[bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance

Tue Feb 4 08:52:34 EST 2014

Mike strongly agreed with Andrew and Gene and I strongly agree with Mike!!
This exchange of emails and ideas of course is useful but my view is that
an important goal of BB might be to set up the CS agenda for the meeting in
Brazil. To do so, it will be important to submit a short and substantive
document. Of course it will not be easy to have a general agreement among
us, but I encourage all of us to be flexible and only oppose on issues that
are contrary to fundamental principles or past agreements.
I agree with Andrew proposal. At the same time I understand Jeremy M
concerns in limiting the statement to the three themes proposed by Andrew.
But having a discussion now about what should be included and how the list
should be expanded, it could lead us to a never end discussion. That´s why
I agree with Andrew.
Best

e

Eduardo

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) <
mgodwin at internews.org> wrote:

>
> 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 | *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 | @internews <http://www.twitter.com/internews> |
> facebook.com/internews <http://www.facebook.com/internews>
>
> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 7:16 AM
> To: "jeremy at ciroap.org" <jeremy at ciroap.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net"
> <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>
> Date: 02/04/2014 2:31 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: 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 |
> 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!Fm5mrXAAqtPhHw0dtgxxelXmSzKLPN3ZpuS7o6O6eqjJaSPFO0UaI8cQ==>to report this email as spam.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140204/d04a5a75/attachment.htm>