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 Franklin: 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?!

Lea Shaver: WIthin barriers and enablers: government and legal, I would add: the challenges of multi-jurisdictional nature that inherently confront the Internet. It's a big barrier for any rule of law approach, because you have so many different legal systems all respecting different principles and trying to do different things. When things do happen at the international level, it's not always positive. The WSIS agenda was originally very progressive but non-democratic countries pushed to water down the human rights language and marginalize that. Looking at access to knowledge and intellectual property, you see a sophisticated use of international fora by corporate interests that push an agenda successully (i.e TRIPs or the current ACTA process) but no similarly powerful mobilization of the citizen sector to promote public interests.

Lea Shaver: On Max's note about the questionable legitimacy of civil society input... I think this is a reason for grounding our input in the human rights framework ultimately, rather than only speaking about values/principles/morality. To the extent we frame our input as implementing legal principles universally agreed on by sovereign governments as a basis for framing and constraining the exercise of that sovereignty, it gives the input greater import. Instead of merely saying, "Please, we'd like you to implement these values," we say "These steps are necessary to implement the human rights obligations you are legally committed to."

Lea Shaver: "Values" is a vague term in the abstract. It's important to indicate what type of thing you have in mind.

Lisa Horner: Sure - the values we've been working with at GPA are accessibility, diversity and pluarlism, participatory and transparent governance and oppennes, creativity and innovativeness. We've split prinicples into the ''layers'' of the comms environment e.g. around regulation to achieve the valies/gatekeepers of content should be transparent etc...

Maximillium scs: We frame the values ourselves – privacy, education,

Rebecca MacKinnon: In Asia, often hear "values" used in a way that opposes individual rights. Singapore's leader often speaks of "Asian values" to reject human rights claims. Also hear "family values." So that term may open up the debate in an unwanted way. But think of this in three layers: governments, civil society, and Internet intermediaries. We've had these fundamental rights for a long time. But this layer of Internet/telecom technology should not become some kind of opaque instrument to restrict our rights or create inequalities. How can we make this layer as transparent and rights-accountable as possible? Everything can get thrown into "values," but how do we prioritize and decide what is important?

Emily Laidlaw: Whether you call it rights or values, you get division when you move from the abstract to the concrete. On privacy, for example, could be lots of disagreement about what we really mean and how to protect it. So maybe that is the level where we really need to work and do the heavy lifting. Values is a helpful starting point because you get the most agreement there. And then you move forward applying that and it gets trickier.

Lea: How can we get Human Rights bodies more involved in Internet Governance? I like Max's idea to try to get a Special Rapporteur appointed. More broadly, think about not only trying to figure out all these problems ourselves, but also how to get more people/institutions involved that would help figure it out. UNHCHR hasn't been very involved in IGF.