[IRP] layers approach to stratify internet governance

Wed Sep 16 00:10:46 EEST 2009

Dear Meryem

I agree. They are not mutually exclusive options. Lisa and Max and I
discussed this.

Many people do find existing rights frameworks and language to be the
most user-friendly way of starting a discussion on human rights in the
context of the internet.

But, presenting these rights in the form of principles that need to be
applied or considered in the various 'layers' of the internet can be a
very useful way of doing rights advocacy directed at, for example, the
technical community, operators, and regulators.

Anriette

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 20:15 +0200, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> Hi Lisa and all,
> 
> 
> You're right that it's difficult to make a decision in the abstract.
> Let me make a methodological proposal: why not taking the issue from
> both sides, and trying to converge? The idea is to work on a matrix
> where rights and layers are crossed, and the matrix elements would be
> the requirements for a given right to be implemented/enforced/upheld
> at a given layer (if relevant). 
> 
> 
> These requirements could be positive or negative, depending on the
> right and the layer. Moreover, the requirements could be of various
> sorts: legal, economical, technical, behavioral, etc.
> 
> 
> Regarding layers, Anriette's list is probably worth to consider, i.e.:
> "physical layer (e.g. the internet backbone, radio
> spectrum, computers), a protocol or logical layer (e.g. open standards
> to ensure all sectors of the internet ?talk? to each other), and
> content and applications." 
> In my opinion, there is probably a "usages" layer to be added.
> 
> 
> Then, and only then, a charter or whatever kind of document might be
> written. 
> 
> 
> Although this reference is old (2003, but after all UDHR is even
> older:)), you may have a look at page 3
> of http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/hris-caucus-input.pdf
> for an example of a translation of the right to education and
> knowledge into different requirements, which can easily fit in
> different layers.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Meryem
> 
> 
> Le 15 sept. 09 ? 16:44, Lisa Horner a ?crit :
> 
> > Hi all
> >  
> > I think it would be useful to structure the charter on human rights
> > and principles according to different "layers" of the communciations
> > environment.  The ones I personally findmost useful are
> > infrastructure, code, applications and content.  Structuring rights
> > and principles in these layers might help us to identify all of the
> > issues and challenges involved, and make sure we catch them all.
> > (nb we did something like this int he freedom of expression project
> > - see http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public
> > +interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications
> > +environment for more).  
> >  
> > I think it'd make sense to outline the key UDHR rights in the
> > preamble, and then flesh them out as rights and principles in the
> > rest of the doc, split into layers.
> >  
> > The point was raised in the meeting on sunday that using the
> > language of "commons" might be confusing...it's a fairly complex
> > concept, and is best known in terms of the "information commons".
> >  
> > However, there wasn't clear consensus on this in the meeting.  So we
> > agreed to try and structure the doc according to human rights rather
> > than layers, which makes sense if we're translating human rights to
> > apply in the internet environment.  I commented that I thought this
> > would be difficult as it would be repetitive,,,,many of the rights
> > apply to different issues at different layers.  
> >  
> > However, tt's difficult to talk about this in the abstract,  We
> > agreed that a good place to start with this might be to look at the
> > rights and principles currently contained in the charter and look
> > for gaps, things to be taken out and ammendments.  Once we've done
> > that, a clear structure might emerge, or we could do both and see
> > what works best......
> >  
> > If anyone has any opinions on this, let the list know.  Then
> > coordinators can send out a mail with a clear list of next steps for
> > people to contribute to....
> >  
> > All the best,
> > Lisa
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of
> > Max Senges
> > Sent: Mon 14/09/2009 17:30
> > To: irp
> > Subject: [IRP] layers approach to stratify internet governance
> > 
> > 
> > Dear all 
> > 
> > One of the interesting and constructive debates in our workshop
> > yesterday was about how to stratify our struggle for human rights
> > and principles on the internet.
> > 
> > Anriette has pointed me to the APC 2006 anual report where she
> > distinguishes between: a physical layer, a protocols infrastructure
> > layer, and an interactional or relational layer.
> > 
> > As you know Lisa and myself have proposed for very similar
> > layers/commons (infrastructure, services (everybody who runs a
> > website or service), social = netiquette, and of course Access as an
> > extremely important goal, but politically different animal).
> > 
> > The structuring of our discourse around rights is the most natural,
> > but as I have argued before: I believe that it is more strategic to
> > address existing communities (the infrastructure people, the
> > services, and the users) rather than gather around our rights flag.
> > 
> > I copy Anriette's text below.
> > 
> > Looking forward to your comments and especially edits either to the
> > google doc (i tried to make it editable for everyone but it should
> > definitly work through the invitation i sent to the list) or in the
> > http://irc.wiki.apc.org/ (where you need to register)
> > 
> > hasta pronto 
> > max
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Why is information and communications infrastructure  
> > so fundamental to development and social change? 
> > I believe the answer lies in the layered nature of information and
> > communications 
> > infrastructure. It has a physical layer (e.g. the internet backbone,
> > radio spectrum, 
> > computers), a protocol or logical layer (e.g. open standards to
> > ensure all sectors of 
> > the internet ?talk? to each other), and content and applications. 
> > Yet one can also argue that there is another layer, one which is
> > constituted by 
> > the social processes that are facilitated by the infrastructure. It
> > can be termed the 
> > ?interactional? or ?relational? layer of ICT infrastructure. I like
> > to think of this layer 
> > as having two primary components. 
> > First, it is where the narratives of globalisation, diversity,
> > inclusion and exclusion 
> > are located. ICT expansion has positive and negative consequences.
> > E-governance and 
> > reliance on the internet for access to information can increase
> > exclusion and contribute 
> > to the formation of new elites. New applications and services emerge
> > every day, but 
> > usually require access to credit cards and bank accounts. 
> > But it is also in this layer where people, individually and in
> > groups, appropriate the 
> > infrastructure and claim space for protest, self-expression, sharing
> > and learning. It is a 
> > kind of macro-microcosm. Blogging, podcasting, social bookmarking,
> > photo sharing, 
> > citizens? journalism: there are many different labels and tools.
> > There is an ongoing 
> > tug of war between developers, markets, people and cultures of use. 
> > What about people who do not have access? Is the global
> > communications infra- 
> > structure a public good to which all people should have access? 
> > APC believes the answer is ?yes?. People who live in poverty, who
> > are socially, 
> > economically and politically disempowered, deserve access to means
> > that will enable 
> > them to speak, to be heard, to use online services and to
> > participate in decisions that 
> > impact on their lives. 
> > The second component of the interactional or relational layer of
> > this infrastructure 
> > is the public participation or social justice component. In a real
> > sense it can facilitate 
> > transparency and accountability, participatory policy formulation
> > and implementation, 
> > mobilisation, solidarity and protest. This does not happen because
> > of the existence 
> > of the internet. It happens because people, communities and
> > organisations use the 
> > internet to organise and/or obtain the information they need to
> > improve their lives.   
> >         ------------------------------------------------- 
> >         
> >         ""Progress is the realization of Utopia"
> >           .   .   .   .  .   .   . . . . Oscar Wilde
> >         ------------------------------------------------- 
> >         
> >         Dr. Max Senges 
> >         
> >         www.maxsenges.com 
> >         www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com 
> >         
> >         ------------------------------------------------- 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > IRP mailing list
> > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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