[Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution

Wed Apr 27 01:05:29 PDT 2011

Dear Markus,

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:15 AM, <kummer at isoc.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.

> 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.
>

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.

Elsewhere, to quote again from Markus,

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.

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.

So there are two aspects to any discussion on Rights that are dangerous:

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.

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.

I fell that this approach will deprive us of more freedom while what in this
idea of declaring rights is greater freedom.

Sivasubramanian M

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.
>
> Best regards
> Markus
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 April, 2011 17:47
> To: "Khaled KOUBAA" <khaled.koubaa at gmail.com>
> Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution
>
> Khaled,
>
> the primary example at a national level is FINLAND.
>
> 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, Khaled KOUBAA wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:31:06 +0100
> > From: Khaled KOUBAA <khaled.koubaa at gmail.com>
> > To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> > Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet and Constitution
> >
> > Thank you Markus.
> >> 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.
> >>
> > Can you give e some example of which European country and what did they
> do ?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20110427/bfcdccfc/attachment.htm>