[IRP] Outcomes of call on right to access/right to the Internet.

Thu Dec 9 20:44:32 EET 2010

[Sorry, this message was initially sent before my other message, but  
was too big to get through. Here it is again]

Hi Dixie and all,

I couldn't agree more with Dixie's arguments below. The so-called  
"right to the Internet" is defined by the Charter in its globality.  
And could this be realized, if not through:

(1) access as a precondition (otherwise it's an empty, meaningless  
right), understood as:
- affordable, leading to the need for adequate public policies,  
including policies allowing for free access under some conditions and  
including policies allowing for community-based access provision;
- accessible (Is there a better qualifyer for this: I mean equally  
accessible to disabled people), leading to the definition and respect  
for adequate technical standards;
- knowledgeable, leading to digital literacy issue (BTW, some of  
these are dealt with in Article 12 - Education, while I think they  
should be under this Article 1, so that what remains under Article 12  
concerns Education in gerenal, not digital literacy)
[this is the purpose of current Article 1 of the Charter]

and at the same time,

(2) the guarantee that this access respects and upholds human rights  
standards, online and offline
[this is the purpose of all other articles of the Charter]

Regarding the position that I expressed regarding the "right to  
access the Internet", I'm now convinced by Dixie's comment below:
====

"I recognize that some people in the Coalition that the risks also  
outweigh the benefits in claiming a right to access the Internet. To  
my eyes it is different, there is growing evidence that more and more  
people are seeing ?access to the Internet? as a fundamental right  
because it is critical to the full enjoyment of so many existing  
human rights. Thus I think it can be argued that we are not arguing  
for a new right, but rather that the rights remain the same  (e.g.  
freedom of expression, right to an adequate standards of living,  
right to self-determination), but the reality of the world has  
changed, and in this new world those rights imply a right to access."

====

Finally, I wouldn't be keen on adding the text below to the Preamble,  
suggested by Dixie:

====

"This Charter reinterprets and explains universal human rights in the  
context of the Internet; in doing so it may be interpreted as  
defining the necessary elements of a new right to the Internet,  
should such a right emerge."

====

My point is that if we want, as already agreed, the Charter being  
expansive and progressive rather than narrow and legal in its  
interpretation of rights, then we shouldn't put cautious language  
like "should such a right emerge", just like if this would happen (or  
not) independently from our action/from this charter. Moreover, it  
would focus the attention on this issue, which is very divisive as  
we're currently seeing among us, and even more when reaching out to  
other communities.

I don't want to insist on the alternative Preamble I've proposed,  
especially since we'll have a call dedicated to the Preamble, but  
wouldn't these parts of the proposed Preamble enough to content  
everyone (see full text at: http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/ 
files/Preamble%20(Meryem).doc):

"[...]
Whereas the affordable and knowledgeable access to the Internet has  
become a fundamental need to fully realize all human rights and  
fundamental freedoms, democracy, development and social justice;

Whereas the governance of the Internet, from its infrastructure and  
protocols to its applications and usages, have direct consequences on  
the realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms,  
democracy, development and social justice;
Whereas the full and universal enjoyment of all human rights and  
fundamental freedoms therefore requires the effective realization of  
these rights also on the Internet;
[...]

Therefore we bring this CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE INTERNET to  
the end that every individual and every organ of society shall act to  
promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive  
measures, local and global, to secure their universal and effective  
recognition and observance."

Best,

Meryem

Le 9 d?c. 10 ? 17:25, Dixie Hawtin a ?crit :

> Hi Parminder, Michael, Shaila, Lisa et al.,
>
>
>
> I don?t want to take up all of your time, so my position can be  
> summarized as: I don?t think we should put a Right to the Internet  
> in Version 1.1 of the Charter.
>
>
>
> The details of why I think that are as follows:
>
> In the first article of the Charter we are talking about access  
> issues, thus it is semantically accurate to call this article  
> ?access to the Internet?. A ?right to the Internet? is a different  
> right. My understanding is that the ?right to the Internet? would  
> demand all of the same things that we are currently asking for in  
> the Charter, only they would all form part of one overarching  
> right: the right to the Internet.
>
>
>
> In which case, the Charter would look very different. It would  
> become the Charter on the Right to the Internet, and all of the  
> current provisions would become different constituent parts of that  
> right, much like the Declaration on the Right to Development (see  
> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/rtd.htm)
>
>
>
> If the ?Right to the Internet? incorporates something above and  
> beyond what we already have in the Charter, please say so.
>
>
>
> So: if the substance is the same, what is the benefit in presenting  
> it as one overarching right? From what I understand the main  
> advantage in demanding a ?Right to the Internet? is that everything  
> to do with that right is contained within the same four words and  
> that this can have great rhetorical and political power.
>
>
>
> This is true, but I think there are also risks in this approach,  
> and in my eyes the risks outweigh the benefits. For me the risks  
> are as follows:
>
> 1.       I can?t find anybody arguing for a Right to the Internet.  
> I have been looking all morning, and everything I find is arguing  
> for a ?Right to Access the Internet.? In this case, it will be far  
> more effective (in my opinion) to add our voices to this momentum  
> which already exists.
>
> 2.       If we talk about a Right to the Internet I don?t think we  
> can deny that we are asking for a new right (in fact I think,  
> Parminder, you would like us to be explicitly demanding a new  
> right) and the exercise will change purpose (in my view) and become  
> essentially a campaign for a new right to the Internet. First I  
> question whether we have the resources and the will to run such a  
> campaign, but more importantly from what I?ve heard about the  
> ?Right to Communication? campaign, I feel we will be shooting  
> ourselves in the foot, and as Shaila said, our Charter will fall at  
> the first hurdle.
>
> 3.       Finally I think that ?a right to the Internet? implies  
> that the Internet is analogous with a Right to education, or the  
> right to an adequate standard of living, or the right to self- 
> determination. In my eyes it is not. Those rights are ends in  
> themselves, whereas I believe the only reason any of us are arguing  
> for this Charter is because the Internet is one of the best tools  
> for realizing existing rights, both civil and political and  
> economic , social and cultural. I think this distinction is  
> captured in the ?right to access the Internet?.
>
>
>
> I recognize that some people in the Coalition that the risks also  
> outweigh the benefits in claiming a right to access the Internet.  
> To my eyes it is different, there is growing evidence that more and  
> more people are seeing ?access to the Internet? as a fundamental  
> right because it is critical to the full enjoyment of so many  
> existing human rights. Thus I think it can be argued that we are  
> not arguing for a new right, but rather that the rights remain the  
> same  (e.g. freedom of expression, right to an adequate standards  
> of living, right to self-determination), but the reality of the  
> world has changed, and in this new world those rights imply a right  
> to access.
>
>
>
> Finally, I just want to say, I?m not against a ?Right to the  
> Internet? in principle, I?ve taken a strategic position. And  
> therefore I believe it would be very valuable to talk to as many  
> people about this as possible while we are consulting on Version  
> 1.1, and then if we discover that we can argue for this right  
> without undermining the Charter, we can put it into Version 2.0.
>
>
>
> What about including this compromise paragraph in the Preamble?
>
> This Charter reinterprets and explains universal human rights in  
> the context of the Internet; in doing so it may be interpreted as  
> defining the necessary elements of a new right to the Internet,  
> should such a right emerge.
>
>
>
> Best, Dixie
>
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> Dixie Hawtin
>
> Researcher Global Partners and Associates
>
> 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK
>
> Office: + 44 207 239 8251     Mobile: +44 7769 181 556
>
> dixie at global-partners.co.uk  www.global-partners.co.uk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp- 
> internetrightsandprinciples.org