[governance] abuse by the coordinator

[parminder]

On Thursday 25 April 2013 11:52 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Before doing that, could we be reminded of the purpose of this draft 
> definition?  And how will it be used?

First of all, it is not (at least no longer) proposed as a 'definition'. 
It is an overarching principle that we wish Internet governance and 
Internet related public policies to be informed by... Many 
organisations/ bodies have developed Internet policy principles, and 
some of them have started to make a solid dent on global IG and Internet 
related public polices.  IGC till now has almost exclusively made 
process related interventions and statements alone, which, well, does 
impact its credibility. The question is asked; but what is it that you 
substantially stand for, which way would you want to see the Internet 
evolve, and so on...

Therefore what we are trying to evolve here is a larger advocacy 
position, about how we want to see the Internet evolve, and thus 
governed. This statement, if adopted, I understand wil be used to 
preface our inputs to processes like the WG on enhanced cooperation (on 
Internet related public policy issues) and, if the caucus so desires, 
the World Telecom/Internet Policy Forum (on Internet related public 
polices), and others.

parminder



>
> And clearly the text is still very fluid.
>
> Lets just continue discussion until we know what we are doing and why. 
> Calls for consensus give a dread feeling of a WCIT'ish call for 
> temperature of the room.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 26, 2013, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>     BTW, instead of one individual asserting what he or she will or
>     won't allow the Caucus to do, why don't we put forward the
>     contentious statement (some version of it, whatever) for a
>     consensus call (or some other relevant procedure of the kind) as
>     to whether it is worth pursuing --as I believe parminder
>     suggested? To that end, the initiators should clearly remind us of
>     the main purpose and both should feature in the call. If that gets
>     defeated then the Caucus drops it and move forward.
>
>     My 2 cents.
>     mawaki
>
>
>     On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mawaki Chango
>     <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         +1
>
>         I am far from being among the least fortunate among my fellow
>         Africans and other people from the developing world. Yet, I am
>         right now sitting in a cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and
>         this is my first internet session since my last post to IGC
>         list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury of a high
>         speed internet connection at home or wherever I stay in this
>         city -- and I have already spent 1 hour mostly reading this
>         list posts (and not all of them).
>
>         Under conditions like those and conditions like these, you say
>         you want people around the world, for most of whom English is
>         a foreign language --at least for those few who can read and
>         write it -- to participate in these processes? You better get
>         out of your bubble, folks!
>
>         Mawaki
>
>
>         On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea Glorioso
>         <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
>
>             Dear Milton, dear all,
>
>             I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me
>             to enter in this debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of
>             the Internet Governance Caucus but I simply read / try to
>             participate to the discussions taking place on this list.
>             So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it.
>
>             For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal
>             position here.
>
>             I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of
>             "public good", "commons" etc. Milton's substantive
>             arguments are in my view rather correct, as it often (but
>             not always :) happens, at least to the extent that they
>             warn against under-emphasising the importance of
>             private-sector initiative and consumers' choices in the
>             past, current and future development of the Internet.
>
>             However, I do find the way in which such arguments have
>             been expressed rather troubling. To focus on one single
>             example: it might well depend on cultural sensitivities
>             (which are a reality in a global environment and although
>             they should not result in self-censorship, they should at
>             least produce more self-awareness) but I do find a
>             sentence such as "be forewarned that if it does I will not
>             allow anyone to misrepresent [the statement being
>             discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening.
>
>             Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this
>             or that? Having the fortune to know you a little bit, I
>             can imagine you refer to a (very :) vigorous use of your
>             right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is not
>             an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you
>             might interpret the sentence rather differently. In Italy
>             (or at least, among the Italians I grew up with) telling
>             someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that does
>             carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe
>             people in other parts of the world might also have similar
>             interpretations of this kind of expression.
>
>             (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to
>             the extent that it implies that if one single person
>             disagrees with a statement, then it is not a "civil
>             society position" - but this is besides the point).
>
>             Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are
>             trying to suppress discussion, at least for a definition
>             of "discussion" which might not be Milton's or others'
>             preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps that of
>             several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep
>             tones as polite as possible.
>
>             I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance
>             environment there are quite a few persons - including, to
>             be clear, Milton - whom I _very deeply _respect from an
>             intellectual point of view, but who tend to express their
>             ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not
>             theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most
>             importantly, do create a real problem when trying to
>             disseminate such ideas with people (some of whom are key
>             decision-makers you might want to influence...) who might
>             have rather different standards of what constitutes
>             acceptable ways to express yourself.
>
>             Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130426/727cef65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t