[IRP] Some punch

Tapani Tarvainen tapani.tarvainen
Mon Oct 4 13:16:52 EEST 2010

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:15:48PM +0530, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:

> 1) I am still not convinced about the logic of the text ' we are
> creating no new rights'. No human rights document uses such text in
> its preamble. Preambles have a higher authoritativeness and great
> interpretative value for the rest of the text. In any case I am not
> sure how right to access the Internet, and net neutrality kind of
> rights are not new rights. I will like to know more about the basis
> of the 'strategic choice' made in this regard that has been
> mentioned. As a possible via media, I am fine for us to say we are
> elaborating human rights standards as they apply to the Internet and
> to the information society, but not expressly say 'we seek to create
> no new rights'..

I tend to agree. Indeed, I thought about that but couldn't come up
with a formulation I'd like.

> 2) With courts in many countries - France, Costa Rica etc - have
> held right to access the Internet as a fundamental right, why should
> a non-binding forward looking progressive civil society document
> like this be so defensive on this issue to propose just a right to
> Internet under affordable conditions.

I found the "under affordable conditions" in the 1.0 draft also
rather clumsy. I take it you don't like my "affordable access"
any better?
Would you go as far as to demand cost-free access?

Perhaps it'd be better to leave all qualifications away and say
"all people must have access to the Internet", period.

> 3) The threat to the open architecture of Internet should be more
> clearly addressed. That is the single biggest danger looming over us
> today.

Agreed on principle. However:

>    Internet is a global commons and its architecture has to be
>    protected and promoted for it to be a vehicle for free, open, equal
>    and non-discriminating exchange of information, communication and
>    culture, with no special privileges for or obstacles against any
>    party or content on economic, social, cultural, or political grounds.

I find that in some ways weaker than my formulation.
In particular, "has to be protected and promoted" is weaker
than "shall be... must not be...".

>    This however does not preclude positive discrimination to promote
>    equity and diversity on and through the Internet.(ends)

Somehow this doesn't feel good here to me. At the very least drop the
"however", as this should be seen as an obvious consequence of the
aforesaid rather than as an exception to it.

Tapani Tarvainen

More information about the IRP mailing list