<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Bill,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 16 October 2012 06:02 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Greetings from ICANN Toronto, where some of us are trying to
push the inclusion of human rights in actual governance
processes.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Great. Would be good to know what exactly is it about. <br>
<br>
About the matters below.<br>
<br>
I have no doubt that any ITU statement at this juncture should
address core issues of ITR amendments. <br>
<br>
My comments were wholly addressed to the track two activity. I am
not sure what is the sudden hurry to pull out from a hat some
process principles for IG in this compressed time, when the issue is
rather contentious and requires to be given all the time and
attention it needs. Also, I genuinely believed that we were talking
about substantive principles for the Internet/IG, since for
instance, the IRP declaration was talked about among other
statements of substantive principle. I am not sure what is the name
of workshop now, but the note I<font size="3"> </font>have calls it
"<font size="3">a
strategic gathering of NGOs around Internet governance and <i><b>Internet
principles</b></i>".</font>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
H1 { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
H1.western { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 16pt }
H1.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback"; font-size: 16pt }
H1.ctl { font-family: "Lohit Hindi"; font-size: 16pt }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style><br>
<br>
But if you really want to go ahead, by all means do give it a try.
Just dont sweep aside issues like the democratic versus
multistakeholderism discussion we recently had in the IGC list...
and other issues like funding of public participation bodies,
structural provisions for representing the voice of the
under-represented, conflict of interest and public policy making,
role of big business in global Internet policy making ( Obama's
famous 'will do away with revolving doors between business and
politics ' agenda that people cheered so much)................. We
cant selectively chose some principles that buttress certain
governance orders and not other kinds. We will need to go really
deep, and go the whole hog.<br>
<br>
I dont think the CoE / APC's code of good practices is the right
document to start with. In any case, principles are different from
code of practices. And going back to the substantive/ process issue,
I see the shift from focus on substantive to process and from
principles to practices itself a <i>substantive</i> issue of far
reaching implication vis a vis directions that politics and
governance is taking. (Yes, this is a critique of relatively recent
neolib tendencies in this regard.) In politics what is not done can
be just as important as what is done. Therefore the logic of 'formal
processes and codes have been easy to agree on' needs to be examined
more deepy and thoroughly for its implication to public interest,
especially the interest of those who are marginalised. I am seeking
such deeper and thorough examinations in the proposed workshop, and
these pre-workshop discussions. I dont want it reduced to 'we have
more or less a ready template based on an imagined considerable
existing meeting of minds', and lets just polish and finish it. My
reading of the initially posted primary purpose of the workshop does
not match such an approach.<br>
<br>
Best regards, <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CE0751EF-52BF-4DB3-903F-37DC1203EB40@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> </div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 16, 2012, at 6:46 AM, parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; ">On the other hand, if we just
want to give a list of preachments to the ITU on how
should be conduct its business, I am game for it. That is
much more doable.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>I certainly hope this is not what we'll do in the WCIT
statement. Statements critiquing the ITU's MO proved useful
earlier in the process, e.g. by pressing governments to agree
to the landmark, watershed, historic (quoting the press
office) release of a document that had already been leaked and
widely accessed. If you know the zeitgeist in tower, this was
news. And more generally, those statements made senior staff
who'd previously declared they'd be unaffected by any
muttering among the riff raff launch an unprecedented
counter-offensive perception management gambit, complete with
a Twitter "storm" (tee hee) and website telling critics that
their concerns are all myths. So all good.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What's needed now though is something different—less meta,
more focused on specific aspects of Dubai. There's a proposal
that the conference chair declare some sessions open to the
public. One imagines there will be push back from the usual
suspects; it'd be good to briefly make the case. Beyond this,
I'd hope we can focus on the concrete proposals that could be
problematic for the Internet and offer substantive
counterpoints. Ideally, these should acknowledge that in some
cases governments may have real legitimate concerns, but point
out the downsides of overreach and that there are other, more
effective ways to deal with them than via a multilateral
treaty on telecom. In other words, be positive in tone and
content. If we do that, at least some delegations might have
a look before tossing the responses to the ITU's public
comment call into the trash, and that would establish another
reference point for delegates carrying similar messages. BTW,
such a statement could also feed into the CIR main session in
Baku, which will discuss WCIT issues.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As to the other statement, I don't believe that focusing on
the procedural elements would be unproductive and of less
value than a more substantive statement, which I suspect would
prove a bit difficult to break new and consensual ground on.
Your dislike of multistakeholderism is duly noted, but among
the wider community of IG mavens the procedural aspects have
consistently proven easier to reach consensus on, not only
within CS, but with other stakeholders as well. This was
demonstrated throughout WSIS and the IGF's early years. And
the good work done by APC and partners on this has not been
fully amplified and leveraged, and there's never been more of
a need to be saying such things. One need look no further
than the WCIT and the London Process to see why. Such a
statement can feed in directly to the Taking Stock and Way
Forward main session. So I'd go with the model this group has
worked out through collaboration facilitated by Jeremy, rather
than toss it aside.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>