<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Parminder,<br>
<br>
Not everyone is in your fight. There are several important battles.
We all have priorities. Wikileaks is one of those most important
battles of our life time. I cant concentrate on this statement right
now. There are many organizations who are not in this list and are
not providing their comments. You should approach them. Specially
human rights organizations that are not members of this list! We
need them.<br>
<br>
On 12/11/10 11:55 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D047FF4.2090000@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D047B81.2020103@eff.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sure, Katitza. I expect people and institutions to think their
positions and endorsements through, and am not insisting that they
sign
up on the proposed statement or any such thing. Mine are more
general
political comments. Exclusion of 70-80 percent of world's
population
from plurilateral activities of rich countries is at least as
important
as exclusion of CS in any structural format of governance. <br>
<br>
For instance, do you think CS orgs involved with environmental
issues
will stop pushing for international agreements on climate change
related steps simply because of the fear that, to quote your
words,
there may be 'no certainty about our (CS) involvement in equal
footing"<br>
<br>
Or could we stop seeking access to knowledge related agreements
under
development agenda in WIPO bec of the same fears, esp when ACTA
kind of
things are in the offing.<br>
<br>
What makes IG any different? In politics non-action is also an
action,
in favor of some interests or others.<br>
<br>
Which is not to say that we should not seek more participative and
open
governance structures for all of the above. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D047B81.2020103@eff.org" type="cite"> <br>
On 12/11/10 11:17 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D0476FC.10300@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</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>