[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] Background of my objection on final statement of Internet Governance Caucus

[YJ Park]

> > WSIS CS is willing to pick up human rights issues of Tunisian gov't
> > practice but have no guts to talk about collection of finger prints and
> > eye inspection whenever people from other countries enter the USA.
> >
> > Where are human rights activists who address this issue at WSIS?
> > How can CS at WSIS be so sensitive to human rights issues of South
> > Gov't and numb to that of governments from the North?
> 
> I would like to draw your attention to the human rights caucus 
> statement on internet governance, read by Rikke at Thursday governement 
> plenary, which I'm again including below. You may also want to have a 
> look at the privacy & security WG statement on internet governance, 
> also read in plenary session the same day, and which is at: 
> http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2005/02/privacy_as_an_e.html

I listened to them at the plenary.
 
> You'll find that the HR caucus statement has expressed specific 
> concerns on the fact that "the current forum for domain name management 
> is a private party, dominated by a limited number of countries and 
> based on a contract with a single government" and that it lacks 
> inclusion, like many Internet protocols and standard setting bodies, 
> from developing countries. You'll also find that it calls governements 
> to take their responsibilities, and not dilute them into a fuzzy 
> "multistakeholder partnership".

Found it valuable contribution.

> Moreover, as one of the few persons having kept raising deep concerns 
> since early steps of WSIS regarding "multistakeholder partnership", I 
> feel rather comfortable with the fact that the Internet governance 
> caucus statement has been agreed upon by many caucuses, including the 
> HR caucus, in a very inclusive and open process during internet 
> governance caucus meeting and, later, during the C&T meeting session. 
> The reasons are that:
> (1) one has to acknowledge that the vast majority of CS organizations 
> are favoring the multistakeholder approach, and even though my own 
> organization is against that (and I know that many HR caucus members 
> also are), one cannot fairly object to the current reality at WSIS,

Then why did you approve multi-stakeholder approach?

> (2) the Internet governance caucus has made efforts to make substantive 
> changes in the first version of its statement, so as to accomodate 
> different views and thus get support beyond the sole internet 
> governance caucus, while the statement was not presented on behalf of 
> the whole CS,
> and, (3), that, with the HR caucus statement at least, other views have 
> been strongly expressed. And this has been made not against, but with 
> the support of the internet governance caucus.

So are you suggesting people have specific concerns in Internet Governance
should form another caucus to address Internet governance issues properly 
at WSIS?

> Finally, I'd be very grateful if you refreign from inappropriate 
> comparisons between the HR situation in Tunisia and in some other 
> countries (specially when you only express concerns on collection of 
> finger prints and eye inspection whenever people from other countries 
> enter the USA, while this country should be accused of far more drastic 
> HR violations, including violations of human integrity and dignity), if 
> only for the minimal respect due to the situation of HR defenders in 
> Tunisia. I'd also be very grateful if you refreign from joining the 
> global south instrumentalization game here : frankly, I had enough of 
> this from the official Tunisians themselves during this last two weeks. 
> Many thanks in advance for that.

I believe political regulation depends on rulers' faith in their own power.
You probably must have heard USG did indeed the very same thing
after 911 against those who looked like Arabs and indeed many 
people including non-Arabs moved to countries like Canana.

You have not heard of such stories? I have not heard any strong 
objections put forwarded by human activists' voices regarding this 
matter? 

But you maybe right if we compare those two countries with the
same criteria. But to compare those two different nations who are
in different economic and political situation would not be quite fair.

Those countries who have unacceptable regulations on human rights
would have better system if they themselves believe they have stable 
political power based on independently well-established economic 
system.

Such system can be only sustainable when it is established by themselves.  
Otherwise, it invites a series of tensions and distorted representation.
We can confirm this easily in many parts of the South.

Regarding global south instrumentalization theory, I cannot refreign
from what I believe is true.

Best,
YJ

> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> ======
> HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> Statement by the Civil Society Human Rights Caucus
> 23 February 2005, Geneva
> 
> Rikke Frank Joergensen from the Danish Institute for Human Rights
> On behalf of the Human Rights Caucus
> 
> 1. The civil society human rights caucus would like to express our 
> support to the open and inclusive approach, which has been taken so far 
> by the working group on Internet Governance. However, we wish to 
> express our concerns with the following issues.
> 
> 2. Internet governance has important impact on human rights and 
> democracy. Whether defined broadly or narrowly, at least human right 
> issues of privacy, freedom of expression, access to information, and 
> the public domain of knowledge are at stake in Internet governance. The 
> effective enjoyment of freedom expression and the right to assembly is 
> tightly linked with the protection of privacy. In addition, the current 
> forum for domain name management is a private party, dominated by a 
> limited number of countries and based on a contract with a single 
> government. This lack of inclusion of especially developing countries 
> also applies to many Internet protocols and standard setting bodies. 
> Any decision resulting from WSIS on Internet governance must ensure 
> that future mechanisms are human rights compliant, both through their 
> composition and governing structures and through regular assessment of 
> their decisions.
> 
> 3. The civil society human rights caucus is deeply concerned with the 
> tendency to address any Internet related aspect within the framework of 
> Internet governance. We recognize that a number of transnational issues 
> related to Internet lack a global space for political discussions and 
> agreement. However, discussions on issues such as privacy, freedom of 
> expression, prohibition against discrimination, access to information, 
> intellectual property, and illegal content, must be addressed within a 
> human rights framework. Internet governance must not result in a 
> lawless zone escaping international human rights protection. This is 
> especially important since, in the information society context, a 
> number of human rights are threatened.
> 
> 4. We agreed to develop an information society based on human rights. 
> As reaffirmed in the Geneva Declaration of principles, the information 
> society should be based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
> and the UN Charter, protecting and upholding the universality and the 
> indivisibility of all human rights, and their centrality to democracy, 
> the rule of law and to development. The protection of human right 
> standards is the first responsibility of governments. It is a state 
> responsibility to ensure that Internet governance mechanisms are 
> compliant with human right standards, that there are means to enforce 
> them, and that governments can be held accountable for human rights 
> violations, including before international courts. Holding governments 
> responsible and accountable for human rights protection does not 
> exclude the active participation of private parties and civil society; 
> however there must be clear divisions of responsibility.
> 
> 5. An essential feature of Internet relates to its transnational 
> nature. International agreements have traditionally been based on the 
> assumption of territorial jurisdiction, whereas Internet is a global 
> communication forum. One of the results of the World Summit of the 
> Information Society in Geneva was a growing acceptance of the Internet 
> as a global commons. This implies effective access for all countries to 
> participate in decisions regarding enjoyment of this common good.
> 
> 6. Internet governance mechanisms can and should further human rights 
> by ensuring an enabling environment that protects and enforces human 
> rights standards and democratic principles of inclusiveness, 
> transparency, checks and balances, and the rule of law.
> =========
>