<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Jose,</div><div>Thank you.</div><div>I think this message makes very good suggestions.</div><div>Expect to hear more from us when Analia and I can reply together.</div><div>Meanwhile thank you again</div><div>Deirdre</div><div><br></div><div><div>Estimado José,</div><div>Gracias.</div><div>Creo que este mensaje hace muy buenas sugerencias.</div><div>Espera escuchar más de nosotros cuando Analia y yo puedo responder juntos.</div><div>Mientras tanto gracias de nuevo</div></div><div>Deirdre</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 26 January 2015 at 12:15, José Félix Arias Ynche <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jaryn56@gmail.com" target="_blank">jaryn56@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Podemos estar un poco lejos de una estructura similar y de composición<br>
de ideas y voces, pero eso no quiere decir que estemos lejos de llegar<br>
éticamente a un acuerdo de las diversas voces de los grupos, tanto<br>
dentro de la CSCG o de NCSG, o de diversos grupos no afiliados e<br>
independientes sobre la Gobernanza de Internet.<br>
<br>
Lo que falta es un llamado al dialogo y discusión sobre un fin, en el<br>
cual todos den su opinión y sobre ello llegar a un acuerdo en donde no<br>
haya vencidos ni vencedores.<br>
<br>
Podemos comenzar como ejemplo un dialogo de ideas y sugerencias en<br>
nuestra lista, pidiéndoles a todos los miembros que den su parecer o<br>
su punto de vista de los temas que se debe de discutir o enriquecer<br>
para llegar a un acuerdo, porque creo que aun dentro de nuestra lista<br>
<a href="http://governance.lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance.lists.igcaucus.org</a>, no todos comparten las misas opiniones<br>
o ideas<br>
<br>
<br>
Todo esto no quiere decir que de inmediato tendremos un mapa claro de<br>
las voces de los diversos miembros o de las demás agrupaciones<br>
aceptando, pero si estoy seguro de que proporcionará un mapa claro de<br>
las voces reales que existen dentro de las diversas agrupaciones sobre<br>
la Gobernanza de Internet, y con ello dar el nacimiento a lo que<br>
podría ser a nivel mundial, como por ejemplo:<br>
<br>
· Los supuestos básicos en lo que se debe de regir una “Constitución<br>
Única” sobre la Gobernanza de Internet.<br>
<br>
· Sus visiones y metas.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Todo ello es un reto, pero la idea es que aun siendo un reto grande,<br>
tenemos que tener la voluntad de decidirnos a encontrar una forma de<br>
unir criterios, ideas y voces, de que si podemos llegar a formas<br>
innovadoras de unidad de ideas y de trabajar alrededor de ella.<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche<br>
Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>2015-01-26 10:00 GMT-05:00 Mawaki Chango <<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">kichango@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> N.B. Of course there also is APC as a clearly identifiable CS party under<br>
> the parasol of rights, but I would say more specifically women rights (as<br>
> several other CS families can also claim HR as their compass.) Anyway, that<br>
> was just to correct an oversight. For the rest it is up to each grouping to<br>
> come up with their best and accurate self-characterization. And just for the<br>
> sake of being complete, Diplo is an hybrid in my view and I'm not sure how<br>
> they would characterize their CS commitments (and btw, if my information is<br>
> correct they have announced their intention to withdraw from CSCG which<br>
> causes another problem if you rely on the latter to define which groups will<br>
> be included in this proposed opus.) Civicus has never really engaged wiith<br>
> CSCG as far as I can tell.<br>
><br>
> mC<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mawaki Chango <<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">kichango@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ian Peter <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Wolfgang,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I am glad you raised this again, because I think the idea is great.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I am not sure that a direct correlation with CSCG and with the different<br>
>>> groups within civil society who are CSCG members is the best way to proceed<br>
>>> (eg one JNC article followed by one Best Bits article etc) - because I think<br>
>>> many of our best people sit between and across various groups and I am not<br>
>>> sure that direct characterisation of opinions with groupings is always<br>
>>> accurate or helpful.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> This has been my concern, too, from my very first reply to the initial<br>
>> proposal, and still remains. We are far from having a homomorphism between<br>
>> the CSCG member groupings and the "diverse voices" you are referring to,<br>
>> Wolfgang. It seems to me the most identifiable voice(s) within the CSCG<br>
>> setting -- in terms of what all members stand for -- include JNC (social<br>
>> justice) and maybe BestBits (?), both of whom spun off from IGC where they<br>
>> still have their footprint aside possible other voices. In other words, IGC<br>
>> which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one voice. I suspect there is<br>
>> also notable diversity of voices within NCSG although it is my sense that<br>
>> they have clearer and tested working processes and are more ready to reach a<br>
>> common position on a whole host of issues than IGC does. Furthermore you<br>
>> have<br>
>> on the other hand<br>
>> folks such as JFC and their following, whom I am not sure to what extent<br>
>> they overlap with JNC and to what extent they have a distinct voice.<br>
>><br>
>> All of this to say, you may go with the above groupings but I am not sure<br>
>> they will provide a clear map of the actual voices that exist within CS in<br>
>> terms of families of thought, basic assumptions, visions, goals, values or<br>
>> principles of commitments, etc. If we can find a practical way to identify<br>
>> those, that would be great but I recognize it might be challenging. I am<br>
>> just putting the idea out there so that we recognize that potential<br>
>> limitation and see whether we can come up with some innovative ways to work<br>
>> around it. (Again, I also understand that you may just have made the<br>
>> deliberate choice to start from the existing _social groupings_<br>
>> and let them<br>
>> bear the responsibility to put forward their common voice OR their diverse<br>
>> voices on the issues, taking the burden away from the architect of the<br>
>> project (outline of the volume) as well as from the editors and placing it<br>
>> on the groups themselves, which will not make IGC business any easier ;-)<br>
>> Nevertheless, this approach also has its won merits.)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Mawaki<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<br>
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:15 PM<br>
>>> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a> ; michael<br>
>>> gurstein ; <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a> ; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear friends,<br>
>>><br>
>>> six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to<br>
>>> Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance Compendium or<br>
>>> Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global<br>
>>> Internet Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving<br>
>>> multistakeholder approaches to manage Internet related public policy issues.<br>
>>> 2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of<br>
>>> civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG Working<br>
>>> Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and meetings<br>
>>> of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The<br>
>>> Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in December<br>
>>> 2015 and others.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a<br>
>>> broad diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It reflects the<br>
>>> reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other stakeholder<br>
>>> groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad varierty of<br>
>>> positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to China. In the<br>
>>> private sector stakeholder group there are different approaches among<br>
>>> transnational corporations and small and medium enterprises from developed<br>
>>> and developing countries. And even among the I* organizations there are<br>
>>> differences, as we have seen recently in the positioning towards the<br>
>>> NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity reflects the reality of<br>
>>> the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to achieve sustainable<br>
>>> progress a rough consensus has to include the main arguments from the main<br>
>>> groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete results openess and<br>
>>> transparency with regard to the various positions is a key pre-condition to<br>
>>> promote mutual understanding.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or<br>
>>> individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have on<br>
>>> paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if it<br>
>>> comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could enhance<br>
>>> civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular with<br>
>>> regard to WSIS 10+.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments and<br>
>>> critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it a<br>
>>> good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and<br>
>>> counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such a<br>
>>> project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed back I<br>
>>> got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should<br>
>>> function as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a<br>
>>> co-editor. The role of the editor and the co-editors would be technical.<br>
>>> They should not intervene into the content of the individual contributions.<br>
>>> The six co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite four<br>
>>> contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the groups<br>
>>> whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or<br>
>>> represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should be 4 -<br>
>>> 8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject or to<br>
>>> select a special sub-item.<br>
>>><br>
>>> II. The book should have four chapters:<br>
>>> 1. Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy,<br>
>>> Content, Culture etc.)<br>
>>> 2. Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime,<br>
>>> Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)<br>
>>> 3. Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market<br>
>>> Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and Linguistic<br>
>>> Diversity etc.)<br>
>>> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability<br>
>>> etc.)<br>
>>><br>
>>> III. Timetable<br>
>>> It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the<br>
>>> Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be<br>
>>> ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations groups. A<br>
>>> formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil.<br>
>>> Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for distribution<br>
>>> at the 10th IGF in November 2014.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best regards<br>
>>><br>
>>> Wolfgang<br>
>>><br>
>>> PS:<br>
>>> I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in CircleID<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/" target="_blank">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> w<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi everybody<br>
>>><br>
>>> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying<br>
>>> collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly)<br>
>>> disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with<br>
>>> different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for newcomers who<br>
>>> want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions as well<br>
>>> as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society. On the<br>
>>> othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has<br>
>>> similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you compare the<br>
>>> governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil,<br>
>>> India, Japan, Australia etc.<br>
>>> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the<br>
>>> position. So it is about transparency and clarity.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people<br>
>>> writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better if we<br>
>>> use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or issue<br>
>>> papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the real<br>
>>> points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather different<br>
>>> arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society Internet<br>
>>> Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within the<br>
>>> CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody knows<br>
>>> what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main<br>
>>> chapters:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)<br>
>>> 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)<br>
>>> 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure<br>
>>> development etc.)<br>
>>> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)<br>
>>><br>
>>> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC)<br>
>>> could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would be<br>
>>> free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There is no<br>
>>> need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his radical,<br>
>>> moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main issues.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the process<br>
>>> and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead of us.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main<br>
>>> official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions etc.)<br>
>>> until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be around<br>
>>> 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York event<br>
>>> in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG Community as<br>
>>> a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the emerging<br>
>>> IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the WSIS 10+<br>
>>> process.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups)<br>
>>> would be the editor.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Any comment?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Wolfgang<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
><br>
> For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979</div>
</div>