<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
McTim wrote
<pre wrap="">"What this means to me is that IGC members can say anything they want,
but cannot represent their opinions as IGC positions." (pertinent charter quote below).
As IGC co-coordinator present at the OC, I will be on Skype, and hope that both those who are present and remote will join in the IGC chat discussion to allow for interventions as appropriate.
As IGC co-coordinator, I do not think I can voice a "personal" opinion at a face-to-face meeting, because even if I make a disclaimer ("this is my personal opinion, not that of the IGC)--it is likely to be taken as a reflection of the IGC.
Right now, it seems to me that we have no consensus on a proposal for themes: although many seem to agree that we should address the issue of rights once again, I do not perceive a strategy or wording on how to present it. To me this is crucial, and we have several possibilities:
1. Once again make a strong plea for rights and principles, straight out, keeping this issue "alive"-- knowing that there will be opposition, and it will not pass, but will make our point, and perhaps strengthen the position of another organization that has another approach.
2. Continue to search for a rights-based phrasing that will be acceptable to the MAG (no vetoes). Words are flexible, and seem to mean what we want them to say, but then can be stretched and distorted if we are not careful. Can we use that in our favor? Are there possible phrasings we are missing?
I think we have some good discussions going on and they should continue. however, we need to move towards some concrete wording. Can we have proposals for consideration? (I was attracted to John Curran's "accountable Internet", but that was in another context).
Could we have a some options? Short, one paragraph propositions to consider?
I hope so. Best, Ginger
</pre>
<pre wrap="">"The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the
caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot
be discussed by the caucus within the time available.
In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with
the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect
the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of
those members who are physically present at the meeting."
</pre>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f65fb55e1002030040m2dbf0e48id76bf6e6f11c927@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Apologies for the length of this post, but I am going to try and reply
to both PJS and Fouad in a single post to avoid multiple messages.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">McTim
I must say that i do not see any possibility of a proposed theme on 'right
to development of Internet' going anywhere in the OC and MAG.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Who would be opposed and could you explain why they might be opposed
(leaving out the folk who have already voiced their opinion on list)?
I came up with the idea specifically to find something that might
appeal to many on the MAG.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However more importantly, i really do not understand the content on this
theme - and what exactly you seek to achieve?
BTW, I think all these years if there is one thing I have heard you assert
repeatedly it is that everyone already has an absolute right to the
development of the Internet (through, what you always claim, is the
absolutely open and unhindered access to bottom-up Internet policy forums
you keep mentioning). So if everyone already has this right, what exactly
are we seeking here?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
See my reply to Siva yesterday.
I will attempt to summarise again:
1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed. Since you see
this via a political lens, I will say that given that politics is the
art of the possible, we know already what is not possible. This is an
attempt to repackage the concepts of rights and development in to a
politically palatable Theme. Even though HR and DA were discussed,
this is no guarantee that they will be accepted. Optimism around this
as a certainty is unfounded in reality.
2. Your formulation of a DA for IG found here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/OECD-ITfC.pdf">http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/OECD-ITfC.pdf</a> is based upon
faulty assumptions of what the Internet is. You seem to see it a a
"thing" that can be "claimed as a public infrastructure with a strong
public goods perspective." The Internet, being a network of network is
fundamentally the protocols/ports/adddresing schemes, etc that allow
us to do Internetworking. It's very easy for us to see the Internet
as something that can be very useful in economic and social
development. However, I would suggest that these effects are
epiphenomenal, and that it is difficult to regulate epiphenomenon. It
is far easier and more effective for those interested in IG to
participate in the activities that have enabled the growth of the
phenomenon and that will continue its growth in the future.
3. I don't know that i have ever asserted that we all have this
"right" before. What I have asserted is that we have the ability. I
am merely seeking to discuss a possible right to advance capacity
building around these issues at the IGF. This is a desperate need
IMO.
4. I've only got 6 years of experience in Internetworking in Africa,
that may not be a long enough time to judge, but from what I have
seen, economic and social development can come from Internet
diffusion. Internet diffusion relies somewhat on capacity building on
IG issues. We have seen tremendous progress in re: Internet access
here in Africa, much of it because of the exceptional work done in
capacity building by CS orgs like AfNOG, which falls squarely under
the definition of CS that Fouad sent. He was not a subscriber several
years ago when we had this discussion about who is CS and who is not,
but by the definition he sent: "Civil society refers to the arena of
uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and
values.", I can make no conclusion other than that the African IG
bodies are CS. To suggest that two stakeholder groups could not hold
the same view is detrimental to our cause. If we truly represent the
user, we should empower them to participate in IG activities.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In any case, a new unclear theme can simply not become a main session theme.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
How do we know until we try? Is it your personal opposition to such
an idea or a thorough political analysis of the MAG? If the latter,
could you explain who might vote for or against such an idea?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On the other hand, 'NN/open Internet' and 'development agenda in IG' are
both now well discussed themes inside and outside the IGF, and have enough
'body' to be considered to be main session themes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I know what NN means to me, and I know what constitutes a DA for IG in
my mind. However, you have differing views about what they mean. I
am all for both openness and development arising from IG.
I'm all about both, really. If you or others would like to write a
statement for the IGCs consideration, I would be happy to read it.
Meanwhile, the statement I have put on the table is still the only one
in consideration AFAIK.
Finally I refer to the charter text:
"The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the
caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot
be discussed by the caucus within the time available.
In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with
the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect
the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of
those members who are physically present at the meeting."
What this means to me is that IGC members can say anything they want,
but cannot represent their opinions as IGC positions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>