Dr. Max Senges currently doing research for Global Partners on "Rooting the networked environment in human rights: Exploring “values and principles” approaches and mechanisms" and he would like to share some preliminary results, get your feedback and of course discuss and deliberate with you.

 The workshop will be next Wednesday the 13th of May at 18.00 CET.

PLEASE COME TO http://supercoolschool.na4.acrobat.com/values_and_rights_on_the_internet_456/ TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SESSION

 The first section of the workshop will be a presentation by me, but please connect our microphones and cameras because we want to be as interactive as possible in the second part!

FEEDBACK /NOTES FROM SESSION

 Max is seeking primarily two types of feedback: 1) intellectual/conceptual feedback, 2) strategically, is this a useful way to look at the discussion and how do we go about it? Particularly expanding beyond ''rights'' to ''values'' and ''morals."

Lea Shaver: Max expressed some doubt about whether it is helpful/strategic to speak beyond "rights" more broadly to "values." In my opinion, "values" might be very useful in the sense it allows us to talk about principles we believe are good for governing the network environment that relate or facilitate "human rights" without directly being a human right. For example, the "value" of openness (in terms of technical architecture) or independence (not directly controlled by governments) might be important to promote the human rights of "free expression" and "privacy." I take Max's concern to be that we might demote the end principles that should properly be recognized as "rights" to the level of "values," and open up a competition between universal human rights and particular values that might actually be in conflict with them, i.e. a Chinese assertion of "harmony" as a value that trumps freedom of expression. But I think we can stick to an insistence upon universal human rights as the end goals, and still find a useful role for also speaking about "values" in Internet governance that will help promote human rights. I would say something similar about "principles." Like, in order to respect and promote the right of freedom of privacy, we should follow the principle that "transmissions should not be blocked by intermediaries, only by the choice of the recipient." I'm less sure where "morality" fits in as a useful concept.

Marianne: The Kohlberg model is an interesting, and potentially rich one for moving these definitional issues forward amongst ourselves. But I must raise some notes of caution here; The Carol Gilligan critique/debate with Kohlberg about gendererd silences and 'bias' in Kohlberg's model; Habermas' intervention, i.e. elaboration of Kohlberg for civic virtue is also instructive. But even more importantly, feminist reservations aboutt this hierarchical model (which aims to get everyone at a seventh level...) erases other social and cultural forms of socialization some of which are based on community obligations and, as Gilligan argues for women-as-a-group, practices where there is a stronger ethics of care than there is an ego-centric notion of rational man. So, right from the start we have a model that presents a particular social experience's starting point as if it were a priori a universal one. In short, morals are by definition culturall relative. So what to do?!