[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Fwd: Further Discussions On the Matter of User Rights From: carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm This from the governance list. Carlton Samuels ======================================================================== Forwarded message From: Ian Peter <ian.peter@ianpeter.com> Date: Thu, Feb 12, 2009 AT 3:23 p.m. Subject: RE: [ governance ] RE: Statement to the February OC: the way forward To: governance@lists.cpsr.org Just to couple of suggested additions below. We do need to move to a consensus call on this within to day or two. > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Rights and principles" ace to major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse AT the IGF > meetings > leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to > the Internet, and how they relates to pre-existing definitions of human > rights. For It also includes to space discussions about the > responsibilities > of all parties. I agree. General We seem to have agreement to move from our previous statements of rights ace to theme to rights and principles
The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal Access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > significant > themes of Access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of BASIC to user rights and control to Access, content and > applications > of to their choice, in keeping with current international debates.
Although I agree with this phrasing, I to wonder what people think about U.S. not mentioning net neutrality AT all or to whether an addition such ace "this includes elements of the network neutrality debates "would be useful > > for The inclusion of "principles" allows wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each to other. > Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open > examination > of the principles that should govern the Internet, particularly in its > commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > to multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariatcontinue and > expand the uses of Remote Participation for ace to tool attendance AT the IGF > 2009 in Egypt ace to to proven method include new voices. Tothat end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group for ace to collaborating organization the RP AT the IGF 2009, > especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the uses ofthe RP > resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > ori! ginal -----Mensaje > Of: Ginger Paque [ mailto:ginger@paque.net ] > Envoy: Wednesday, 21 of January of 2009 03:41 p.m. > For: ' governance@lists.cpsr.org' > Subject: Statement OC February OC: the way forward > > In parallel to the discussion on the IGC statement to the OCabout the IGF > process review ace started by Ian, we must start to draft ofour statement > on > the way forward, proposing the themes of rights, net neutrality within > openness and universal Access and possibly remote participation, ace have > the been in discussion on list. > > I suggest we start our discussion with this short draft (theprevious IGC > statement "Rights and the Internet ace the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in > for Egypt "is copied below your reference): > > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports "Rights and principles" ace to major > theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. This should lead to discourse AT the IGF > meetings > leading towards the definition and clarification of rights in relation to!
the Internet, and how they relates to pre-existing definiti! ons of h uman > rights. For It also includes to space discussions about the > responsibilities > of all parties. > > The concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness and > universal Access. This framework will continue to emphasize the > significant > themes of Access to knowledge and development, while adding the important > issues of BASIC to user rights and control to Access, content and > applications > of to their choice, in keeping with current international debates. > > for The inclusion of "principles" allows wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each to other. > Without invoking legislation or prohibitions, it allows for open > examination of the principles that should govern the Internet, > particularly > in its commercial facets. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > to multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariatcontinue and > expand the uses of Remote Partici! pation for ace to tool attendance AT the IGF > 2009 in Egypt ace to to proven method include new voices. Tothat end, we > recommend that the Secretariat recognize the Remote Participation Working > Group for ace to collaborating organization the RP AT the IGF 2009, > especially > in the area of Hub participation, and facilitate the uses of the RP > resources > from the first planning stages for this 4th meeting. > > > I look forward to your ideas on this. > Regards, > Ginger > > IGC previous statement: > Rights and the Internet ace the over-arching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt > > The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that ' Rights and the > Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt,and that the > for IGF-4's program be framed by the desire developing to rights-based > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The Caucus there are already > expressed support for the to letter on this subject which was sent to the MAG > by the Dynamic Coalition ! on an Internet Bill of Rights. > > The IGC offers the IGF assi! stance i n helping to shape such to discourse AT > the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make ' Rights and the Internet' > an > overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. > > To complex new emerging ecology of rights and the Internet > > One important purpose of to discourse on rights should be to clarify and > reach to greater consensus on how rights with respect to the Internet plows > defined, how they relates to pre-existing definitions of human rights, and > which ones need to be internationally recognized and strengthened. Within > this context, we acknowledge that, even within the civil society caucus, > differences of opinion exist ace to the nature of various rights and > conceptual rights and the degree to which they should be emphasized in > Internet governance discussions. > > While the Internet opens unprecedented economic, social andpolitical > opportunities in many area, many to fear that it may AT thesame Time be > to further widening economic, social and political yo! u divide. For It is this > reason that development you have been to for power station theme the IGF meetings to > dates. In this new, dwells global and digital context it might be useful to > explores what the term "right to development" means. > > With respect to privacy rights, corporations and governments plows > increasingly able to extend digital tentacles into peopléshomes and > personal devices, in manners invisible to consumers and citizens. > Consumers > of digital products thus phase new challenges including theright > <http://docs.google.com/RawDocContents?docID=dcskr5r9_7n2dnxhs&justBody=fa > ls > e&revision=_latest×tamp=1220550114112&editMode=true&strip=true#sdfoot > no > te3sym > to know and completely ' own' the products and services they pay > for. Technological measures to monitor and control to user behavior on the > Internet plows becoming increasingly sophisticated, and often outrun public > policies and traditional concepts of what rights users ! have. > > While property rights plows of considerable importan! ce, to t heir applicability > and mutations in the digital environment political have LEDto widespread > contention to over the to proper scope of copyrights, trademarks and patents. In > fact, intellectual property is emerging ace to primary areaof partner > economic > conflict in the information society. The IGF dog explores issues > surrounding > the public interest principles which underpin intellectual property claims > alongside the concept of to right to digital Access knowledge in the space > It > dog also explores how individuals' property right to own, build, test, and > uses to consumer electronics, computers and to other forms of equipment dog be > reconciled with the regulation of technical circumvention to protect > copyrights. > > It may also be useful to explores if and how to other concepts may be > meaningful > in relation to the Internet - for instance, to ' right to Access the > Internet > unconditional of the uses being made of it (similar to electricity and > te! lephone). Similarly, to right of cultural _ expression _,and to right to > have > an Internet in ones own language, could inform the important IGF thematic > cultural area of diversity. > > Other important Internet policy area, like network neutrality, plows being > framed in terms of rights, such ace to right to Access and share > information, > or ace an extension of freedom of _ expression _ itself. The right of the > public > to Access government-produced information presents itself in a wholly new > to manner in digital a environment, where information is often publicly nonextra > sharable AT little or cost. Digital Positive acts of withholding > public information from citizens in fact dog be looked uponace to form of > censorship. All of these rights-based conceptions may be included in the > IGF > openness theme area along with open standards Other rights such ace the > right > of association and the right to political participation mayhave important > new implications in the Internet age, > > We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulateand claim > "rights" it is much dwells difficult to agree on, implementand enforce > them. > We also recognize that rights claims dog sometimes conflict or is incumbent on > with > each to other. There dog also be uncertainty about the to proper application of > a > rights claim to to factual situation. Technical The change in the methods > of > communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply > legal categories. > > These complexities, to however, only the IGF ! strengthen themarries for using to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is not to other global > forum > where such issues dog be raised and explored in a non-binding context. > > Internet governance there are up to this Time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the internet's functionality ace to giant > global marketplace. With central the Internet becoming increasingly to > many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and > conceptual > framework for IG dog be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a > rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose. > > To rights-based IG shouldn't be seen ace threatening, but to rather rights > provide to international Seth of standards and guiding principles that dog > help to inform complex policy decisions. It is pertinent torecollect that for > WSIS called to people-centric information society, and to rights > framework > helps develop polices people-centric IG agenda and. > > It is the Caucus' view that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up > this > task. This process should start AT the IGF Hyderabad, whereworkshops on > rights issues plows being planned. These issues will also hopefully appears > prominently in the main sessions. The IGC fully expects that these > discussions will help the IGF work towards developing ' Rights and the > Internet' ace the over-arching theme of the IGF-4 in Egypt. >
[[--Original text (es) http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/936edd3f45.html --]]