<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 25 April 2013 11:52 PM,
Adam Peake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFabd1+qMCVB3t0kb+jSde6aCYive+6GLN-DTa2WV7FEzi=v=w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Before doing that, could we be reminded of the purpose
of this draft definition? And how will it be used?</blockquote>
<br>
First of all, it is not (at least no longer) proposed as a
'definition'. It is an overarching principle that we wish Internet
governance and Internet related public policies to be informed by...
Many organisations/ bodies have developed Internet policy
principles, and some of them have started to make a solid dent on
global IG and Internet related public polices. IGC till now has
almost exclusively made process related interventions and statements
alone, which, well, does impact its credibility. The question is
asked; but what is it that you substantially stand for, which way
would you want to see the Internet evolve, and so on...<br>
<br>
Therefore what we are trying to evolve here is a larger advocacy
position, about how we want to see the Internet evolve, and thus
governed. This statement, if adopted, I understand wil be used to
preface our inputs to processes like the WG on enhanced cooperation
(on Internet related public policy issues) and, if the caucus so
desires, the World Telecom/Internet Policy Forum (on Internet
related public polices), and others. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFabd1+qMCVB3t0kb+jSde6aCYive+6GLN-DTa2WV7FEzi=v=w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And clearly the text is still very fluid. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lets just continue discussion until we know what we are doing
and why. Calls for consensus give a dread feeling of a WCIT'ish
call for temperature<span></span> of the room. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Adam</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
On Friday, April 26, 2013, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>BTW, instead of one individual asserting what he or
she will or won't allow the Caucus to do, why don't we
put forward the contentious statement (some version of
it, whatever) for a consensus call (or some other
relevant procedure of the kind) as to whether it is
worth pursuing --as I believe parminder suggested? To
that end, the initiators should clearly remind us of the
main purpose and both should feature in the call. If
that gets defeated then the Caucus drops it and move
forward.<br>
<br>
</div>
My 2 cents.<br>
</div>
mawaki<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mawaki Chango <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>+1<br>
</div>
<br>
I am far from being among the least fortunate
among my fellow Africans and other people from the
developing world. Yet, I am right now sitting in a
cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and this is my
first internet session since my last post to IGC
list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury
of a high speed internet connection at home or
wherever I stay in this city -- and I have already
spent 1 hour mostly reading this list posts (and
not all of them). <br>
<br>
</div>
Under conditions like those and conditions like
these, you say you want people around the world, for
most of whom English is a foreign language --at
least for those few who can read and write it -- to
participate in these processes? You better get out
of your bubble, folks!<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
</font></span></div>
<span><font color="#888888">Mawaki<br>
</font></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea
Glorioso <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true">andrea@digitalpolicy.it</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Milton, dear all,<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am not entirely clear whether it is
appropriate for me to enter in this
debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of the
Internet Governance Caucus but I simply
read / try to participate to the
discussions taking place on this list. So,
if this message is not appropriate, please
disregard it. <br>
<br>
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing
a personal position here.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I read with great interest the
exchanges on the notion of "public good",
"commons" etc. Milton's substantive
arguments are in my view rather correct,
as it often (but not always :) happens, at
least to the extent that they warn against
under-emphasising the importance of
private-sector initiative and consumers'
choices in the past, current and future
development of the Internet. <br>
<br>
However, I do find the way in which such
arguments have been expressed rather
troubling. To focus on one single example:
it might well depend on cultural
sensitivities (which are a reality in a
global environment and although they
should not result in self-censorship, they
should at least produce more
self-awareness) but I do find a sentence
such as "be forewarned that if it does I
will not allow anyone to misrepresent [the
statement being discussed] as a civil
society position" rather threatening.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Milton, what does it mean that "you
will not allow" this or that? Having the
fortune to know you a little bit, I can
imagine you refer to a (very :) vigorous
use of your right to freedom of expression
(which, by the way, is not an unbounded
right). However, others who don't know you
might interpret the sentence rather
differently. In Italy (or at least, among
the Italians I grew up with) telling
someone "I will not allow you" to do this
or that does carry with it an implicit
promise of a threat. Maybe people in other
parts of the world might also have similar
interpretations of this kind of
expression.<br>
<br>
(I also find this particular sentence
rather arrogant, to the extent that it
implies that if one single person
disagrees with a statement, then it is not
a "civil society position" - but this is
besides the point).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Frankly, it does not seem to me that
Norbert's remarks are trying to suppress
discussion, at least for a definition of
"discussion" which might not be Milton's
or others' preferred one, but is certainly
mine and perhaps that of several others:
i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep
tones as polite as possible. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I'm sorry to say that in the Internet
governance environment there are quite a
few persons - including, to be clear,
Milton - whom I <u>very deeply </u>respect
from an intellectual point of view, but
who tend to express their ideas in ways
which I find personally distasteful (not
theirs, or anyone else's problem, of
course) and, most importantly, do create a
real problem when trying to disseminate
such ideas with people (some of whom are
key decision-makers you might want to
influence...) who might have rather
different standards of what constitutes
acceptable ways to express yourself.<br>
<br>
Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be
important </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>