<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Parminder<br>
<br>
I have read and hear your opinions several times. I also mentioned
that I do not give support to any inter-gov. organization since
results can be for the good and for the bad. I prefer to take a more
reactive approach, see what is going to happen. In any case, the
deadline is short and I cant run this through my organization for a
discussion before your deadline. So I do not have an institutional
position on this as of now.<br>
<br>
On 12/11/10 11:17 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<br>
Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D046E79.4090607@eff.org" type="cite">Hi
there, <br>
<br>
In my personal capacity, I have the same concerns that Mc Tim
mentioned
here. IGC is moving an agenda where there <br>
is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing. As I
mentioned,
since this is quite a short time, and we do not have yet <br>
a position on this issue, I can't endorse that statement. <br>
</blockquote>
Katitza and McTim<br>
<br>
One, IGC's statement clearly asks for any future structure to
involve
CS. That is a big part of our main enhanced cooperation statement.
Wikileaks parts just highlights the kind of basic substantive
issues
involved here. So, how do you judge that we are 'moving an agenda
where
there
is no certainty about our involvement in equal footing'.<br>
<br>
Second, OECD/CoE initiatives do not have anything close to
involvement
of CS on an equal footing. Worse, the globally non-democratic and
non-inclusive nature of these initiatives makes it rather quite
'certain' that, when the crunch comes, the decisions/outcomes will
favor richer countries and other dominant groups. Is it not
obvious. <br>
<br>
I often wonder about the nature of this 'political fiction' of
civil
society being by and in itself a political constituency, and the
way
propping this fiction has become the main task of many in the IG
CS
space. <br>
<br>
I am civil society (as in organized CS) only as a political
expedient.
My basic politics is to represent and serve the interests of
those
people and groups who I see as structurally and systemically
marginalized in current power equations. parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D046E79.4090607@eff.org" type="cite"> It
would
be good that you listed the names of those who support it.
Thanks. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/11/10 10:33 PM, McTim wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Prmndr, Lee, Ian, et. al, <br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM,
parminder<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a>
wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Jeremy <br>
<br>
"The recent WikiLeaks affairs have starkly brought out how
global
Internet <br>
cannot, and should not, be governed through illegitimate use
of
political <br>
and commercial power. There are two clear problems with this
approach
of <br>
using backroom governance tactics. One, they is always
likely to be
abused, <br>
as in our view, they got hugely abused in the Wikileaks
case. Second,
in <br>
possible cases where it may legitimately be required to
employ some
urgent <br>
global governance responses to real problems or threats (or
perhaps
even <br>
opportunities), which cannot completely be assumed away,
backroom
levels of <br>
power based on raw political and commerical might, as
employed by some <br>
governments and their corporate cronies in the present case,
are not <br>
available to less powerful political players or countries.
This
situation <br>
bespeaks a democratic deficit and a need for globally
democratic
principles <br>
and institutional frameworks in the area of Internet
governance, which
is <br>
the urgent challenge that the proposed process of enhanced
cooperation <br>
should address itself to. " <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have a hypothetical question (that may not be so
hypothetical, if <br>
the actions by some re: CSTD are anything to go by). <br>
<br>
If the governemtns of the world decided they would build a
"framework" <br>
of some kind re: IG, but shut out all non-governmental actors
in its <br>
development, would you all still be in favor of said framework
<br>
building? <br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
</body>
</html>