[bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, I am not arguing against a substantive agenda as such. Who would??
However, we should not overlook operational issues and find a solution 
for them. One of those issues concerns the decision making authority of 
the attendees of the Brazil meeting. Put in more general terms, what do 
you expect the meeting to do about the substantive agenda?

jeanette

Am 04.02.2014 13:20, schrieb Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG):
>
> I strongly agree with Gene and Andrew about the need to have a clear,
> targeted, and (ideally) short substantive civil-society agenda going
> forward to Brazil. Frankly, I almost don’t care what what the specifics
> of that substantive agenda are, but the timeline is excruciatingly
> short, the window of opportunity is limited, and if want to take away
> something substantive from Brazil we have to commit to a substantive
> agenda now.
>
> I’m not terribly troubled if someone later says the agenda should be, or
> should have been different. Brazil is a unique opportunity, and it will
> be shame if it goes to waste because civil society focused more on
> process and consensus than on extracting substantive value from the
> opportunity Brazil represents.
>
>
> —Mike
>
>
> --
>
> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
>
> mgodwin at internews.org <mailto:mgodwin at internews.org> | *Mobile* 415-793-4446
>
> *Skype* mnemonic1026
>
> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
>
> *INTERNEWS*|***Local Voices. Global Change.*
>
> www.internews.org <http://www.internews.org/> | @internews
> <http://www.twitter.com/internews> | facebook.com/internews
> <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
>
>
> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>"
> <genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>>
> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>"
> <genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
> To: "jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>" <jeremy at ciroap.org
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
> I think it would be  a big mistake to avoid substance.  Expand or adjust
> the list as you like, but let's give Brazil a chance to a starting point
> for progress on our most important policy concerns. Who cares if others
> disagree?  We need to adequately represent civil society.  And then the
> discussions and negotiations can begin. ...
>
> The three broad areas Andrew suggests were what many signed on at the
> Baku best bits meeting
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>>
> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG
> governance
>
>
> On 03/02/14 23:09, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> Three examples might be:
>>
>> 1.Net neutrality
>>
>> 2.Protection for personal privacy
>>
>> 3.Affordable access
>>
>> We could say that whatever arrangements on governance are considered
>> that we call on governments and other stakeholders to guarantee these
>> three objectives both at the  international level and in national
>> policies.
>>
>> I would have thought we have a fighting chance of getting endorsement
>> for this in a two day conference
>>
>
> I have my doubts.  If we start cherry-picking issues, where will we
> stop?  The technical community will say "Well if we're including net
> neutrality, why not IPv6 transition?"  Civil society colleages will say
> (and quite rightly) "If privacy, why not freedom of expression?" etc.
> Also, within your examples, affordable access falls into a different
> category than the other two, having less to do with global public policy
> principles.
>
> I can see the wisdom of the original pronouncement that we wouldn't be
> dealing with particular substantive issues, but rather on cross-cutting
> principles and mechanisms.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* |
> http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
> print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
> Click here
> <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/1nnqozLiUZrGX2PQPOmvUmkxeMeR4%21Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>
> to report this email as spam.
>