[IRP] Some punch
parminder
parminder
Wed Oct 6 08:06:23 EEST 2010
Hi Lisa
"I agree with you that it's not common place to put things like
"we're not looking to create new rights" in a preamble. But I think
it's there to make it clear what the project is about, and to answer
the common question as to whether that's what we're doing. It has
been a question that's come up time and time again, so in the
initial drafting process people felt it should be clear up front. "
(Lisa)
"As we're translating existing rights standards, it's a case of
whether there's enough consensus as to whether it is a right under
existing standards (e.g. as we have a right to free expression,
adequate standards of living etc etc, we have a right to the
internet under states' obligations to fulfil rights), or whether we
can just say that it should be a right at this stage. I agree that
we should be as progressive and inspiring as possible, but we have
to work within the bounds of the project in terms of translating
existing standards." (Lisa)
Since the nature and the limits of 'the project' (I had thought it was a
rather open exercise :) but more on it later) as basically being of
'translating existing standards' is being spoken of rather seriously
here, I have the following to say even if the issue appears somewhat
time barred now :).
The concept of 'human rights standards' and their translation is
meaningful only/ mostly for applying agreed human rights charters etc to
some *very* specific situations / contexts, like a genocide, cultural
exclusions of a tribal group etc. That is how, in my understanding, the
technical application of a political instrument is done. However, I
dont see the information society phenomenon, consecrated by a World
Summit, as just a very specific situation/ context, but as an
evolutionary and emergent reality - social, cultural and, well, thus
also political (cant refuse or ignore this aspect).
In my opinion, one does not translate a set of human rights standards
into a new charter of rights (and I agree information society may need a
new, additional, charter), as the present process or project seeks to
do. That is the problem with the very basis/ definition of this
process/ project. I would, however, normally not spend too much time on
such conceptual issues that only relate to the process, unless a strong
shadow of these issues did not clearly fall on some substantive issues.
Now for the two political, economic, social and cultural rights vis a
vis the Internet I argued for.
First, about the Right to the Internet.
It looks like both a logical and a political fallacy to say, one does
*not* have a 'right to the Internet', however, if somehow one does
manage to get there, one has the following rights....... (See this
formulation especially with regard to the preamble language proposed by
Tapani, which has been much acclaimed, including by me, which considers
the Internet as a 'place').
I am far from being anything even close to an expert on human rights,
but my political understanding is that rights, by definition,
correspond to the most basic and primary elements of our social
contract, and there cannot therefore be a right vis a vis a subsequent
level of social contract or arrangement (to speak of 'less basic' levels
of social contract) , without there being a right vis a vis the
logically and politically prior one (right to the Internet vis a vis
right on the Internet).
Therefore, I consider a charter of Internet rights - speaking of rights
on the Internet - meaningless, and retrograde to the very conception of
rights, without an express anchoring of a right to the Internet. It is
as if we are creating a new autonomous entity over the Internet, to
which everyone *cannot* be accorded an automatic right This is *not* how
I see the Internet. Rights here appear to be some kind of club goods.
On the other hand, I do see the present draft charter say, ' Everyone
has the equal right to access to the Internet.' Dont see how it is much
different from 'right to access the Internet' (which is what I proposed
in my email), or rather let us even more clearly say ' everyone has the
right to the Internet'. Maybe we can name the sub head as 'right to the
Internet' and put this sentence below about - everyone has the right to
access the Internet. It is the unrequired language about 'affordable
conditions' - and in my opinion, clearly wrong language for a rights
document - which is the big problem. We should just remove that part.
Secondly, about the right to net neutrality (NN), or to net equality
"RE threat to open architecture -- I agree."(Lisa)
You agree that the 'open architecture issue' is important and urgent. I
am quite sure that it is up to progressive groups like us to posit NN as
a rights issue, and not just as business and competition issue, and this
is best done by putting it in language of rights. (Today I see that
France telecom authorities too have come out with NN principles)
I hope we can have more active language for the NN part, something
between what Tapani suggested and my formulation, and have a sub
heading, 'right to net equality' (or if NN is more recognizable, we can
use that)..... For indeed if the Internet is a new space, immediately
after having a right to the space, one should have the 'right to
equality in that space' (any democratic constitution will start with it)
before more differential conditions for other social arrangements -
including market and economic power based - are worked out. That is how
I see any social and political structure and order get constructed. This
should be as true for the Internet as for anywhere else.
First a 'right to the Internet', then a 'right to equality on the
Internet' or right to Net Equality (NN or NE), and then other rights,
and then principles ...... That is the logical sequence, and I think the
charter should also be written like this.
As for the 'project' that we are collectively embarked upon, I take it
to be something like
An effort towards formulating key issues of governance of the
central socio-technical paradigm of the emerging information
society, the Internet, in a human centric manner (instead of
state-centric, or business centric) using human rights frameworks,
and for this purpose coming up with a charter of Internet rights and
principles.
Thanks, Parminder
On Monday 04 October 2010 04:10 PM, Lisa Horner wrote:
>
> Hi Parminder and all
>
> Thanks for these comments. I agree with you that it's not common
> place to put things like "we're not looking to create new rights" in a
> preamble. But I think it's there to make it clear what the project is
> about, and to answer the common question as to whether that's what
> we're doing. It has been a question that's come up time and time
> again, so in the initial drafting process people felt it should be
> clear up front. But I agree it's a bit odd to include it in the
> preamble. I think perhaps we need a more general "introduction"
> section (or background, or even at the end as an annex) to explain the
> process, background and rationale of the approach. Then we can keep
> the preamble more punchy and inspiring. Or we could remove the bit
> about new rights as Parminder suggests. (I personally think we still
> need it in there somewhere...it's been such a bone of contention).
> What do people think? And should these changes be made for version
> 1.1, or wait until 2.0?
>
> RE the other comments -- they're really important points. Could you
> agree to include them in the consultation process, and then we can
> make the necessary changes for version 2.0? Version 1.1 was intended
> to incorporate urgent issues (mistakes, contradictions, misleading
> comments). So we'll add your suggestions to the compilation of
> comments for 2.0 if that's ok.
>
> RE right to Internet...I completely hear what you're saying. I think
> it's something that would benefit from more discussion. ...it should
> be a specific issue we consult on amongst us and other groups. As
> we're translating existing rights standards, it's a case of whether
> there's enough consensus as to whether it is a right under existing
> standards (e.g. as we have a right to free expression, adequate
> standards of living etc etc, we have a right to the internet under
> states' obligations to fulfil rights), or whether we can just say that
> it should be a right at this stage. I agree that we should be as
> progressive and inspiring as possible, but we have to work within the
> bounds of the project in terms of translating existing standards. We
> of course also need to bear in mind the difference between human
> rights and other legal rights. We definitely need to revisit our
> language and conditionalities (re "affordable conditions" etc), and be
> consistent in our language ("rights", "ares" and "shoulds").
>
> RE threat to open architecture -- I agree.
>
> As you know, we're keeping track of comments, so if anyone has any
> thoughts on this now, feel free to send them through...you don't have
> to wait for the consultation process to start.
>
> The punchy group has been pulling out what they think are key
> principles, and will then be whittling them down. They're not working
> on the preamble, but we'll need to work out how the two fit in with
> each other.
>
> Brett -- could you give us an update on the work please, and add
> Parminder to the group?
>
> Thanks and all the best,
>
> Lisa
>
> *From:* irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On Behalf
> Of *parminder
> *Sent:* 04 October 2010 10:46
> *To:* irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> *Subject:* Re: [IRP] Some punch
>
> Hi All
>
> I have three comments on the text which are significant enough to be
> brought to the group. Some other less significant comments will be
> communicated directly to Lisa and Dixie.
>
> 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'..
>
> 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. It is not the kind of language a human
> rights instrument normally uses. A recent poll by BBC found that 4 out
> of 5 people consider access to the Internet as a fundamental human
> right. I think we should be bold and forthright, and propose a right
> to the Internet as a human right.
>
> 3) The threat to the open architecture of Internet should be more
> clearly addressed. That is the single biggest danger looming over us
> today. I would suggest putting something like the following in the
> section on net neutrality or net equality (the text is still a bit rough)
>
> 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.
>
> This however does not preclude positive discrimination to promote
> equity and diversity on and through the Internet.(ends)
>
> Thanks, parminder
>
>
>
> On Friday 01 October 2010 08:39 PM, Lisa Horner wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I just wanted to say a big thank you to Tapani for this redraft of the preamble. I think it's really good, and would like to suggest that we use it as the basis of a redraft of the Charter for version 1.1. Are people happy with that?
>
> I know that our brilliantly-named punchy working group is currently distilling a list of punchy principles to complement our Charter for advocacy, outreach and punchy purposes. They should be sending us an update of their progress and plan soon. The punchy text and principles might also be useful to include in the preamble, or should at least be consistent with it.
>
> So I suggest that we wait and see what the punchy group comes up with, and have our discussion about that within the coalition. Then we can see if/how we can link or coordinate the preamble and punchy work, and include a new punchy preamble in version 1.1. Does that sound ok?
>
> Also - thanks so much to everyone for their comments, including Vittorio. They are all extremely useful, and I think this process has been incredibly valuable in bringing us all together to collaborate.
>
> And, at risk of sounding like a broken record, don't forget to send any immediate, specific and serious concerns about the text through for version 1.1 by October 10th!
>
> Punchily yours,
> Lisa
>
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 11:36 +0300, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
>
> Having criticized version 1.0 of the Charter for lack of punch as it
>
> were, I made an effort to see if if I could, er, "punchify" it.
>
> Below is the result.
>
> It is not intended to be "ready" or complete text as such, yet I feel it
>
> is better to present it without explanations or textual alternatives
>
> I considered. I even cut out some parts I didn't feel comfortable
>
> with but couldn't think of a better substitute, for my primary purpose
>
> here is to convey a feeling of the kind of language I'd like to see in
>
> this kind of document, inadequate though I feel my wordsmithing
>
> skills to be for such a task.
>
>
>
> I hope it will at least stimulate thoughts on how the text could
>
> be improved.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Preamble
>
>
>
> Internet is a medium people communicate with;
>
> a place where people meet and congregate;
>
> a tool people use for a multitude of purposes.
>
> It is self-evident that universal human rights apply in the Internet
>
> like they do everywhere where there are people,
>
> and that same fundamental principles apply in the Internet
>
> as in all areas of human endeavour.
>
>
>
> Yet Internet is different from any other medium yet invented,
>
> different from any other place in the world,
>
> different from any other tool human ingenuity has yet produced,
>
> and it is not always obvious exactly how
>
> human rights and general principles apply to it.
>
> At the same time, Internet's importance has grown to the extent
>
> that it has become a major power in the realization of human rights -
>
> for good and bad.
>
> Thus it is of crucial importance to ensure Internet
>
> governance is based core values of human rights
>
> like human dignity, equality and non-discrimination,
>
> solidarity, diversity, rule of law and social justice.
>
>
>
> Hence this Charter: not an attempt to create new rights,
>
> but to reinterpret and explain old ones in a new context:
>
> the Internet.
>
>
>
> The rights and principles identified herein are crucial for the
>
> governance of the Internet. They are based on the core values of human
>
> rights like human dignity, equality and non-discrimination,
>
> solidarity, diversity, rule of law and social justice. Everybody needs
>
> to respect, protect and fulfil all the human rights on the Internet,
>
> and to ensure that the Internet operates to evolve in a way that
>
> supports and expands these human rights as an instrument supportive to
>
> human rights.
>
>
>
> Internet governance must be guided by internationally
>
> agreed human rights standards, and designed and implemented in an
>
> inclusive process bringing together public administrations,
>
> governments, civil society as well as businesses.
>
>
>
> This Charter is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
>
> (UDHR) and subsequent human rights law of the United Nations and work
>
> done by other human rights institutions.
>
>
>
> This Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet has been
>
> developed by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles
>
> and draws inspiration from the APC Internet Rights Charter and other
>
> pertinent documents.
>
>
>
> The Charter builds on the WSIS Declaration of Principles of Geneva
>
> and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, which recognises
>
> that Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) present tremendous
>
> opportunities to enable individuals, communities and peoples to
>
> achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable
>
> development and improving their quality of life. Like the WSIS
>
> Declaration, this Charter aims at building a people-centred
>
> information society, which respects and upholds fundamental human
>
> rights that are enshrined in the UDHR.
>
>
>
> The Charter is split into two sections. The first interprets human
>
> rights and defines principles for the purposes and concerns of the
>
> information society. The second defines principles and guidelines
>
> addressed to specific stakeholders and technologies.
>
>
>
> The Charter is addressed to all actors and stake-holders of Internet
>
> governance, who - according to the Preamble of the UDHR - shall strive
>
> by teaching and education to promote respect for the rights contained
>
> in the UDHR and to secure their universal and effective recognition
>
> and observance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20101006/91c10efd/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the IRP
mailing list