[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] Article 31
Thanks Wolfgang!
Also agreed that we should not re-invent the wheel, but then let us at least
see where the wheel is at. There appear to be many interfaces with UN HR
agencies and rights definitions which could possibly "host" a special place
for the internet.
The issue at stake actually also should interface with a basic human right
to have free access to the internet, on par with the right to access of
clean water. I know that this is a bit problematic because it involves
access to hardware/software, etc - which are all in the "domain" of the
market economy. In fact even the right to clean water is gradually a "right"
which is no longer right as such, but something to be paid for as more and
more countries privatize social services, also in the poor-world countries.
What I am proposing is problematic in this sense that the right to access
and exchange information interfaces with the socio-economic.
The point is that when dealing with the problems around the internet there
is a definite "globalization" agenda involved. For one, as Ralph Nader puts
it, the "corporatization of the dictionary" (problem about domain names,
words and property rights). Let alone the overall influence over, and
control by corporations of information technology in general, and internet
in particular.
The other side of the coin is the "globalization" at the ordinary level,
communication between people, new modes of governance which
become possible, etc.
Probably what is showing up with the overall discussion is a clear
distinction between two trains of thought - namely the pure technical,
alongside the social and environmental concerns which need to be expressed
and addressed.
Berend
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.medienstadt@okay.net>
To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Cc: <cschassapis@acm.org>; <okhela@iafrica.com>; <jefsey@online.fr>;
<icann-europe@fitug.de>; <icann-candidates@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Article 31
> Dear Thomas and others,
>
> It is good to see how history is circling. In 1968 Jean dÀrcy, the late
> director of the Institute for International Communication (IIC) in London
> "invented" in the debate around satellite broadcasting and its regulation
in
> the 1960s (the first communication satellite Telstar was launched in 1964
/
> the UN had established an Outer Space Committee in 1965) the "right to
> communicate" (RTC). RTC was seen as a further development of Article 19,
> enshrined in the UN Human Rights Declaration and the UN Covenant on
> Political and Civil Rights (!966). The two elements which went beyond
> Article 19 in the RTC concept has been "access" and "participation". While
> article 19 secured the "right to information". which was seen as a
> one-way-process, leading to "imbalances" inthe flow of information, RTC
was
> a label for "communication", a two-way-process, more in favour of
"balance".
> UNESCO established a special study group on the issue. The group presented
> its lengthy and detailed report to UNESCO`s 19th General Conference in
> Nairobi (1976). One conesquences from this was the establishemnt of the
> "International Commission for the Study of Communication" under the
> chairmanship of Sean MacBride, former Irish Foreign minister and holder of
> both the Nobel and the Lenin Peace Prize. (Thomas will understand "Wenn
ich
> nicht mehr weiter weiß, gruende ich `nen Arbeitskreis"). The "MacBride
> Commission" produced a controversial report, calling for a "New World
> Information and Communicatioin Order" (NWICO). There are hundreds of
> publications, mainly in the US, around NWICO and the RTC. NWICI became a
> hostage of the North-Spouth and East-West conflicts of the 1980s. USA and
UK
> left UNESCO and the debate ended without any reslt with the fall of the
> Berlin Wall. A group of activists (journalists, academicians, NGOs) which
> realized that the failure of both NWICO and RTC was mainly the result of
the
> strong involvement of governments pushed forward the establishment of a
> non-governmental "MacBride Round Table on Global Communications" which had
> annual meetings between 1989 and 1999 in places like Harare, Seoul,
> Honolulu, Dublin, Prague, Istanbul, Boulder, Amman and elsewhere. The
> MacBride Round Table remained an "intellectual debating club" and ended
with
> the 20th century.
>
> Anyhow, the Internet can, maybe, learn something from the RTC and NWICO
> debate. So while I am joining you in the warning not to reinvent the
wheel,
> I encourage you to think ahead along the lines of the right to communicate
> and its key issues which go beyound Article 19 (or Article 10 in the
> European Human Rights Convention or the relevant articles in the national
> constitutions, like Article 5 in the German basic Law): access,
> participation, two-way communication. You can add easily today also
openess
> and transparency.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> To: Constantine S. Chassapis <cschassapis@acm.org>
> Cc: Berend Schuitema <okhela@iafrica.com>; <jefsey@online.fr>;
> <icann-europe@fitug.de>; <icann-candidates@egroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 2:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Article 31
>
>
> On 2000-08-28 01:59:13 +0300, Constantine S. Chassapis wrote:
>
> > "Every human being has the right freely to receive material from
> > and freely to transmit material to the cyberspace, currently
> > known as the Internet."
>
> > Now what do you think about that? When I finished the
> > phrase I felt something weird and wonderful inside.
>
> Why should this be valid just for cyberspace? Look, for instance,
> at article 5 (1), phrase 1, of the German Grundgesetz:
>
> Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild
> frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein
> zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten.
>
> Basically, this means that you have freedom of speech, and freedom
> of information when informing yourself from publically accessible
> sources.
>
> My point here is that we shouldn't start to re-invent the wheel,
> just because this is cyberspace. Actually, re-inventing the wheel
> has done more damage to the internet than anything else, I believe.
>
> Think, for instance, about all the Communications Decency Act and
> it's relatives in other legislations. Most of the debates held, and
> many of the problems perceived, have been solved in the past.
>
> However, the application of the existing solutions and thoughts to
> the net was often flawed, or new (and worse) solutions were sought
> because "everything is different on the net", because "it's like
> broadcasting", etc. It's often interesting to see the arguments and
> ideas of law scholars change once they have understood that the
> internet is just "some thing" facilitating point-to-point
> communications between participants. (Note that I don't deny that
> there legal concepts which just don't scale to internet dimensions.)
>
> It's also interesting to watch how new generations of officials and
> politicians repeat the mistakes of the past, verbatim.
>
> So, dear candidates, please always have a look at the arguments and
> solutions of the past, before trying to come up with solutions of
> your own. Please, try to avoid re-inventing the wheel all the time,
> and don't assume that everything which works off-line must
> automatically fail on-line.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>
>