<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Jeremy Malcolm writes:</span><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">< at least they have issued a declaration of principles </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">(even if a </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> sub-standard one), </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">which the</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> IGC has </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">not done despite </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">talking</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> about doing it since last IGF. </span></div><div><br></div><div>Please focus on the principles themselves and not "they" who wrote them. There is no implied ownership of this set of principles. To the contrary, like around half of the similar statements of principles over the past year, it is meant to spur public discussion and improvement. Some curation and coordination is needed to bring interested parties and views together, but I think a significant majority could in time settle on a consensus document. Hopefully including the major groups that care about and study internet governance.</div>
<div> </div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> we need to make sure that we don't continue to allow the current </span></div><div>
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> Internet </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">governance debates to be monopolised by such popular </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> movements, which are well-intentioned but often rather uninformed </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> and demographically narrow.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>Many groups remain isolated by their sense of identity and otherness. Including those that aim to help and represent everyone -- like 'popular' groups and 'civil society' groups (both terms which, in their simplest form, cover most of society). </div>
<div><br></div><div>I hope we [the largest-frame community of Internet users] can keep this from being an 'us v. them' debate for a dozen different social circles, each of which feels it is the only unbiased representative slice of society.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I also hope we can separate underlying questions about internet freedom and its value in society, from Internet Governance. The former is more philosophical and less tied to near-term current-day implementation decisions.</div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> we have long been talking about making a </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">contribution, but are yet to </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> actually get around to doing so [in]</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">></span></div>
<div>> 1. <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">the development of a civil society statement of principles on IG </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> and a broader civil society network to subscribe to this ...</span></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><</font></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> the ground is moving under the IGC's feet. At least three other groups </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> (Access, and two others I'm not sure if I can mention publicly) are trying to </span></div><div>
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> take leadership to link NGOs together for purposes of agreeing on principles > and/or mobilising against bad laws. This is something that the IGC itself </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">> should be doing, and indeed had committed to do last year.</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I must say, the language you use above makes me uncomfortable, and feels... sub-optimal. An ideal coalition or network won't be "led" or "owned" by one particular group; it will draw from many and be defined by its members. </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I hope people from all of these groups, and from "popular" groups that you feel are currently apart from civil society (including the 'net activists who are currently engaged in work like broadcasting the existence of recent declarations), will be invited to upcoming IGC/IGF discussions on the topic. And vice-versa.</span></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font>On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Norbert Bollow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>></span> wrote:<font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
While I'm in strong agreement with the view that "now is the time to<br>
just do it", I would say that pretty much by definition, Enhanced<br>
Cooperation can't be done without active involvement of at least some<br>
governments.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That seems like a pretty lacking definition. Today we have a variety of examples of how large-scale grassroots and civic pressure can define a framework for cooperation and drive government involvement, rather than waiting for government inovlvement before something can happen.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This is one reason why the IGF might benefit from more involvement from people who have been part of popular Internet movements in recent years. </div><div><br></div><div>It is good to have a credible and attractive invitation to governments to cooperate, where possible, but not the only way forward.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Every bit of civil society visibilty in this area is good since it<br>
reduces the temptations for governments to turn to ITU and/or<br>
plurilateral purely intergovernmental negotiations (like ACTA) for<br>
their perceived enhanced cooperation needs.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. Though again, governments are not always the most important groups that need to cooperate or to define the terms of such cooperation. The act of cooperating well will amplify and broadcast the work of those who have learned to cooperate; and will by definition make their work and standards more influential than those of groups that remain isolated.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Sam.</div></div>
</div>