<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif">Dear Markus,</font><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:15 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kummer@isoc.org">kummer@isoc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
There are others, although I do not have an overview. Switzerland for example also included the Internet into the universal service obligation. For some reason the Swiss policy announcement was more low key and therefore received less attention than the Finnish example.<br>
<br>
The main point here is that there is a fundamental difference between a human right as enshrined in Article 19 and a positive right, as the right to have an Internet connection would be. </blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The classical human rights protect the individual from the State. The State is asked not to do anything, but to let the individual enjoy his basic rights and freedom. The positive right however gives an obligation to the State "to do something", that is to provide access to the Internet. Apart from some basic questions as to who would pay for this right, it would also blur the role of the State and could be potentially dangerous, as it might be tempting for some governments to interpret extensively their role and also interfere in an are where they should keep out.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I fell that all of us should pay attention to what Markus Kummer has pointed out here on the difference between a Classic Right and a Positive Right. On the face of it the proposal to declare Internet specific rights appears to be a constructive exercise, but the hidden dangers need to be understood.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Elsewhere, to quote again from Markus,</div><div><br></div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; ">We had some discussions during WSIS whether we should try and formulate new human rights adapted to the information society, as some vicil society groups asked for. Seasoned human rights experts advised strongly against it. Their feeling was that any reopening of the existing instrument would give us a result that would be worse than what we already have.<br>
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "><br></span><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#444444" face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">To define access to the Internet as a positive right is not without problems. This is best dealt with as a universal service obligation, as some European countries have done already.</span></font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: small; border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "> </span></blockquote>
<div>So there are two aspects to any discussion on Rights that are dangerous:</div><div><br></div><div>1. Reopening the existing instrument of Universal Rights gives room for something else taken away (for instance, some Governments might attempt to redefine freedom of expression in the light of recent experiences suffered in incidents such as Wikileaks.</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. The idea of Internet specific rights as a positive right requires someone to guarantee those rights, requires a mechanism to enforce those rights. Some policy experts I have talked to rightly pointed this out and felt that there are no easy answers to the questions such as Who will guarantee those rights? Who will gain the authority to enforce the rights.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I fell that this approach will deprive us of more freedom while what in this idea of declaring rights is greater freedom.</div><div><br></div><div>Sivasubramanian M</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The universal service obligation is a much neater solution, as it imposes an obligation on the carrier to provide access to areas where otherwise it might not be commercially viable. This is a well tested regulatory measure and used for postal and telecommunication services in many countries.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<font color="#888888">Markus<br>
</font><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: "Alejandro Pisanty" <<a href="mailto:apisan@servidor.unam.mx">apisan@servidor.unam.mx</a>><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">Sent: Tuesday, 26 April, 2011 17:47<br>
To: "Khaled KOUBAA" <<a href="mailto:khaled.koubaa@gmail.com">khaled.koubaa@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution<br>
<br>
Khaled,<br>
<br>
the primary example at a national level is FINLAND.<br>
<br>
Alejandro Pisanty<br>
<br>
<br>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br>
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty<br>
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico<br>
<br>
Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732<br>
<br>
* Mi blog/My blog: <a href="http://pisanty.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://pisanty.blogspot.com</a><br>
* LinkedIn profile: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty</a><br>
* Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/apisanty" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/apisanty</a><br>
* Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614</a><br>
<br>
* Ven a ISOC Mexico, <a href="http://www.isoc.org.mx" target="_blank">http://www.isoc.org.mx</a>, ISOC <a href="http://www.isoc.org" target="_blank">http://www.isoc.org</a><br>
*Participa en ICANN, <a href="http://www.icann.org" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org</a><br>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br>
<br>
<br>
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Khaled KOUBAA wrote:<br>
<br>
> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:31:06 +0100<br>
> From: Khaled KOUBAA <<a href="mailto:khaled.koubaa@gmail.com">khaled.koubaa@gmail.com</a>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution<br>
><br>
> Thank you Markus.<br>
>> To define access to the Internet as a positive right is not without problems. This is best dealt with as a universal service obligation, as some European countries have done already.<br>
>><br>
> Can you give e some example of which European country and what did they do ?<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Chapter-delegates mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates" target="_blank">https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Chapter-delegates mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates" target="_blank">https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Chapter-delegates mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates" target="_blank">https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>