.
This is a dialog that took place between 28 and 31 of August 2000 in the icann-europe@fitug.de message list and in the icann-candidates@egroups.com message list. I cut some reiterations of text (you know the >>>...> story) and I kept the essential points of the participants. I created this page while preparing a paper on A31 and found that I needed the valuable opinions of those people somewhere collected. Note that when I put [A31] in the messages, I am referring to the article as I wrote it in the first message. I put in red things I believe are important!
Persons involved in this dialog:
Enjoy ...
A preliminary version of the paper I wrote on Human Rights and the Internet can be
found .
Dear all, I just looked through the pages of the UN, and I read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Then, I read the very interesting, and poetic, message of Berend, and then I remembered the i-parliament of Jefsey, and the organizational thoughts of Vittorio, and then, I had this thought: "Article 31": "Every human being has the right freely to receive material from and freely to transmit material to the cyberspace, [A31] currently known as the Internet." Now what do you think about that? When I finished the phrase I felt something weird and wonderful inside.
The inevitable response: "But what about kiddie porn?"
Dear Erik, Very good point! If I will manage to elucidate that, I will give more essence to Article 31 (A31 hereon). I first answer you with the articles: | A1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. | They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act | towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. | A3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. | A16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society | and is entitled to protection by society and the State. | A25.2: Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and | assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall | enjoy the same social protection. | A26.2: Education shall be directed to the full development of the human | personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and | fundamental freedoms. As my A31 is a principle, so are those that I quoted above. That means that if the above articles are self-evident and protect the children and educate the grown-ups, so self-evident seems to me my A31. I cannot set up a police-oriented principle. It is the duty of all local societies or countries, at start, and of the whole humanity next, to try to eradicate child porn. This is not just words. We must separate principles of human existence from methodologies to define and attack the evil. I might as well add an A32 saying that child porn is illegal, is immoral, is disgusting, is inhuman, is ... but all these are consequences of all the articles above. If organized societies and their institutions fulfil their principal duties as expressed in the articles above, if we, all humans understand and follow the above principles, then, we will make a better world! My A31 also speaks of a better world. The world changes, society and technology change one another and from the epoch of the December 10th, 1948, to the August 28th, 2000, a new player is in the game, it is called cyberspace, and I am feeling that it is, or will soon become, as important as the air we are breathing. After that thought, the next logical step is A31. Article 31 guarantees so many things that we need many emails to discuss, and I will be happy to do so. But it is my feeling that you needed to hear from me my views on child porn, and I think, it is clear from all my argumentation how bad I feel about that. In other words, I hope that you see that if we all (including our institutions) follow, support, believe and promote articles 1 to 30, then child porn will be erased from humanity (except maybe in pathological cases, I mean ill people, in which case, maybe cure can be applied using virtual reality techniques; but this is a totally different story). But, articles 1 to 30 do not induce the guaranteeing of what A31 guarantees. This is why I wrote it and I will try to promote.
Well spoken and explained, Constantine. Alas, it is not a perfect world, and your articles A1 through A31 sometimes require selfless, stubborn, defiant actions of a person (or persons), whether it is Christ, Buddha, Gandhi, MLK, FDR, Einstein, or Churchill, to ensure their implementation.
" It is the duty of all local societies or countries, at start, and of the whole humanity next, to try to eradicate child porn." Define it first. Is the picture of a nude 13-year-old with an erection, smiling, CP? Is a photo a 17-year-old girl having sex with a 21-year-old boy CP? The fist is CP by the German def., the second is CP by the American def. By my def., both pictures are perfectly normal and healthy and should, of course, be legal without any restrictions on distribution whatsoever. What about violent pictures where nobody was harmed, like the Japanese comics? "I might as well add an A32 saying that child porn is illegal, is immoral, is disgusting, is inhuman, is ..." Of course we also need articles for copyright violations, bestiality, normal pornography, bomb-making instructions, drug information, nazi propaganda, leftist propaganda, evolution theory .. or an article saying "Subversive speech is not protected" perhaps? It's simple: No censorship at all (including no censorship of CP) or censorship where the government decides what is allowed and what. Of course, I prefer the former. Of course, the UN would never ratify that (well, maybe in 2030).
Constantine, [A31] Would you mind adding the right "not to receive material if you don't want it"? This is often forgotten, and is becoming more and more a problem. Can we state the right of a person with a dial-up account in the vast majority of the world where you pay (and sometimes not cheap) for your local call to the ISP *not to be flooded with KB and KB of things you don't care about, and having even to pay for it*?
Constantine,
I think your idea is just great! The received remark is quite
pertinent too. May I suggest a different wording responding
to both your concept and may be enlarging it (the technics
and words may change in the future):
Article 31 (proposed addition).
Everyone has rights to education, access, exchange and
protection [of privacy, dignity and property] in electronic
relations and information [a major area for human, social
and economic development].
The style of the text is very terse and general. Up to you to
tell if the words between brackets are necessary?
Beware that this declaration starts with "equal and dignity"
so the repetition of these words must be carefully considered
not to reduce the weight of the initial acticle.
PS to Roberto: I share your exasperation at spam, but may I
recall you that TV commercials and internet banners may be
easily construed as spam. In such a text, only undisputed
general concepts should be used. It is up to judges according
to local laws to decide (remember please the ICANN release
about the Californian anti-spam law a few days ago). I am more
exasperated at some anti spammer actions: black listing
among others which costed me more than $10.000 last week,
the ISP of a my correspondant being black listed.
Jefsey, "PS to Roberto: [...] being black listed." I'm not exasperated, and not even annoyed myself: I just think that if we mention the right to send, it is only fair to mention also the right not to receive. I don't like people who think they have the right to talk, and everybody else has the obligation to listen. BTW, I do have an ADSL connection, with forfeit cost, so I am spammed at no cost, and I can afford the deep inner pleasure in clicking the delete button ... almost like making a paper ball out of junk mail. The analogy with the TV commercial does not hold with the example that I was making, simply because we are not to the point (yet?) when you have commercial in your program on pay TV ;>).
Constantine, At the risk of dampening your enthusiasm... I just went and browsed through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (available at in many languages at http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm). Look at Article 19: | Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and | expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions | without interference and to seek, receive and impart | information and ideas through any media and regardless | of frontiers. "freedom ... to see, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" ... sounds a lot like your Article 31. So, instead of promoting a new Article 31, we should promote application of Article 19 to the Internet. I think I'm going to put Article 19 on my web page.
Dear Andy, Yes, you are absolutely correct! Not only you did not dampen my enthusiasm, but you made it stronger. Yes, during that night, around three o'clock, that I wrote the A31 email, I somehow missed A19. YES! A19 is a strong article! But, is it sufficient? My concern is, how we will secure cyberspace for all of us? Cyberspace -- for the moment the Internet -- is not a classical medium! It is not a telephone company! It is not a newspaper, It is not a book, It is all these and many more (some say it is a global brain!). So a definition is needed, and I am not sure that A19 guarantees a fair naming of things first, (in other words, some gov or other org may say to you in legalese or other dialect, "sorry my friend, Internet is not a medium, it is ... a business platform" or whatever!) and second, note that: TV is a classical medium, so it falls in A19's basin of attraction. You will agree with me that people do not get their fair portion of TV-time when expressing their ideas (if they ever are offered TV-time), etc, etc. So, our brave new world (that is coming) since it possesses new entities, maybe as well need new definitions, and maybe additional principles. I think I will put all articles in my site: An article per page! P.S. by the way, did you know that cyber comes from the greek cybernitis, that means governor? I dont like the word cyberspace I am open to suggestions! Let's redefine our future!
Constantine, "P.S. by the way, [...] Let's redefine our future!" You're right, surprised myself as my perception was that the word had to do with "brain"! Oxford dictionary gives the meaning of "cybernetics" as "the science of communication and automatic control systems both machines and living things". Suggestion ? How about "ideosphere"? Or Teilhard de Chardin's "noosphere"? Seems to me that before we get into names calling activities, what ICANN is all about, we start off by getting this one right!!!
Dear all, what you mean, is it better to make some thinks better in the future, or is it enough to find new names, to redefine our future?
Dear Sabine, Berend is a very poetic person and I tried to meet his standard by answering somewhat poetically or at least metaphorically. Maybe to you all these are just words, but there is some truth also to this: What cognitive studies people and philosophers taught us in recent years is that the inner model one forms for the world around him/her including his possible actions are very much influenced by the way he/she names things. That said, I agree that actions are much more important than words, and that means that we must act and not just talk in order to make a better world!
Berend wrote: "Constantin wrote: 'P.S. by the way, [...] Let's redefine our future!' You're right, surprised myself as my perception was that the word had to do with 'brain'! Oxford dictionary gives the meaning of 'cybernetics' as 'the science of communication and automatic control systems both machines and living things'." That Oxford definition, in reality is the definition Norbert Wiener gave to his pionerring studies on cybernetics. His studies had to do with automatic or less automatic governance of machines and biosystems (including humans). He was a brilliand mathematician, but his philosophy was a little fuzzy. Anyway, he is not responsible of the meaning the prefix "cyber" later got, nor "cyberspace" was his wording. I don't know who first used cyberspace, but I now realize that it was a bad choice. "Suggestion ? How about 'ideosphere'? Or Teilhard de Chardin's 'noosphere'?" Both are very interesting and much better than cyberspace. Let us continue the search, and meanwhile let us see what we can do and write about that ICANN story that devours all our time and energy. [...]
[A31] Why should this be valid just for cyberspace? Look, for instance, at article 5 (1), phrase 1, of the German Grundgesetz: | Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild | frei zu au?ern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein | zuganglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Basically, this means that you have freedom of speech, and freedom of information when informing yourself from publically accessible sources. My point here is that we shouldn't start to re-invent the wheel, just because this is cyberspace. Actually, re-inventing the wheel has done more damage to the internet than anything else, I believe. Think, for instance, about all the Communications Decency Act and it's relatives in other legislations. Most of the debates held, and many of the problems perceived, have been solved in the past. However, the application of the existing solutions and thoughts to the net was often flawed, or new (and worse) solutions were sought because "everything is different on the net", because "it's like broadcasting", etc. It's often interesting to see the arguments and ideas of law scholars change once they have understood that the internet is just "some thing" facilitating point-to-point communications between participants. (Note that I don't deny that there legal concepts which just don't scale to internet dimensions.) It's also interesting to watch how new generations of officials and politicians repeat the mistakes of the past, verbatim. So, dear candidates, please always have a look at the arguments and solutions of the past, before trying to come up with solutions of your own. Please, try to avoid re-inventing the wheel all the time, and don't assume that everything which works off-line must automatically fail on-line.
Dear Thomas and others, It is good to see how history is circling. In 1968 Jean dArcy, the late director of the Institute for International Communication (IIC) in London "invented" in the debate around satellite broadcasting and its regulation in the 1960s (the first communication satellite Telstar was launched in 1964 / the UN had established an Outer Space Committee in 1965) the "right to communicate" (RTC). RTC was seen as a further development of Article 19, enshrined in the UN Human Rights Declaration and the UN Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966). The two elements which went beyond Article 19 in the RTC concept has been "access" and "participation". While article 19 secured the "right to information" which was seen as a one-way-process, leading to "imbalances" in the flow of information, RTC was a label for "communication", a two-way-process, more in favour of "balance". UNESCO established a special study group on the issue. The group presented its lengthy and detailed report to UNESCO`s 19th General Conference in Nairobi (1976). One conesquences from this was the establishemnt of the "International Commission for the Study of Communication" under the chairmanship of Sean MacBride, former Irish Foreign minister and holder of both the Nobel and the Lenin Peace Prize. (Thomas will understand "Wenn ich nicht mehr weiter wei?, gruende ich `nen Arbeitskreis"). The "MacBride Commission" produced a controversial report, calling for a "New World Information and Communicatioin Order" (NWICO). There are hundreds of publications, mainly in the US, around NWICO and the RTC. NWICI became a hostage of the North-Spouth and East-West conflicts of the 1980s. USA and UK left UNESCO and the debate ended without any reslt with the fall of the Berlin Wall. A group of activists (journalists, academicians, NGOs) which realized that the failure of both NWICO and RTC was mainly the result of the strong involvement of governments pushed forward the establishment of a non-governmental "MacBride Round Table on Global Communications" which had annual meetings between 1989 and 1999 in places like Harare, Seoul, Honolulu, Dublin, Prague, Istanbul, Boulder, Amman and elsewhere. The MacBride Round Table remained an "intellectual debating club" and ended with the 20th century. Anyhow, the Internet can, maybe, learn something from the RTC and NWICO debate. So while I am joining you in the warning not to reinvent the wheel, I encourage you to think ahead along the lines of the right to communicate and its key issues which go beyound Article 19 (or Article 10 in the European Human Rights Convention or the relevant articles in the national constitutions, like Article 5 in the German basic Law): access, participation, two-way communication. You can add easily today also openess and transparency.
Thanks Wolfgang! Also agreed that we should not re-invent the wheel, but then let us at least see where the wheel is at. There appear to be many interfaces with UN HR agencies and rights definitions which could possibly "host" a special place for the internet. The issue at stake actually also should interface with a basic human right to have free access to the internet, on par with the right to access of clean water. I know that this is a bit problematic because it involves access to hardware/software, etc - which are all in the "domain" of the market economy. In fact even the right to clean water is gradually a "right" which is no longer right as such, but something to be paid for as more and more countries privatize social services, also in the poor-world countries. What I am proposing is problematic in this sense that the right to access and exchange information interfaces with the socio-economic. The point is that when dealing with the problems around the internet there is a definite "globalization" agenda involved. For one, as Ralph Nader puts it, the "corporatization of the dictionary" (problem about domain names, words and property rights). Let alone the overall influence over, and control by corporations of information technology in general, and internet in particular. The other side of the coin is the "globalization" at the ordinary level, communication between people, new modes of governance which become possible, etc. Probably what is showing up with the overall discussion is a clear distinction between two trains of thought - namely the pure technical, alongside the social and environmental concerns which need to be expressed and addressed.
[A31] While I think this is a nice idea in itself, I wouldn't like to garble the human rights with such specific rules - to be accepted, the human rights must be almost universal. The right to push anything into the "cyberspace" (e.g. UCE) is, by many standards, neither universal nor nearly acceptable (in the western world for example), nor is it general enough (what makes the internet so special? What about telephone networks? Fido?). But it's a refreshing non-icann discussion ;)
Hi, Thomas wrote: "[A31] Why should this be valid just for cyberspace? Look, for instance, at article 5 (1), phrase 1, [...] zu unterrichten." Well... since you know as well as me that these words aren't worth the paper they are written on, and have about much theeth as a 100 years old Gentleman, I don't think pointing to them is of any significance. OTOH, Constantine should as well be aware that there will not be free speech until a majority of the general public supports it. So campaigning here for it is useless - even if you get it written down somehwere here, it will fail the first time it is seriously tested. You have to conmvince the general public.
Christoph wrote: "Well... since you know [...] any significance." Actually, they have more teeth than you may believe. For instance, they make certain law scholars believe that the blocking paragraphs in the Teledienstegesetz are unconstitutional. For instance, they were upheld in court when the German government wanted to block the import of certain "newspapers" from abroad. Additionally, we all agree that the UN declaration of human rights is even more teethless than the German constitution (which has explicit limits for free speech).
Wolfgang wrote: "It is good to see how history is circling. [...] more in favour of "balance"." [...] Wolfgang, thank you very much for posting this message. Thinking about it has helped me clear up some of my thoughts on ICANN, domain names, and the Internet in general. Because Article 19 covers a bi-directional right to receive and impart information, the terms "one-way-process" and "two-way-process" can be misleading. After reading a few articles on the web, I think better terms would be "single-ended/double-ended process", or "single-participant/multi-participant process." True communications requires two parties. Article 19 declares a right to "impart information, but having the right to impart information means little if you have no good way of finding or attracting your desired audience. That's why a right to communicate, including a right to a reasonable means for finding your audience, is so important. How can we apply this concept of a right to communicate to the Internet in general, and to ICANN in particular? Let's consider some examples: A timely example is the current ICANN at-large election process. We can run for the nomination, we can write statements, we can create campaign websites. But ICANN will not release the membership list so we cannot communicate directly with the majority of the members. We have the right of freedom of expression, but not the right to communicate. Domain names are another example. Suppose I've decided to create an anti-gambling website and I want to be able to reach potential visitors to a casino called "VeryBad Casino". Why is it that "VeryBad Casino" can have a monopoly on "verybadcasino", so that any user that types "verybadcasino" into the browser will be directed exclusively to VeryBad's website and never mine? Because I am not able to own the domain name "verybadcasino", or something similar, I have a sharply limited right to communicate. But, if the user instead typed "verybad casino" into a search engine, my anti-casino site would have a chance. The domain name problem occurs because browsers are designed to use DNS as the primary "search" tool when the user enters a single word or a domain name. Will an expansion in the gTLD improve the right to communicate? Maybe a little, but not much, especially not if .com is still the default TLD. Perhaps, if we are seriously concerned with freedom of communication, we are barking up the wrong tree by pushing for more gTLDs. Increasing the number of gTLDs could gain us a little more freedom, but perhaps more freedom could be gained by getting Microsoft and Mozilla to make minor changes to how their browsers operates. These are just two examples. "I encourage you to think ahead along the lines of the right to communicate and [...] openess and transparency." Wolfgang, I completely agree. Thank you P.S.: For reference, I've collected links and the text of some of the relevant Articles, etc., below: German Grundgesetz (Constitution)(English translation) | Article 5 (Freedom of expression) | (1) Everyone has the right freely to | express and to disseminate his opinion by speech, writing and pictures and | freely to inform himself from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the | press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. | There shall be no censorship. | (2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws, the | provisions of law for the protection of youth and by the right to | inviolability of personal honor. | (3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching | does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution. | Article 73 (Exclusive legislative power, catalogue; amended 24 June 1968. | The Federation has the exclusive power to legislate on: | 9. industrial property rights, copyrights and publication rights; The European Convention on Human Rights | ARTICLE 10 | 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall | include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an | ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. | This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of | broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. | 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and | responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, | restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a | democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial | integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the | protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the | rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in | confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the | judiciary. Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Article 17 | 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in | association with others. | 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. | Article 19 | Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right | includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive | and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of | frontiers. | Article 27 | 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of | the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and | its benefits. | 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material | interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of | which he is the author. U.S. Constitution, Amendment I: | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or | prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, | or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to | petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Andrew,
very interesting thinking. Communication in our age (since
the WWII probably) made a huge step ahead: after the first
age of monolog (small cities, tribes) we came in the golden
Judeo/Greek age of dialog (exchanges). Now the polylog is
taking over: I talk about several subjects, to several persons,
for them to keep talking with other persons who may respond
to me, etc... This ML is an example. The net is another. It is
not new, but it is new that this happens at that magnitude.
IMH it is difficult to understand the net without having given
some thinking about polylog ...
Polylog has developed new possibilities, hence new rights
and new duties, in the field of the freedom of speech but more
in the field of the freedom and duties of receiving.
What you say is very important, and I am working on this
with the .wiz TLD comity as I do not think it should be [big]
bro[w]ther independent.
1. I have the right to chose what I receive
application: anti-spamming law
remark:
the entire Internet is about forced receiving as long as
IAB/ICANN make believe their root is unique. When
there is a link in a page, if I click it I must endure what
is in this page (can be porn, pedo, blaspheme, ...)
while a clone of the TLD could filter them (some ISP
or programs does it, I have the right to chose).
remark II: exit the self appointer importance of ICANN
exit the NSI monopoly
2. when you are not happy with what happens in some
place you have the right to go there and to distribute
tracts or to post bills. An interesting thing permitted
by the consideration of the semantic in DNS is to
allow http://xxxx.viva.wiz or http://xxxx.down.wiz
for a menu of sites in support or in opposition to the
site (.wiz is for experimentation but it could be
immediately extended to .com).
problem: it would show a domain name has nothing
to do with trade marks... , only the publishing of the
way to access commercially a site.
3. now let suppose you create a site named hate.com.
And you publish you opinion about VeryBad Casino
under http://VeryBadCasino.hate.com. You achieve
the same thing, without a new TLD. hate is the DN.
As says a WIPO VP: the UDRP could be extended
to other issues, but here it would be obvious that we
are in the press field. One may accept that the DN is
like the name of your ezine. But here everyone sees
that "VeryBadCasino" is the title of your article.
Then....
Remark. FYI The way I reworded Article 31 in responding to
Constantine was including every electronic communication
and storage issues, I feel missing in he Declaration.
A preliminary version of the paper I wrote on Human Rights and the Internet can be
found .
If you have something to say about anything in this page, please, communicate! Contact me at cschassapis@acm.org or write your thoughts into amorphous.art guestbook. But, if you download and save this page to your machine, or print this page, then, please send me an e-mail saying that you did that. Thanks.
| Last updated: Juy 12, 2001 |
|