[IRPCoalition] IRPC Submission to the Net Mundial Meeting
joy at apc.org
Fri Mar 7 04:24:52 EET 2014
Hi Milton :)
On 7/03/2014 1:41 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >One could: that is just a simple footnote (but i note below you feel
> > these are well understood, so i guess that is not your main focus).
> > The concept of social justice was perhaps framed in a US context
> > most eloquently by Roosevelt i think as referring to: freedom from
> > want, freedom from fear ......
> Rooseveltian rhetoric is fine, it's great to say that everyone should
> be free from fear and want, who could disagree? But how about giving
> me the footnote? Nothias tells me that it is something completely
> different, rooted in classical political economy, but those guys were
> talking about distributive justice ad never used the term 'social
> justice.' I'd also like to know what's wrong with the word "justice"
> -- that seems pretty important to me.
you said you felt the concepts well understood = therefore a footnote
seems spurious - i need an emoticon for that
> I like this, but doesn't it overlap a bit with #1 and #2, and
> isn't it clearly better than #2 because it avoids undefined
> and divisive language about social justice?
> > .... you'll find this in the same documents that reference
> > the concepts in 1-5: the universal declaration of human rights.
> > I sense a philosphical objection to "social justice" :)
> And that means you don't have to deal with it? Is that what you are
not at all - i am just saying i sense a philosophical objection - i take
it from your non-denial that it is a philosophical objection - which is
fine - therefore my response is to name it as such and deal with it
> By the way UDHR does not contain the words 'social justice.'
I said "concepts" :) - equality, non-discrimination, participation,
> *8) Network Equality*
> Everyone shall have universal and open access to the
> Internet's content, free from discriminatory prioritisation,
> filtering or traffic control on commercial, political or other
> This one is garbled, and it overreaches, and thereby sets
> itself up for rejection. It is not about "network equality" it
> is either about network neutrality or the right of network
> users to be treated equally (except that no one really wants
> to treat all network users equally). Not all content on the
> internet is open, some of it you have to pay for and some of
> it is shielded because you don't have authorization to access
> it (e.g., my bank account). Is that a violation of this
> principle? What is "the Internet's content"? "Discriminatory
> prioritization...on commercial, political or *other* grounds"
> might be interpreted to mean that network operators or end
> users could not discriminate against traffic tagged as spam,
> malware or viruses.
> I notice there is not even an attempt to defend this one.
There are plenty of others on this list who might choose to answer - i
was not attempting a wholesale response
> *9) Standards and Regulation*
> The Internet's architecture, communication systems, and
> document and data formats shall be based on open standards
> that ensure complete interoperability, inclusion and equal
> opportunity for all.
> "Complete interoperability" tips me off that whoever wrote
> this hasn't worked with standards and standardization much.
> Are you saying that innovative protocols or services that
> don't always work well with others are to be banned? How about
> IPv6, for example?
> Again, no answer to these objections. The question about IPv6,
> which is incompatible with many applications and even with
> IPv4, demands an answer.
There are plenty of others on this list who can choose to answer - i was
not attempting a wholesale response
> What a mess. I simply don't believe that this principle,
> especially the invocation of "multilateral" governance, has
> widespread consensus. I still don't know what social justice
> means, but I do know how some people use the term as a code
> word for coercive redistributions of wealth.
> > Ah - again, I sense a philosophical objection to social justice
> > - well that is your prerogative of course.
> OK, I understand you don't want to engage with legitimate disagreement
> on that issue, but I want to know why you are invoking "multilateral"
> governance? That is a very loaded term in this environment. It can be
> defended, of course, but I suspect that there are lots of people other
> than me who don't want to see that in there, or who will see its
> inclusion as a red line that will lead to the rejection of the whole
I am quite happy to acknowledge legitimate disagreement - you have your
views: i respect them and like i said, that is your prerogative of
course. I can also disagree - and acknowledge I don't have the bandwidth
for engaging on in-depth philosohical arguements.
I did not invoke "multilateral" in this discussion - but please see
Anriette's response on the governance list to the question of the
definition of multi-lateral in the APC charter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 229 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the IRP