[Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution

Tue Apr 26 01:40:23 PDT 2011

"
The Internet lets you connect to people without calling them, without 
knowing the number you have to dial for them; and without the need to own 
a high-powered radio or television station and the licensing for its 
operation, and a slice of spectrum."

Of course it does not mean you have nothing to do. Highly sophisticated back office and infrastructure let you call. Dial, communicate and share content effortless but a way to identify anybody and contact anybody is always in place

Carlos Vera
-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
Sender: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:25:46 
To: Grigori Saghyan<gregor at arminco.com>
Cc: Chapter Delegates<chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution

Hi,

Grigori, all, I do think there is a huge difference between "Internet" and 
"Network" in general, for the purposes Khaled is seeking.

Often government officials and intergovernmental organizations will use a 
bit of confusion, to end up with networks to which few agents control 
access, be they television broadcast networks, telecommunication networks 
(i.e. up to say Layer 3), etc.

The Internet - as Eric has correctly pointed out - is harder to define, 
and full access to the Internet is harder to achieve, but it is of a 
diffferent nature and in fact happens after you are connected to a 
(physical, powered, signal-carrying) network.

The Internet lets you connect to people without calling them, without 
knowing the number you have to dial for them; and without the need to own 
a high-powered radio or television station and the licensing for its 
operation, and a slice of spectrum.

In this line of thought, if we think the Internet will be ephemeral in the 
time scale of Constitutions, the higher generalization level is access to 
communication, media to carry your very own free speech, and access to 
knowledge.

Also frequently left aside is the freedom to organize, and it should be 
included. The aforementioned uses of the Internet are still comparably 
passive; and it is much easier for repressive governments to allow access 
to information (and not break the law, , etc.) while still grossly 
impeding organization through the Net. Egypt, previously Tunisia, and 
later Syria and Libya, appear to be successful cases of organization 
(including by online media), not only of access to information and 
knowledge.

Let's keep building this and adding both our own expertise and some 
specifc ones we (or Khaled) need to invite.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

* Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
* LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
* Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
* Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

* Ven a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org.mx, ISOC http://www.isoc.org
*Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Grigori Saghyan wrote:

> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:11:58 +0600
> From: Grigori Saghyan <gregor at arminco.com>
> To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution
> 
> Dear Khaled,
> In general there is no serious difference between term "Internet" and 
> "Network", as you  see "Network" in the second part of the word "Internet".
> In case of Telecommunication  Network,  Rail Road Network, Gas Pipe Network 
> it is possible to define these concepts. But when we say "Social Network" we 
> do not have any
> clear, pure definition for that.  Also there are lot of other  Networks. If 
> you shall use this word  in a legal act,  you may have   some interpretation 
> problems in future.
> Regards,
> Grigori Saghyan
> ISOC.AM
>
>
> On 26.04.2011 3:22, Khaled KOUBAA wrote:
>>> place to do something like that. In the Constitution you should give
>>> guarantees to defend the rights of the people, and make sure there's
>>> no misuse. You could include something about technologies, but only in
>>> the preamble. Think from the perspective of time: what if 30 years ago
>>> they would have included fax or telex in the Constitution? Technology
>>> just helps (or bothers!!)
>> I agree and this is why we are not saying "the right to access to
>> Internet". As I said we are not yet agreed on the wording specially that
>> our constitution will be written in Arabic first and than translated to
>> other language.
>> What I am saying here is "the right to access to networks" regardless
>> the technologies. It is even important that the constitution is not
>> written based on our today need, but it is also to answer future
>> challenges, and I see the "access to networks" as a right to everyone.
>> And here I am not speaking about what we will use this right for.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates