[IRP] WE NEED YOU - crucial phase of drafting Charter of Human UDHU and IRP

Thu Oct 8 13:08:05 EEST 2009

Hi Ginger

That's a really relevant question, and one that people have been
grappling with for a long time.  Confusion in this area was one reason
(amongst others) for the change of the coalition name from "internet
bill of rights".

It's been pretty much agreed over the course of a long series of
conversations that the IRP is concerned with upholding and advancing the
human rights contained in the UDHR in the context of the internet.  So
you were right in saying: "the UDHR addresses HR, and Internet Rights,
as part of those rights are covered by this declaration. IRP describes
in more detail these rights as applied to ICTs and the Internet."

I think the blurb on the IRP homepage says that quite clearly, although
it could perhaps come across a little better in the mission statement.

At the same time, the coalition is supposed to be an umbrella platform
for people working on rights issues.  Using the UDHR as a starting point
means different things to different people, and that shouldn't preclude
the participation of everyone in the coalition.  For example, some
advocate that we need a new human right to the internet, and argue that
this would be achievable as part of the ongoing evolution of the
international human rights framework.  Others (including me) think that
access issues are already encompassed within the established right to
freedom of expression and prefer to use different framing language. 

I think that the main reason why the coalition is able to accommodate
people with differing views is that it's a multi-stakeholder working
group rather than an advocacy group.

In the context of the rights charter that the IRP is now working on, we
agreed that we would only use rights language where rights have been
established in international law.  In other instances, where we are
translating rights or talking about aspirations, we are using the
language of principles.  This was a strategic decision - to root the
text in existing rights and standards to give it more weight and broaden
the likely base of support.

I hope that helps.....

Lisa

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: 05 October 2009 11:47
To: Lisa Horner
Subject: Re: [IRP] WE NEED YOU - crucial phase of drafting Charter of
Human UDHU and IRP

Lisa and all--
Since you will do a background note for those who are new to the
process, or those of us who still are trying to understand this complex
issue, could you please give a brief explanation of how IRP relates to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

For instance, the UDHR addresses HR, and Internet Rights, as part of
those rights are covered by this declaration. IRP describes in more
detail these rights as applied to ICTs and the Internet.

Sometimes it is not clear whether IRP is saying that IRP are a new set
of rights not covered in the UDHR, or an explanation of a certain set of
the rights covered in the UDHR. I have heard opposition to IRP because
of this interpretation, but am not clear enough myself to explain. I
think this is a point that should be obvious (maybe it is, and I just
don't know it).

Please forgive me if this is done, and I just have not found it or
implicit and I just need it spelled out.

Thanks!
Best, Ginger

Lisa Horner wrote: 

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:

To split the charter into two sections:

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

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

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.

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

________________________________

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
ghtsandprinciples.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091008/4cba2381/attachment-0001.htm>