivalent, but it will not be
equivalent in practice, because the risk is great that states will in
practice assign responsibility for implementation of that human right
to a government agency which is only insitutionally equipped to take
care of one of these aspects, and then that government agency will
interpret that statement of the human right in accordance with what it
is institutionally able to do, and the other aspect is not likely to
be effectively put into practice.

> So the issue for me is: a right to Internet access has which dimension as
> more predominant?
> I used to believe it was the negative one, but in the last 2 years I've
> changed my mind.

I would suggest that both aspects should be explicitly stated and
insisted on as human rights.

By the way, although both aspects are, in today's socio-technical
context, logical consquences of existing international human rights
law, the arguments to justify them on that basis will differ. Although
there is a bit of overlap, different articles of ICCPR [1] and ICESCR [2]
will be quoted in justifying one or the other of these two aspects. That
is IMO another good reason to assert the two aspects separately.

[1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, see
    http://idgovmap.org/map_html/treaty/ICCPR

[2] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
    see http://idgovmap.org/map_html/treaty/ICESCR

Finally, it happens that countries lack sufficient financial
resources for implementing all of the "positive performances" that
are required to deliver on their human rights obligations. Aspect (B)
above may be simply impossible to deliver due to lack of financial
resources for necessary subsidies. This is a key difference to aspect
(A). In fact I believe that it was this difference between different
kinds of human rights that has led to ICCPR and ICESCR becoming
separate treaties.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/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