<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=109462221-20122010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>I
think that the evidently contradictory and panicky responses from a number of
sources including corporations, governments and even civil society around the
Wkileaks (and related) issues strongly indicates the need for some sort of
framework of general IG principles if not new institutional arrangements...and
there is likely to be (and in certain areas already is) significant calls/moves
to create these but from limited and self-serving positions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=109462221-20122010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=109462221-20122010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>This
would suggest the need/opportunity for something in this area to be developed
within the context of "civil society" (hopefully in partnership with others--a
more careful reading of the IBSA document would seem to suggest this approach as
being something consistent with what they are arguing for...
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=109462221-20122010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=109462221-20122010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>The
current developments of the Charter of Internet Rights and Principles (one of
several possible titles currently being discussed) by the Internet Rights group
might provide a useful model (and perhaps launchpad) for such an
enterprise.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=109462221-20122010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=109462221-20122010><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>Mike</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
governance-request@lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Marilia Maciel<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 20, 2010
6:19 AM<BR><B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Rafik
Dammak<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Re: Final score in CSTD
consultations ??<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>This piece of news confirms the idea that
the debates about enhanced cooperation and IGF improvement cannot be seen as
separate things. The hypocrisy in US gov position, for instance, can only be
made clear if we put both themes together.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>On the one hand, they simplify the debate
and cry out that governments should not control the Internet because that
would give power to China, Iran and other countries with issues with free
expression. On the other hand, they are hunting down Assange and shutting down
wikileaks.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>US</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US> true concern is
about EC and how other countries can undermine the status quo of US
predominance, specially regarding CIR. Since US never invested in IGF and was
never strong on this forum, then multistakeholderism on CSTD does not make
much difference to them. With their attitude “multistakeholder friendly” in
CSTD they tried to garner sympathy from CS and other stakeholders to their
discourse on the EC.</SPAN></P><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Rafik Dammak <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV dir=ltr>Hello,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>not sure that will help as move ..</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242264,un-talks-on-internet-regulation-labelled-offensive.aspx"
target=_blank>http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242264,un-talks-on-internet-regulation-labelled-offensive.aspx</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/242264,un-talks-on-internet-regulation-labelled-offensive.aspx"
target=_blank></A>Regards</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Rafik<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2010/12/18 John Curran <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target=_blank>jcurran@arin.net</A>></SPAN>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Dec 17, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>hello,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>sounds some media are interested by the issue under titles like "UN
to control Internet"<BR><A
href="http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet?sc=tw&cc=share"
target=_blank>http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet?sc=tw&cc=share</A><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Rafik</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></DIV>I could be mistaken,
but it appears to reference the DESA "Open Consultations on the
process towards Enhanced Cooperation on International Public Policy Issues
pertaining to the Internet" on December 14th as opposed to CSTD working
group on IGF improvement. The ISOC quote is clearly from their
Enhanced Cooperation submission. I point it out only in case someone
speaks to member of the press, you might want to refer them to both of the
hearings that occurred this week as key events.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>As we're seeing similar direction in multiple UN forums, the
article's sentiment is likely equally applicable in either case...
;-)</DIV>
<DIV>/John<BR>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To
be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR> <A
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For
all list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR><BR>Translate
this email: <A href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target=_blank>http://translate.google.com/translate_t</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<BR>FGV Direito
Rio<BR><BR>Center for Technology and Society<BR>Getulio Vargas
Foundation<BR>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>