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

[Max Senges]

>
> Hi Shaila
>
> Thanks for your input. I understand and support your point that the right
> to life liberty and security of person is possibly the most fundamental of
> them all, but is it really necessary to point out that that is also true on
> the internet?
>
> In my view this right does not need an explanation regarding what it means
> on the net. It is straight forward.
>
> It would be good to hear other opinions.
>
> Please pitch in
>
> Max
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:43 AM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Max
>> I have several comments and have written them down in blue  under yours :
>> please scroll down.
>> I welcome your assistance and any one else s to work on this with me.
>> I also have comments on privacy and the others.
>> regards
>> Shaila
>>
>>
>> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules***
>>
>> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly***
>>
>> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ***
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com>
>> *To:* irp <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Internet Rights
>> Discussion Group <rights at lists.apc.org>; Annette. Muehlberg <
>> annette.muehlberg at web.de>; Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>;
>> Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>; Emily Laidlaw <emily at laidlaw.eu>;
>> Lauren Movius <lmovius at usc.edu>; "Bodle, Robert" <
>> Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>; shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>; Jac sm Kee
>> <jac at apcwomen.org>; Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>;
>> wolfgang.benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>; Fouad Bajwa <
>> fouadbajwa at gmail.com>; Sami Ben Gharbia <SamiBenGharbia at gmail.com>; Ehsan
>> Norouzi <ehsan.nrz at gmail.com>; Ashraf Mikhail <ami at humanrights.dk>;
>> derechosyprincipiosparainternet at googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Sun, October 18, 2009 2:05:29 PM
>> *Subject:* [charter] last round before Section 1 milestone
>>
>> Hi folks
>>
>>
>> As promised I have done a good overhaul of the draft. I have aimed at two
>> things: (1) consistency & consolidation and (2) hypertextualizing
>>
>> Basically I tried to either flesh out important bullet points or drop less
>> important ones.
>>
>> Secondly I added thematic subpages and started to set links to background
>> info and references
>>
>> I would like to bring up the following more substantial editorial changes:
>>
>> A) Pursuing our aim to create a compact text that focuses on transposing
>> Human Rights to the online sphere I deleted the rights where we did not see
>> a need to elaborate on how they are effected and I propose to drop the
>> following sections:
>>
>> Article 3 & 4: Security of person and Slavery: I think the points listed
>> here are correct, but they are so broad and in fact acknowledge the paradox
>> of clashing rights, but request all measures not to fall into this most
>> complex trap... My feeling is that these articles are not very powerful as
>> HR policy instruments, but rather water down our text. --- Shaila do you
>> want to comment/agree/disagree
>> The right to life liberty and security of person precedes any other right.
>> Only after these rights are guaranteed can there be a discussion and
>> relevance to assuring personal privacy, freedom of expression etc.  The
>> matter or the body first then the thoughts and expression of rights. I can
>> understand that since we all  have our personal  liberty assured , it is
>> indeed hard to see that there are many who do not! These rights belong
>> here since they are fundamental to existence. Unfortunately the Internet has
>> become a vehicle and a catalyst in enabling abuse of these rights.  So we
>> need strong statements to  indicate the sovereignty of this right.  So
>> yes I do strongly feel they belong here and they do not water down our
>> charter. In fact they strengthen them. I would like the wording to be
>> stronger, but tried to keep it more neutral.  Can you or anyone else
>> assist in this?
>> shaila
>>
>>
>> Article 11: Presumption of innocence: Again I think the points made make
>> sense; but are we really missing an argument if they are not there?  Rebecca
>> what do you think? Lisa i guess you originally drafted these points
>>
>> Article 17: Property: There is no new aspect to that right on the internet
>> really, is there? Robert please agree or argue for your point.
>>
>> Article 18: Freedom of believe: Again I am not sure as to what degree the
>> internet represents a new context for this right or wheter it simply applies
>> to online expression as well.
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> B) The three BIG Rights when it comes to the Internet: Privacy, Freedom of
>> Expression and (A2K) Article 27: Cultural participation have all received
>> very good input and need to be consolidated now.
>> Could someone from the drafters (or someone like Katiza who hasn't
>> contributed her expertise yet) try to write a coherent and consolidated
>> version?
>>    - Privacy was collabowritten by: Jac, Rebecca, Max --- @ Katiza, Jan,
>> could you contribute as well?      I have some comments
>>    - Freedom of Expression was collabowritten by: Jac, Emily, Rebecca,
>> Lauren, Max     I Have some comments
>>    - Cultural participation & interests had input from Shaila, Marianne
>> and Shaila  I have some comments
>>
>> ----------------------------
>> NEXT STEPS
>> I would hope that we can get Section 1 to its first milestone (= coherent
>> version) really soon (before the end of the month). Our next steps then are:
>> (i) to reach out to experts like Wolfgang Benedek, who said he would be
>> happy to check that we do not speak legal gibberish and
>> (ii) to reach out to our communities (local and thematic), spread the
>> work, invite people to join us. (As Robert Guerra pointed out it would be
>> particularly good to have more traditional Human Rights experts and
>> activists participate)
>>
>> Another idea we could consider is if it might be feasible to make a
>> Maker's style version of the charter for the IGF. Remember they use very
>> basic "human-readable" catch phrases
>> http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/12/the_makers_bill_of_rights.html
>>
>> Ok everybody THANK YOU very much for the energy and thought and time you
>> invest in this effort.
>>
>> I think, especially with the prospect of having this hypertextual charter
>> evolve over time, we are planting an important humanistic seed into the
>> socio-technological soil that is the internet!
>>
>> Yours,
>> max
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091020/f75c0a8e/attachment.htm>