<div dir="ltr">Mejor dicho, la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros era para que no se tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas propuestas. Y seguir con lo mismo ¿Hasta cuando?<div><br></div><div>Y que casualidad que usted Avri Doria tiene el paquete salvador, y el resto tenga que votar como carneros por lo que Ud. a propuesto, que no es mas que lo mismo de siempre. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?</div><div><br></div><div>Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.</div><div><br></div><div>Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes y simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos, ¿intereses creados?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas conservadoras establecidas </div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><br></div><b>Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche</b><div>
<b> Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo</b></div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/2/13 Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:<br>
<br>
> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]<br>
><br>
> As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will<br>
> be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have<br>
> made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before<br>
> the deadline.<br>
><br>
> Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one<br>
> that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...<br>
><br>
> In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that<br>
> have remained unchanged since the last update.<br>
><br>
> Greetings,<br>
> Norbert<br>
><br>
>> The decision process is going to be:<br>
>> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current<br>
>> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.<br>
>> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,<br>
>> the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.<br>
>> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects<br>
>> to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is<br>
>> proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the<br>
>> current draft text, the current text of our statement remains<br>
>> unchanged in that regard.<br>
>> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all<br>
>> resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing<br>
>> improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft<br>
>> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point<br>
>> will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could<br>
>> try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the<br>
>> charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be<br>
>> enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> All references are to <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Paragraph 1<br>
>> ===========<br>
>> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil<br>
>> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the<br>
>> way forward:"<br>
>><br>
>> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how<br>
>> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words<br>
>> on the process that was followed."<br>
>><br>
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no<br>
>> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph<br>
>> will be added.<br>
>><br>
<br>
Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process. extract a few of your sentence. something like:<br>
<br>
Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went through a repeat process of calling for consensus, we had last call for members only, the co-cos called consensus, we were done.<br>
<br>
>><br>
>> Paragraph 2<br>
>> ===========<br>
>> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on<br>
>> IGF Improvements"<br>
>><br>
>> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about<br>
>> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be<br>
>> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the<br>
>> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be<br>
>> implemented."<br>
><br>
> Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but<br>
> how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their<br>
> ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky<br>
> territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –<br>
> CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with<br>
> consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become<br>
> the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the<br>
> undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."<br>
<br>
As I recommended. MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these so-called multistakeholder recommendations. To do this they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body politic.<br>
<br>
><br>
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no<br>
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to<br>
>> the draft text.<br>
<br>
Insert:<br>
<br>
Before MAG implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment by the IGF body politic.<br>
<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Paragraph 3<br>
>> ===========<br>
>> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency<br>
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public<br>
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution<br>
>> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and<br>
>> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."<br>
>><br>
>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What<br>
>> does it “really need to do”?"<br>
>><br>
>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,<br>
>> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency<br>
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public<br>
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution<br>
>> of."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Paragraph 4<br>
>> ===========<br>
>> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on<br>
>> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"<br>
>><br>
>> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG<br>
>> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF<br>
>> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review<br>
>> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that<br>
>> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and<br>
>> what not to implement."<br>
>><br>
>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable<br>
>> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of<br>
>> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."<br>
><br>
> Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely<br>
> unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case<br>
> should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the<br>
> MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that<br>
> power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to<br>
> do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back<br>
> this highly problematic move."<br>
><br>
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no<br>
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to<br>
>> the draft text.<br>
>><br>
<br>
see the response above.<br>
<br>
>><br>
>> Paragraph 10<br>
>> ============<br>
>> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we<br>
>> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013<br>
>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural<br>
>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms<br>
>> and institutions involved in this process?”<br>
>><br>
>> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with<br>
>> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do<br>
>> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not<br>
>> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,<br>
>> more that it already is?"<br>
><br>
> Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a<br>
> key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do<br>
> not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at<br>
> the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,<br>
> after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt<br>
> ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"<br>
<br>
I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the best idea..<br>
<br>
><br>
>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear<br>
>> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.<br>
<br>
It is clear in everyones mind. Just the images are completely different.<br>
<br>
<br>
>> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such<br>
>> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in<br>
>> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is<br>
>> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to<br>
>> develop a shared understanding."<br>
>><br>
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no<br>
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to<br>
>> the draft text.<br>
>><br>
<br>
"In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we<br>
propose that the following policy question<br>
<br>
be included as a workshop topic for<br>
<br>
2013<br>
IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural<br>
principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms<br>
and institutions involved in this process?”<br>
<br>
<br>
>><br>
>> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment<br>
>> =============================<br>
>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful<br>
>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."<br>
>><br>
>> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a<br>
>> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational<br>
>> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up<br>
>> on Human Rights as a general theme?"<br>
><br>
> Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about<br>
> ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand<br>
> when almost every global IG document seem to focus on<br>
> multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand<br>
> its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."<br>
><br>
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no<br>
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to<br>
>> the draft text.<br>
<br>
"A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “<br>
<br>
Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"<br>
<br>
<br>
-----<br>
<br>
to be continued...<br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>