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 was held Wednesday the 13th of May at 18.00 CET.

Here is the video recording http://blip.tv/file/2109983

 The first section of the workshop was a presentation by me, second a discussion!

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.

Chat protocoll

Maximillium scs:hi lea
 LeaShaver:Hi Max.
 LeaShaver:Will the meeting proper be auf Deutch also?
 LeaShaver::)
 LeaShaver:Do I need a microphone or will this be mostly text?
 Maximillium scs:let's give people another 5-10 min to arrive and login
 LeaShaver:Max, I think you need to do a couple different things to activate talking...
 LeaShaver:There is an option for "raise hand,"...
 LeaShaver:And then I think you have to be recognized by the moderator...
 Marianne :hi i'm at home`working - no mike!
 LeaShaver:and click through a consent to be recorded...
 LeaShaver:before you can talk for the first time.
 Maximillium scs:ok i just gave you presenter rights
 Marianne :... and no webcan either!
 LeaShaver:Okay, sorry!
 LeaShaver:I was just iooking to see if there was a way to make the text larger so I can see more easily what Marianne is saying...
 Marianne :i can hear ....
 LeaShaver:Lost your voice there, Marx
 LeaShaver:Max
 LeaShaver:No relation to Karl
 LeaShaver:Okay, the voice is back.
 Lisa:It keeps coming and going for me Marx!
 Marianne :not Groucho Marx I hope ..;-))
 LeaShaver::)
 Marianne :can you hear me?
 Lisa:I can't at all!
 LeaShaver:I don't hear you, Marianne
 Marianne :.. ok. Then go ahead, Im here just no voice (make a change!)
 LeaShaver:Hi Lisa, I hear you cearly!
 LeaShaver:I think Lisa was about to say something...
 Lisa:I don't have anything to say really!
 LeaShaver:OK :)
 Lisa:I won't be in the meeting tomorrow, but will send some thoughts by email!
 Marianne :Just a wee point of order for those of use w/o voice options; the text box shows who's typing and also other written points.
 LeaShaver:I think Rebecca tried to say something, but I didn't hear her...
 Marianne :.. so the raising hand icon is quite handy!
 LeaShaver:And Max, also at the beginning will you say something about what kind of feedback you want from us on this, or what we should be thinking about as you go through the slides?
 Marianne :.. also could we keeo to some sort of time..... (other appointment afterwards)
 LeaShaver:Summarizing: 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"...
 LeaShaver:Thanks!
 Emily Laidlaw:What is the article about Internet governance as a social contract? I'd like to read it.
 LeaShaver:I set up a new section on the wiki page everyone visited on the way here, where people can start noting their feedback, in case you want to write something down before you forget it!
 Emily Laidlaw:Great thanks!
 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?!
 LeaShaver:Marianne, is it okay if I paste this feedback on the wiki page?
 LeaShaver:Will be bigger text and easier to read there. ALso captured for later reference.
 Marianne :.. sure.....this little box is not suitable, But I hope the general gist is clear.....
 LeaShaver:Great, I just put it here: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/79
 Marianne :.. OK. What is supposed to happen on the Wiki? So many interfaces! Multitasking on top of multimediatising..
 LeaShaver:Sorry, just to capture longer bits of feedback there, for revisiting later during the discussion and after
 Lisa:Thanks Lea - useful as a record too.
 LeaShaver:But if you find it easier to put comments here, I will transfer them to the wiki for you.
 Marianne :... we can edit and add to the wiki can't we ... through the edit function, right?
 Lisa:Sure - the values we've been working with at GPA are accessibility, diversity and pluarlism, participatory and transparent governance and oppennes, creativity and innovativeness
 Lisa: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,
 Emily Laidlaw:ok. argh. I will try to sort this out.
 Maximillium scs:asian values singapor
 Maximillium scs:layer that mediates
 Maximillium scs:technology does not become an opaque instrument to restrict rights - less equality
 Lisa:For me, I think there are 2 resons for talking about values.  Firstly, to remember that rights are themselves rooted in values.  Seondly, taking that into consideration, how can those values help us translate those values to the internet environment...into principles...
 Lisa:sorry...translating the rights into principles, huided by values!
 Lisa:Lea - yes - both gov and business.  Seeing rights as legalistic, and being worried about being sued...
 Lisa:Marianne - yes...values underpin rights, and help us interpret them...?! What do you think?
 Lisa:Not sure how that stands from a legal perspective though...
 Rebecca MacKinnon:i gotta go. thanks max!
 Maximillium scs:rights of imigrants / disabled
 Emily Laidlaw:We can start with setting out the values stating that the goal is to identify the rights - guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 Marianne :Whilst we're on defintions; what's the diff. between IG and Human Rights and Internet rights? they strike me as distinct with different implications for this DC itself but also its role within the IGF process...
 Maximillium scs:i understand a Rights based IG regime to include internet users rights
 Marianne :Ok. So 'the rights of Internet users' to.... lets'say.... download anythng at all?
 Marianne :(im being devil's advocate here)
 Emily Laidlaw:Or is it the values that help define the right, which are then set out as a set of principles?
 Marianne :Hmm, its like Rubric's Cube! So, if so, then this DC needs to be aware of these very subtle but concrete differences., NO MIKE BLURB ABOVE
 Marianne :;-))
 Lisa:I think the subtle differences are extrenelyt important, and they really get people fired up!
 Maximillium scs:@Lea we should find out can you post to the list - wolfgang might know
 Marianne :Yes, rightly so. For this DC's approach vis-a-vis the IGF and other parties, then there may well need to be some time spent dellineating these distinctions,.... expand Max's research outline to include other voices (I refer to the Gilligan/HAbermas takes on Kohlberg etc)
 Marianne :This is a good moment to continue Max's work and flesh out the inventory of what rights, values, principles loook like, mean, for others intersted in these issues. We need to know the lay of the land very well.. particularly given the powerful govn and corporate forces to corner 'rights' discourses for various agendas.
 Maximillium scs:marianne and everyone: i'd love to send you the research report for input, ok?
 Marianne :.. there's a fair bit of input here already mate! ;-)
 Maximillium scs:yes there is indeed - so i want to make sure i understood it right and got it in correcty
 Lisa:Yes, Marianne I think we need to get the differene perspectives on the table so that we can then move on...that was one aim of this...
 Marianne :So I move we continue with the conceptual inventory and also to lay out some possible approaches - ideas - for how to engage at the IGF level. One conceptual and the other practical
 Emily Laidlaw:I agree.
 Marianne :.. right on Lisa. Knowledge is power and values can only be share- able when there's room for dissension
 Marianne :.. Max?
 Marianne :That was it up ther
 Lisa:Max - have we saved this chat any where?
 Marianne :Yes, Lea - is it save-able?
 Lisa:sorry max - you keep dropping in and out so I'm not getting much of what you're saying.
 Maximillium scs:thanks everyone!!
 Marianne :thx all. Thz Max for giving us something to chew on