[IRP] Fw: [charter] right to life liberty and security of person--- relevant for internet governance

shaila mistry shailam
Wed Nov 4 17:43:05 EET 2009

Hi Everyone. 

I have been incredibly busy with my business  and working on some other issues , like universal certification for women business owners and also health care reform etc.
Hence I have not been able to make my statements on "life an liberty issue.." This is a very important point and needs to be discussed further. I will in the next few days write something .
I apologize for the delay .
all the best

Life is too short ....challenge the rules
Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! 

From: Max Senges <max at supercoolschool.com>
To: M.I.Franklin <M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk>
Cc: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>; Andrew Puddephatt <andrew at global-partners.co.uk>; irp <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 4:21:23 AM
Subject: Re: [IRP] [charter] right to life liberty and security of person--- relevant for internet governance

Hi everybody

I like the twist/constrain Ralf proposed. I still think that it is strategically not advisable to propose new Rights, but in this context-sensitive way I'd be very happy to include this and really stress it as first and fundamental principle.

And yes the Charter is 100% open for your edits and contributions. We still need to consolidate and improve the first section. And we are in the gathering phase for section 2.

Yesterday Google celebrated the Breaking Borders - Freedom of Expression on the Internet event www.breakingborders.de, which took 150% of my time during the last weeks. I think the event was a real success and showed that Google is ready to take the Human Rights discussion and multistakeholder approach serious.

Anyways, I believe I will have more capacity to collabowrite and contribute to our charter over the next two weeks.


On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:05 AM, M.I.Franklin <M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear All
>Might have missed the reply amidst everything else. Anyway, o echo Anja's query; the charter is still open
> leading up to Sharm?
>--On Friday, October 23, 2009 12:52 +0530 Anja Kovacs <anja at cis-india.org> wrote:
>Dear Lisa and Emily,
>>Just wanted to check whether your suggestion is to at the moment not
>>further expand on access under relevant sections of the rights part of
>>the charter then? Or would you agree that we can still go ahead with
>>this, without actually calling it a right at the moment?
>>Also I wasn't sure whether we can still make changes to the rights part,
>>or whether that has been closed for now... Can someone please advise?
>>On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 13:16 +0100, Lisa Horner wrote:
>>>That sounds like a good way to proceed.  It has been a really
>>>interesting and useful conversation.  These discussions aren't new at
>>>all, and we definitely won't resolve them in the short term.  In the
>>>mean time I think it's good to be strategic and to make progress where
>>>we can.
>>>And I like the notion of a super-principle!
>>>All the best,
>>>From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on
>>> behalf of
>>>Emily Laidlaw
>>>Sent: Wed 21/10/2009 13:13
>>>To: M.I.Franklin
>>>Cc: irp
>>>Subject: Re: [IRP] [charter] right to life liberty and security of
>>>person--- relevant for internet governance
>>>This has been a very interesting and useful discussion.  I am short on
>>>time, but wanted to quickly respond that perhaps we can see this work
>>>on the charter where we examine the articles under the UDHR and flesh
>>>them out for the Internet as principles, as a stepping stone or
>>>exercise in the sense that once we work through it there might be
>>>certain issues, such as this issue of accessibility, that might not be
>>>adequately dealt with as a principle.  This might not mean it needs to
>>>be set out as a new right (I am not going to way into that discussion
>>>at the moment, though the discussion today on that topic has been very
>>>useful I think), but might not be adequately addressed as an
>>>>>> interpretation of an existing right either. Access is an interesting
>>>one because it consistently arises for the enjoyment of any of the
>>>rights set out in the UDHR thus becoming a supe-principle of sorts.
>>>On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:48 PM, M.I.Franklin
>>><M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> These issues are very complex to put it lightly. Here's how I
>>>understand it
>>>> for the moment; transcribing (as we have been doing) the UDHR in
>>>writing a
>>>> Charter on Internet-based rights and principles is distinct from
>>>> 'new' rights that pertain primarily to the internet, broadly
>>>> However, there are clearly issue-areas specific to the internet that
>>>> diverge from or amplify those rights enshrined in
>>> the UDHR. A
>>>> balancing act at the best of times as this recurring discussion
>>>> However, Olivier's example about the technological imperative that
>>>is being
>>>> put in place as more and more public services go online/become
>>>> computerised services begs a question in these discussions about
>>>whether or
>>>> not we should work up an explicit clause about a fundamental -
>>>universal -
>>>> right to internet access, over and above freedom of speech etc (see
>>>> and Anja).
>>>> Whilst I empathise, the question that goes begging is whether the
>>>> (again, however defined!) is at present *universally* available. It
>>>is not.
>>>> That said, if the next call (IGF, WSIS< all the rest) is to 'connect
>>>> next billion' this recalls earlier tussles around ' universal
>>>access' in
>>>> telephony (if
>>> I'm correct). That is as yet not the case either, at
>>>least not
>>>> in the fullest sense of the term 'universal'.
>>>> Back to the internet; the trend Olivier points to is a fact of life
>>>> richer regions (read OECD) which ipso facto have high ICT
>>>penetration. So,
>>>> here, this charter may well be in the process of constructing new
>>>> *despite* attempts not to be seen doing so (lisa's word of caution
>>>here). In
>>>> other words, we could consider this case in terms of a pre-emptive
>>>> (forgive the term) given that the UDHR was created in pre-internet
>>>> Where does this leave the charter at present? For me it presents us
>>>> some strategic decisions for the short-term (e.g. Lisa, Emily) about
>>>> sticking with what we know (UDHR vs. new rights). BUT, does this
>>>preclude us
>>>> from thinking ahead in order to pre-empt
>>> exclusion and
>>>> that are already being put in place by virtue of the internet *not*
>>>being as
>>>> yet universally available, let alone accessed/accessible (Anja,
>>>> Olivier)? I hope this does not preclude us from being ahead of the
>>>> because, like it or not, some rights and principles may indeed need
>>>to be
>>>> invented i.e. created anew.
>>>> Hope that's clear because I'm still thinking the implications here
>>>> Forgive me if it isn't.
>>>> cheers
>>>> MF
>>>> --On 21 October 2009 12:52 +0200 Andrea Glorioso
>>><andrea at digitalpolicy.it>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> I apologise for  chiming in so late  in the discussion.  I do
>>> hope
>>>>> using the correct medium for the following comment(s).
>>>>> Please also bear  with my usual  disclaimer, i.e. although I  work
>>>>> the   European   Commission (dealing   specifically   with policies
>>>>> "Internet   Governance", "Network         and  Information
>>> Security",
>>>>> "Fundamental Rights on the Internet") here I am writing in my
>>>>> capacity.
>>>>>>>>>> "max" == Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>    >     Hi Shaila Thanks for your input. I  understand and support
>>>>>    >     your  point that the right to  
>>> life liberty and security
>>>>>    >     person > is possibly  the most fundamental  of them all,
>>>>>    >     is it really > necessary to point out that that is also
>>>>>    >     on the internet?
>>>>>    >     In my view this right does not need an explanation
>>>>>    >     > what it means on the net. It is straight forward.
>>>>>    >     It would be good to hear other opinions.
>>>>> My  understanding  of the process  is that  the  first section of
>>>>> Charter is supposed to "elaborate on  what [UDHR rights] *mean* in
>>>>> context of the internet".
>>>>> Therefore, it seems to me that
>>> the point  is not whether the rights
>>>>> life, liberty  and security (of person) apply   on the Internet  -
>>>>> answer is  obviously yes.  The  real  question seems to be  how
>>> their
>>>>> application/enforcement should be  framed when related  activities
>>>>> exercised on the Internet.
>>>>> If my understanding is correct, then I would  like to stress that
>>>>> policy-making  organisations  have     been framing  the    concept
>>>>> "[Internet]  security"  in a  rather   dichotomic way vis-?-vis
>>> other
>>>>> fundamental   rights.     The usual   "security   vs
>>> privacy" (false)
>>>>> opposition is but one example of this kind of approach.
>>> Stressing  that "security" (on  the Internet) is  first and
>>>foremost a
>>>>> tool to  achieve a fundamental right  makes it clear that any
>>>>> on these   matters must be  duly  substantiated (why   do we need
>>>>> "security"?),  appropriate to the goal  at  hand (do we really
>>>>> more security by centralising key  decision-making powers on
>>> Internet
>>>>> infrastructures?) and proportional (do  we really want to  monitor
>>>>> traffic of all Internet users to catch up the bad guys and protect
>>>>> good guys?).  And so on.
>>>>> Incidentally, making a    strong point that discourses  on
>>> "security"
>>>>> should be  framed  (at   the very  least  *also*)  in  terms
>>>  of
>>>>> fundamental right  to security  of persons  makes  the work of
>>>>> officers in policy-making organisations much easier, believe me. ;)
>>>>> On a more substantive side, I would  strongly argue against making
>>>>> specific example of  security-related  policies  or problems  in
>>>>> actual text.  Technology changes very rapidly and what is the
>>>>> of today becomes the fad of yesterday in the blink of an eye.
>>>>> Hope this is a useful contribution to the debate.  I'm at disposal
>>>>> any clarification.
>>>>> Thanks, ciao,
>>>>> --
>>>>>      Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/
>>>>>          M: +32-488-409-055         F: +39-051-930-31-133
>>>>>  * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali *
>>>>>      * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal *
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>        "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the
>>>>>     people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will
>>>>>        secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost
>>>>>               protection. They are rules proscribed by
>>>>>                 Philip sober to control Philip drunk."
>>>>>                           David J. Brewer (1893)
>>>>>       An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation
>>>> Dr Marianne Franklin
>>>> Reader/Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media
>>>> Media & Communications
>>>> Goldsmiths, University of London
>>>> New Cross
>>>>>> > London SE14 6NW
>>>> United Kingdom
>>>> Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>>>> Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>>>> email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>>>> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>IRP mailing list
>>>IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>IRP mailing list
>>>IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>Centre for Internet and Society
>>T: +91 80 4092 6283
>Dr Marianne Franklin
>Reader/Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
>Media & Communications
>Goldsmiths, University of London
>New Cross
>London SE14 6NW
>United Kingdom
>Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>IRP mailing list
>IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091104/35a0bf87/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the IRP mailing list