[IRP] WE NEED YOU - crucial phase of drafting Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet

Mon Oct 5 13:18:56 EEST 2009

Hi all

I volunteered in the call on Friday to put together a note on the
background to the Charter/what's been discussed so far for people who
are new to the process.  I've jotted some notes down below.  I didn't
realise that much of this is already on the 'main page' of the wiki, but
hope that this is still useful.  Bits in the "suggested approach"
section below are open to discussion.

I noticed that the main wiki page says "please refrain from using the
discussion section".  Why is that?  I think it would be useful to keep
the discussion on the mailing list, but to also keep a record of it on
the discussion page?  That way people who come to the process half way
through can see the reasoning behind various language etc. (for example
- I'd find it useful for the exchange on net neutrality between Lee and
Ian to be posted on the discussion page).  Can we suggest that any
lengthy emails with reasoning etc are both sent to the list and posted
on the discussion page?

Thanks,

Lisa

----------------------------------------------------

The Charter is a revision of the APC Internet Rights Charter.  The
approach that we are taking to edit the Charter was discussed at the
Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition meeting in Geneva on
13th September 2009 (see draft minutes at
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AbEcBWyGO2nQZGQ4YmM3Z2ZfMGM1cG5rYmZn&h
l=en), and subsequently on the dynamic coalition mailing list.

We have agreed:

a)      To split the charter into two sections:

1)      What do our human rights (as defined in the UDHR) mean in the
context of the internet?

2)      What policies do we need in order to uphold these rights (e.g.
how do we maintain/build an internet that supports rights).

b)      To use rights language only where rights have been established
in international human rights jurisprudence.  Otherwise, to frame
desirables as principles.  We will work with human rights experts to get
the language right.

c)       To create a multi-level document, with links through to
relevant texts, case law and documents.

Suggested approach (most discussed in 2nd conference call):

-          The Charter is open for anybody to edit, and participants are
encouraged to send the link to the wiki to people who might be
interested.

-          At the moment, people have committed themselves to work on
certain sections by a set date.  That doesn't preclude contributions
from other people.  We agreed to work on section 1 until 15th October,
and section2 after that.

-          We will work to have a draft version of the Charter ready for
the IGF in Egypt (15th November).  We will work to raise awareness about
the Charter at the IGF, and use the event encourage other people to
participate in its continued editing and finalisation.  

-          Everyone who edits the wiki automatically has a user page
created for them.  Participants are encouraged to fill this in with some
information about themselves so that we can get to know each other.

From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
Ian Peter
Sent: 05 October 2009 09:31
To: Max Senges; Lee W McKnight
Cc: Internet Rights Discussion Group; irp
Subject: Re: [IRP] WE NEED YOU - crucial phase of drafting Charter of
Human Rights and Principles on the Internet

Both net neutrality and end to end are usually advanced as principles.
Both ideas are conveying an unclear concept which might be important and
which might lead to a right we want to express. I do think there is an
essence here which is important, but the right is not end to end or net
neutrality but something else. I hope we get to the right words.

On 5/10/09 5:03 PM, "Max Senges" <maxsenges at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Lee welcome to the discussion

If I may try to gently wade into this discussion: I agree with Ian that
talking a lot about a 'right' to network neutrality is a mistake best
avoided.

One of the key mistakes we agreed to avoid is to call anything but Human
Rights rights - so there is no right to net neutrality in the text. Only
a principles that creates the condition for us to enjoy our rights
online.

Best
Max

However, the 'principle' of network neutrality is already enshrined in
various docs, even if folks like Ian and I have been warning that any
use of the the phrase is problematic, since it is a quagmire of
ambiguity.

However, if folks see a need to endorse the principle I can say that
likely won't make things much worse.

The Google lobbyists who popularized the term must now be squirming, as
AT&T scores political points of its own, having sued Google last week
for alleged violations of network neutrality.

Anyway, my advice is be very very careful with those 2 words.

On the other hand, a wholesale endorsement of a right to an open
Internet, as well as open Internet access, are defensible logically and
politically; in my opinion. Even if they have their own ambiguities.

Lee
________________________________________
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of Max
Senges [maxsenges at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 11:13 AM
To: Ian Peter; irp; Internet Rights Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [IRP] WE NEED YOU - crucial phase of drafting Charter of
Human     Rights and Principles on the Internet

Hi folks

Ian (who co-moderates the Internet Governance Caucus aka the mother of
all IG mailing lists) makes some interesting points below. I have
commented inline.

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Ian Peter
<ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
Hi Max, nice to hear from you. A couple of things come to mind from you
writing.

Firstly, we have chosen speakers for Sharm main sessions who will be
willing to advance the rights issue. It will be good to strategise what
else we might be able to do to advance the cause during the meeting.

One thing that comes to mind is that I am talking to avaaz.org
<http://avaaz.org> <http://avaaz.org> I would like to run some sort of
campaign and come with a long list of people who expressed that they
care and are worried about their Human Rights on the internet.

Secondly, what else can we do during Sharm? I think we need to make our
presence felt on this issue.

Anyway, to the text - I'll have a look later and make more comments but
the first thing that hit me was the use of both net neutrality and end
to end principles. I think we have to be very careful here.

Both end to end and net neutrality are retrofitted concepts that some
people continue to defend but neither of which applies to the internet
as is. I think we are better off dropping both phrases as both are
contentious - the internet is not end to end and never will be, and
where net neutrality starts to imply no traffic shaping, we are getting
into network management issues which we are best to avoid. The
Norwegians have got it  right here - I think we need to talk about the
rights to access content and applications of choice, people understand
that, and we avoid the technical debates and opposition. Similarly with
end to end - lets express what we are trying to achieve here and what
the right is rather than imagining that somehow an internet without
firewalls is suddenly going to happen or that's the way it should be.
In other words, we have adopted catch phrases which don't help our cause
and create confusion - lets get what we are trying to achieve here
right!

Interesting point. I don't consider myself a technology expert on the
infrastructure level. But I did discuss net neutrality on a panel at
EuroDIG and my position is: Yes of course we need traffic management. If
there is too many people and the lines are cogested some stuff (esp.
real time apps like voice, etc.) need to be prioritized. But there are
two important aspects: A) It needs to be reasonable - as in I want to
know what and why: "your skype video has been disabled. Please continue
with voice only, because the XYZ backbone in Chile is overloaded"
and B) the network must be open for innovation: As long as the data can
be transported using standard infrastructure (protokols), the net
infrastructure and the service providers should not have the possibility
to build walled gardens and only allow selected services. (I thought we
were about to overcome lock-in non-interoperable enviornments like
compuserve and AOL)

my2cent
Max

(Robert, happy for you to pass this on to the drafters - I'll try to get
to log in in a few days, but if that doesn't happen it would be good to
have these thoughts considered).

All the best,

Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091005/a428600c/attachment-0001.htm>