[IRP] Conference call: Thursday 19th August, 4pm CET

[Michael Gurstein]

I agree with Parminder on the below concerning the term "user" and have
running debates mostly with techies on this term which narrows the spectrum
of concerns/interests under consideration only to those within a narrowly
technological framework.  
 
Some other term such as "citizen" (in the context of "global citizenship"
rather than "national citizenship") is probably preferred and links the
discussion quite directly into issues of the "rights" of "citizens" rather
than the affordances of technologies.
 
Mike Gurstein

-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
parminder
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:56 AM
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRP] Conference call: Thursday 19th August, 4pm CET


Thanks for your response, Lisa.

On using the term 'users' or 'Internet users', I have two issues

One, the rights that we speak of here extend even to those who may not
directly use the Internet, but can , mostly are, affected by it.

Secondly, in the universe of terms describing human beings as social actors,
the term 'user' has been added from the technology side to the existing
terms like consumer and citizen. It is obvious that the term that we choose
to use among all these has important overall implications. What I dont like
about the term 'user' in social discourse is that use of this term seeks to
define human beings in relation to technology rather vice versa.

Thanks

Parminder 

On Thursday 12 August 2010 02:28 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: 

Thanks for the comments everyone - keep them coming!



Parminder - I agree with your concerns, thanks for highlighting the issue.
Businesses have certain legal rights, but one would never frame them as
human rights.  I think that it's a case of ambiguity in the language, and we
need to get it right.  My immediate reaction was to replace "stakeholders"
in the text you highlighted with "internet users".  But then I guess
businesses are users as well.  Maybe "all individuals who use the internet".
Would be good to hear the experts' thoughts on this as we move forwards.



RE anonymity - another important issue that clearly requires more thought
and discussion.



Best,

Lisa



From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
parminder
Sent: 11 August 2010 17:47
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRP] Conference call: Thursday 19th August, 4pm CET



Hi All

I read part 1 of the charter from the link given below (could not open part
2, can someone point me to the link)

I was pleasantly surprised, and found the text very good. Dont know why and
how, but I have tried to read the charter text a couple of times earleir,
the last time just a few weeks back, and always got struck at the part in
para 3 or so which mentioned something to the effect that IG policies are
the responsibility of all stakeholders, governments, private sector, civil
society etc who are to be treating as equals in this respect. (Not the exact
words but close by I think.)

I was not able to accept a human rights instrument which sought to give
businesses the same political standing as governments, and this issue was so
basic to me that I saw no point in going beyond.

However, this new text is very different, and quite good. Congrats to its
drafters. I would try to offer more specific inputs later on but at this
time I wish to make just one point.

The text still speaks of stakeholder's rights, while defining stakeholders
as governments, civil society, businesses etc... In my opinion we should
only refer to human rights - individual or collective, but not rights of
institutions or organization, certainly not of businesses. Experts in human
rights can tell me more about it, but I think no human rights instrument
refers to such corporate rights, and creating a new class of these rights is
outrightly dangerous, while being expressly wrong, esp as part of a human
rights document. 

My problem is with the following kind of text in the draft

All internet stakeholders are equal before the law and are entitled without
any discrimination to equal protection of the law.



All stakeholders on the internet have duties and responsibilities as well as
rights



While it is ok to put responsibilities on other stakeholders, we should only
refer to rights for humans, and not organizations/ institutions, and
certainly not corporates, in this document.

Thanks

Parminder  







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20100812/c0b42cfa/attachment.htm>