[IRP] APC rights charter / Internet bill of rights

Tue Jun 16 04:26:15 EEST 2009

Dear Anriette,

I have been contributing with Max, and also in other forums on the internet,
related with Internet RIghts.

Regarding your sentence:

*"...but we felt that we needed something new, and
internet specific."*

...please take a look at the Costa Rican Constitutional amendment, Law
proposal number *15890*, from 2004, to add *the fundamental right of having
or not having virtual personality.*

This *new fundamental right* protects the following 4 "*dimensions":*

1. *Existence* (Identity providers -like Gmail, Twitter, Facebook, etc- have
to change the terms of the legal contract with the users, for the users
beneffit). This incudes *the universalization of bank accunts,* where a bank
account is a human right (this is important for poverty erradication).
2. *Content *(Data protection)
3. *Presence* (avoid spam in any channel -email,sms,blog,phone, etc- and
tracking in any channel)
4. *Projection* (protects *intentions*, a future valuable "*virtual asset")*
Let me know if  I , or anyone else, -icluding Judges, Congressmen, and Human
Rights experts- in Costa RIca, involved with this developments, can help.

Best regards,

Jaco Aizenman L.
Costa Rica

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> Dear Lisa
>
> A few answers from me. Other colleagues from APC can add. We are all a
> bit swamped right now as we are en route to board and staff meetings in
> Argentina, finishing our audit, board reports and so on :)
>
> > Sorry for joining this discussion so late, and thanks again to APC for
> > inviting our participation in the review of the charter.  I just have
> > a couple of questions to the folk at APC, and a couple of wider
> > comments/questions?
> >
> >  APC - Would it be possible to give us a bit of background about why
> > you?ve decided to review the charter?
>
> This is the second major revision of the charter. The charter was first
> developed in 2000/2001, and revised in 2006.
>
> Because we tend to use the charter as a frame of reference in our policy
> advocacy we are quite aware of its strengths, but also its weaknesses.
> We have always assumed that it would need to be udpated from time to
> time and work as a living document. But perhaps there is a different
> route, and you kind of describe that below.
>
> Conceptually however, because the APC charter is premised on the
> 're-interpretation of existing rights frameworks' in contemporary
> contexts, it would need to be updated from time to time as these
> contexts change.
>
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:15 +0100, Lisa Horner wrote:
> Hi all
> >
> >
> >  I think that might help guide the editing process.  What was the
> > process of creating the original charter, and are there any specific
> > issues that you think now need to be addressed?
>
> The charter emerged from two processes: (1) APC's first internet rights
> project in Europe, dating back to 1999. This was a time when civil
> society activists first realised that the internet was not going to
> remain free and open. Who remembers Echelon?
>
> (2) APC's regional ict policy monitor projects in Latin America and
> Africa, which started in 2001 and focused not just on human rights on
> the internet, but also access and affordability.
>
> We needed a 'checklist' to help local organisations involved in policy
> analyse and advocate from a rights perspective (a lot of new ICT
> policies were being formulated at the time, particularly in development
> countries, but also at regional level in Europe).
>
> We were part of earlier processes, notably Cees Hamelink's people's
> communications charter, but we felt that we needed something new, and
> internet specific. Not long after the APC IR charter came out CRIS also
> drafted a charter, which we participated in.
>
> But tactically APC decided to avoid the conflict between the 'old
> rigths' and 'new rights' movements prevalent at the time.
>
> Therefore our charter is rooted in the principle of re-interpreting
> existing rights. You can read more about how we developed this approach
> in a bottom-up way with our members in Asia, Africa and Latin America in
> "Involving civil society in ICT policy" which APC co-published with CRIS
> in 2003.
>
> http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/research/policy/all/involving-civil-society-ict-policy-world-summit-in
>
> >  Did you have feedback from different people about what might make it
> > more useful, and how do you envisage using the charter in the future?
>
> Both versions were developed in a rush. The first one perhaps more so
> with the primary authors being APC staff who were not rights experts.
> The second draft had some input from a human rights lawyer and on, e.g.
> privacy, from a privacy expert.  But still most of the writing was done
> by us.
>
> In general we get extremely positive feedback from people working at
> national level on the charter. They feel it helps them understand what
> is meant when people talk about human rights on the internet. And it
> helps them think about what kind of policies they want, or that they
> don't want.
>
> We were amazed by the spontaneous way in which APC members and partners
> translated the document into multiple languages.. (22 or 23 now). We
> felt the document still had loads of weaknesses, but for many people it
> made a lot of sense.
>
> We tried to bring it to the attention of the 'Bill of rights' group from
> the outset, but it was only when Max took this on board that we
> succeeded.
>
> >  Finally, is there a timescale/deadline for this?
>
> That is up to you and this group. The updating is now a collective
> process. But always a good idea to set a timeline.
>
> > IRP coalition members ? When the coalition name changed from ?bill of
> > rights? to ?IRP?, there was a fairly large contingent of people who
> > were keen to still work on an internet bill of rights.  But there
> > haven?t been any responses to this invitation from APC to work on this
> > charter.  Is there any reason for that?is this the kind of thing that
> > people had in mind?  Or is it just a case of not having enough time?I
> > know we?d all like more of that!
>
> > Finally, I was wondering about the use of the term ?rights? in the
> > charter.  I personally fall into the camp of people saying we don?t
> > need new rights for the internet ? just that we need to interpret and
> > apply the human rights that are already enshrined in international
> > law.  I think that initiatives like this charter are an important way
> > of doing that, and I realise that the charter explicitly says that
> > that the new rights are rooted in the UDHR.  But for me, the
> > statements in the charter are ?principles? that flesh out the meaning
> > of our human rights in the context of the internet.  I think that a
> > wider range of people might engage with the charter if we simply
> > change ?all people should have the right to?? to ?all people should be
> > able to? or other such language.
>
> Yes, if we stick to the principle of reviving and re-interpreting
> existing rights that would be the way to go.
>
> Personally, my own perspective is rather open at the moment.
>
> As a human rights activist (not expert) I started working on the APC
> Internet Rights Charter believing very strongly in not arguing for new
> rights.
>
> However, with recent success in Ecuador where APC and other
> communications networks argued sucessfully for the inclusion of
> information and communication rights in the new constitution I am
> beginning to wonder if the anti-new rights stance does not make
> political sense.
>
> The truth is, as the purist human rights organisations who don't like
> talk about 'new' rights know... the UDHR is not that widely respected,
> or enforced. In many countries where governments are actively anti-human
> rights one could potentially get further by adopting a 'new rights'
> approach.
>
> This is a question of strategcy and tactics, and does not mean we should
> change the spirit of the charter... but it should be kept in mind.
>
> > This may seem like semantics, but I think it might make a significant
> > difference to how the wider human rights community and other
> > stakeholders view the charter.  However, I?d still like to participate
> > in this process if we stick with rights.  But I just wanted to open
> > the discussion up to see what people think?
>
> My personal wish for this process is one that I have had since working
> on the first draft in 2001....  to strengthen the document so that it
> has greater credibility and robustness in terms of existing rights
> frameworks - but without losing its popular appeal.
>
> I want the involvement of people that have expertise in international
> law, in human rights law, that understand the mechanics of legal and
> rights language, but that are also willing to accept that they can be
> quite alienating in their approach and use of language.
>
> My question is, I guess, if we can combine this approach with the kind
> of popularisation of internet rights awareness that we have been fairly
> successful in?
>
> We still need a charter that can contribute to building a global
> movement, and that can be used on an everyday level at national level by
> people who are still struggling for these rights.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> >
> >
> > From:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<From%3Airp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> > [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf
> > Of karen banks
> > Sent: 23 May 2009 08:48
> > To: anriette at apc.org; Max Senges
> > Cc: irp
> > Subject: Re: [IRP] Right to Freedom of Movement: Partnering with APC
> > to review the Internet Rights Charter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > hi all
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > One quick question: should we use our mailing list as communication
> > > channel for discussions about changes or do you have a seperate list
> > > setup?
> >
> > Or, just use the wiki?
> >
> >
> > We do have a list setup - rights at lists.apc.org - which might be easier
> > to use for discussion - as opposed to comments on charter revision..
> > are people happy moving discussion to rights at lists.apc.org ?
> >
> > you can subscribe here:
> > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rights
> >
> > karen
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature database 4121 (20090601) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature database 4123 (20090602) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> > signature database 4150 (20090612) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IRP mailing list
> > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> >
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
> --
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> anriette esterhuysen - ?executive director
> association for progressive communications
> p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
> anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
> http://www.apc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>

-- 
Jaco Aizenman L.
Presidente
Registro de Activos Financieros - RAF
------------------------
My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco)
XDI Board member - www.xdi.org
Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570
Costa Rica

What is an i-name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20090615/4f01e008/attachment-0001.htm>