[IRP] FW: Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet
Anja Kovacs
anja
Tue Aug 31 18:16:41 EEST 2010
Ah yes, I immediately see what you mean.
Let me do some more thinking, perhaps that can help :) Or perhaps there
are others on the list who have some experience with this topic?
Kind regards,
Anja
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 08:13 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang
(wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote:
> Dear Anja,
>
> thank You very much for Your efforts.
>
> The problem is to put the principle in human rights language. You state rather environmental principles.
>
> I have already included it as a responsibility in the Charter, let's see what we can do more.
>
> Anyway, thank You again.
>
> Best regards
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] Im Auftrag von Anja Kovacs
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. August 2010 16:21
> An: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> Betreff: Re: [IRP] FW: Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet
>
> Dear all,
>
> I had promised to attempt to provide some wording on the problem of
> e-waste, for the charter (to be added to the para on sustainable
> development). Here is an initial attempt:
>
> "The burden of e-waste should first and foremost be carried by the
> producer. E-waste should not be exported to developing countries that
> do not have the capacity to deal with it in a manner that safeguards the
> health of workers and the environment. Developing and developed
> countries should work together to find sustainable solutions to e-waste
> problems".
>
> Best,
>
> Anja
>
>
>
> On Thursday 19 August 2010 05:37 AM, Henrik Almstr?m wrote:
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>> Really interesting comments below - and good work from the creators!
>>
>> Sorry for late comments from my side but here are some on the comments
>> in the thread and some new ones. I will try to attend the meeting
>> tomorrow, just hoping that computer and connection will work fine.
>>
>> people/citizens/stakeholders/users:
>> I actually don't have a principle problems that businesses enjoy human
>> rights - especially the right of being treated as equal before the law.
>> I'm not an expert in HR law but I don't think that implies that humans
>> and companies are treated as equals but instead that actors with the
>> same legal status are treated equal. What are the effects of changing it
>> to people? Does it mean that a company (or even a CSO/NGO) do not enjoy
>> the rights of the charter at all?
>>
>> Relating to the above; is there a reason that there is no list of
>> definitions?
>> There are a number of words and concepts that could be defined to avoid
>> misunderstandings. However I realise that such a list could cause lot's
>> of discussions and maybe delays in the process. And as was mentioned by
>> Olivier regarding defamation it can sometimes be good not to define. The
>> latter could however be solved through a definition linking directly to
>> the CCPR where it is an open concept as well.
>>
>> 2) c. states that "everyone, in particular governments and business
>> should undertake". I have two comments on this: 1- why is it givernment
>> and business in particular only here and not on several more places such
>> as net neutrality or sustainability? 2- As mentioned above I don't have
>> a problem to give companies rights - but to give them obligations is
>> more problematic. Of course depending on the nature of the charter (and
>> correct me if i'm wrong) - but if it is supposed to be signed by states
>> like the UDHR or the ICCPR everyone can have rights but only the signing
>> states can have obligations. This means in this case the obligation
>> should be on the state to create a legal environment where business is
>> forced undertake the steps towards inclusion. On the other hand if the
>> charter is supposed to be a transcription of a general set of norms it
>> could include obligations for anyone.
>>
>> 2) e. "the principle of inclusive design" is a concept that could be
>> defined to easier communicate the content of the section.
>>
>> 6)d. 7)b. and 9)d. could be linked together. I agree with the current
>> positions but to 6)d. "such restrictions should include limitations as
>> decribed in section 7)b. and 9)d. of this Charter."could be added. To
>> 7)b. "Such prohibition shall always comply with section 6)d. of this
>> Charter" could be added. And to 9)d. "Such protection shall always
>> comply with section 6)d. of this Charter" could be added.
>>
>> 9)f. As behavioural tracking is part of the business model of just about
>> any business involving internet advertising (like Gmail Facebook etc) i
>> think a total prohibition is problematic. What would you think of the
>> following addition? "Any agreement regarding access to online services
>> that includes acceptance of such surveillance shall clearly state the
>> nature of the surveillance"
>>
>> 10)c. The last sentence: Is it ok if you just are notified afterwards if
>> data is transferred to a third party? Or is this just in the case of
>> accidental transfer? if not accidental transfer I believe (preferrably
>> active consent) should be required (which i think is the case in many
>> data privacy laws)
>>
>> 11) last part.I'm not sure about the meaning of "Open Educational
>> Resources" but as I am reading this it implies that it should not be
>> allowed to commercialise learning materials in a traditional copyright
>> way. I'm definitely pro Open source, FOSS, CC etc. but i don't
>> necessarily think that it should be totally prohibited the selling and
>> copyrighting of a newly developed pedagogic mathematics book. I think
>> such a prohibition could affect the developments of new pedagogics
>> badly.
>>
>> I think what is mentioned in section 12)b about the fair use exceptions
>> is the way to cover this issue rather than prohibiting the use of
>> copyright in a certain way. That would also target states rather than
>> private actors which i think is an easier way to go.
>>
>> 12)c. I know that some (maybe all) of you might not agree with me but I
>> think there's a lot of basic research that could never benefit the
>> society of it was not commercialised through copyright or patenting in
>> an early stage because of the high costs of testing and developing
>> before reaching market. I actually believe that the state very well
>> could play the role of financing certain basic research which if
>> commercialized could benefit the society. This would not be possible at
>> all with the current phrasing without exceptions.
>>
>> 14) b.How about adding "and shall comply with section 10) of this
>> Charter" in the end?
>>
>> See you tomorrow!
>> /Henrik Almstrom
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 15:51 +0200, Max Senges wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>>
>>> I hurried and returned from the pamir mountains early in order to join
>>> our call tomorrow :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> A big thanks to Wolfgang and the other experts for developing the
>>> latest version of the charter.
>>> I have added some first personal comments and some language to the
>>> google doc and am in the process to consult with some colleagues.
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 1
>>> https://docs1.google.com/document/edit?id=10dSNV0OMkFEZ3KrVDWCXou1an6gJP6uqJQeZPYlHCAo&hl=en&authkey=CIWByMwN#
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 2
>>> https://spreadsheets2.google.com/ccc?key=tGANSnLsqQuRjiuEGsGUJkg&hl=en#gid=0 (please hover over the cells with an orange triangle)
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking forward to the call tomorrow.
>>>
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>> "The future is not what it used to be"
>>> Karl Valentin
>>> ...........................................................................
>>>
>>> Max Senges
>>> Berlin
>>>
>>> www.maxsenges.com
>>>
>>> Mobile: 01622122755
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:01 PM, M I Franklin <cos02mf at gold.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear All
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I'm unable to attend tomorrow's meeting due to
>>> another engagement though I might manage to be there for the
>>> last part.
>>>
>>> Have read the latest version of the charter with great
>>> interest. Congratulations to Wolfgang. Meryem, and Rikke for
>>> all their work and expertise in producing this working
>>> document.
>>>
>>> I have some brief comments/queries for the discussion
>>> tomorrow based on the current version and points raised by
>>> others in terms of language and wording.
>>>
>>> 1) the Title; The Charter, and its sister-documents (e.g. APC
>>> Charter, Bill of Rights) have run with several sorts of word
>>> combinations in their titles; Internet Rights; Internet Rights
>>> and Principles; Human Rights and Principles for the Internet.
>>>
>>> I'm not a legal expert but wording, and word-order does matter
>>> in this setting so I'm interested to hear more about the
>>> current title-wording in view of tactical issues around 'human
>>> rights' being a red flag for certain stakeholders. ;
>>>
>>> 2) I concur with the need to talk about 'digital inclusion'
>>> vs. 'digital divide'. However, the latter does exist so need
>>> this be an either/or choice?
>>>
>>> 3) I defer to the expertise of Michael G., Ben W., Wolfgang
>>> and others about FoE and privacy wording.
>>>
>>> 4) Thinking ahead in terms of how terms of
>>> reference/technologies change (e.g. inroads being made by
>>> mobile internet communications) I was wondering what the
>>> shelf-life was of the term 'Internet'; would it be possible to
>>> delineate this term a bit more in the preamble?
>>>
>>> 5) re. the discussion about 'people' vs. 'citizens' vs.
>>> 'users'; The first is the most flexible as it encompasses
>>> communities and individuals; those who can/want to access and
>>> use the internet as well as those who don't . Btw, 'netizens'
>>> is a term that is also in use in some quarters.
>>>
>>> 6) On ownership; I concur with Wolfgang's point; the Charter
>>> needs to be launched and made available to a wide range of
>>> parties if it is to gain any so a bottom-up approach is all
>>> the better.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to reading the minutes for tomorrow; Is there
>>> any chance of recording this meeting - does HiDef Conferencing
>>> allow for this?
>>>
>>> All the best
>>> MF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Tuesday, August 17, 2010 17:21 +0200 Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Lisa and others
>>>
>>> I have been meaning to ask why the language 'Digital
>>> divide' was
>>> introduced. We never used it in the APC IR Charter.
>>>
>>> As Michael points out, the term digital inclusion has
>>> been preferred by
>>> most organisations working in developing countries for
>>> the last 10
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Michael's language is perhaps a bit long.. but I think
>>> it contains
>>> important points so forms a good basis.
>>>
>>> The challenge with the term digital inclusion is that
>>> it relates to so
>>> many different rights but accessibility and
>>> affordability are
>>> fundamental
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 15:53 +0100, Lisa Horner wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please see salient comments below from Michael
>>> concerning digital
>>> inclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking forward to conference call to discuss
>>> all comments this
>>> Thursday 19th at 15.00 UK/16.00 CET. Please
>>> could you let me know if
>>> you are planning to join? Please also try to
>>> submit all comments in
>>> writing by the end of tomorrow (Wednesday) so
>>> that we can collate them
>>> and discuss them systematically during the
>>> call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Michael Gurstein
>>> [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 15 August 2010 15:20
>>> To: Lisa Horner
>>> Subject: RE: [IRP] Charter of Human Rights and
>>> Principles for the
>>> Internet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Lisa,
>>>
>>>
>>> Below I suggest some (unfortunately
>>> still
>>> awkward) alternative language under the
>>> "Overcoming the
>>> Digital Divide" section I.2.c as below
>>> (including changing the
>>> heading) . The term Digital Inclusion
>>> is now coming into
>>> more general use than Digital Divide
>>> based in part on a
>>> recognition that there will always (in
>>> a fractal world) be
>>> "divides" while broad based "inclusion"
>>> while difficult is
>>> achievable. The notion of the "digital
>>> divide" also
>>> (inappropriately) tends to disempower
>>> and imply dependency on
>>> the part of those on the "wrong" side
>>> or the "divide".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ensuring Digital Inclusion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An Internet based society and economy
>>> requires that all have
>>> an equal opportunity for active and
>>> effective participation in
>>> and through the Internet. To this end
>>> active support should
>>> be available for self-managed and other
>>> community
>>> based facilities and services to
>>> ensure universal digital
>>> inclusion . Digital inclusion requires
>>> the opportunity for
>>> access to, and effective use of the
>>> range of digital media,
>>> communication platforms and devices for
>>> information management
>>> and processing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To ensure the opportunity for universal
>>> digital access and
>>> use, among the measures that must be
>>> put in place are public
>>> internet access points located (with
>>> easy physical and
>>> disability oriented design access ) in
>>> among other
>>> locations, telecentres, libraries,
>>> community centers, clinics
>>> or schools. This must be accompanied
>>> by support for the
>>> effective use of this access as well
>>> as access obtained via
>>> mobile media. This would be provided
>>> through appropriate training, social
>>> and organizational
>>> mediation and facilitation, and design
>>> and governance
>>> regimes including support for the use
>>> of the range of Internet
>>> enabled services such as e-government,
>>> e-education, e-health
>>> and facilitation and support for
>>> locally based initiatives and
>>> participation in content creation,
>>> e-governance, service
>>> design and delivery and other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (Note that I've included here a brief
>>> mention of mobile
>>> Internet access... I notice that the
>>> overall document seems
>>> rather to ignore mobile Internet which
>>> is emerging as the
>>> dominant Internet access means in many
>>> parts of the world.
>>> I'm not exactly sure how that impacts
>>> on other parts of this
>>> document but as the document proceeds
>>> it should be done in
>>> full awareness of the potential of this
>>> as an issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best to all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
>>> Director: Centre for Community
>>> Informatics Research,
>>> Development and Training
>>> Vancouver, CANADA
>>> http://www.communityinformatics.net
>>> CA tel. +1-604-602-0624
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
>>> ghtsandprinciples.org
>>>
>>> --
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> anriette esterhuysen -
>>> ?executive director
>>> ass??????????????????????????????????
>>> ?????????????????????????????????
>>> ?????????????????????????????????
>>> ??????????????????????????????????
>>> ????????????????????????????????
>>> ???????????????????????????????????
>>> ???????????????????????????????????????
>>> ???????????????????????????????????
>>> ??????????????????????????????????
>>> ????????????????????????
>>> ??????????????????????????????????
>>> ?????????????????????????????????
>>> ???????????????????????????????
>>> ?????????????????????????????????????
>>> ????????????????????????????????
>>> ??????????????????????????????????
>>> ???????????????????????????????????
>>> ??????????????????????????????????
>>> ???????????????????????????????????
>>> ????????????????????????????
>>> ?????????????????????????????????
>>> ????????????????????
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> Centre for Internet and Society
> No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross
> Domlur 2nd Stage
> Bangalore 560071, India
> T: +91-(0)80-25350955 | F: +91-(0)80-41148130
> M: +91-9611747212 | W: www.cis-india.org
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
Centre for Internet and Society
No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross
Domlur 2nd Stage
Bangalore 560071, India
T: +91-(0)80-25350955 | F: +91-(0)80-41148130
M: +91-9611747212 | W: www.cis-india.org
More information about the IRP
mailing list