[governance] IGF workshops

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi Parminder and all,

Le 28 avr. 08 à 18:21, Parminder a écrit :
>
> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that  
> IGC
> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

I obviously support this one as an IGC workshop, since I'm in the  
working group preparing it. It's more than time for this essential IG  
issue to be put on IGF table.

> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

I also support this one, as co-sponsored by IGC. Like the above  
workshop, it raises an issue which is at the heart of IG. I regret  
that its focus hasn't been extended beyond ICANN (as I proposed in a  
previous mail), but the IGC failed to bring the necessary inputs,  
so.. Milton mentioned that he has one volunteer from this list: if  
this person is supposed to speak as an IGC representative, we should  
discuss this. If as an individual/individual org representative, fine.

> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

I'm pretty embarassed here. I strongly support the idea of advancing  
the issue of a 'right to access the Internet' (which is not  
necessarily a 'right to communicate' as it has been framed by some  
groups since the 80s) and defining what is encompassed by this right.  
But - and I'm really sorry I haven't had time to participate in the  
list discussion and to react in time - I do think the issue is not  
adequately framed here. I'm afraid that, as currently described, it  
would lead to nowhere but the old "NWICO trap", especially when  
speakers are supposed to show a diversity of perspective.
I'm also afraid that the current description of the workshop is not  
clear at all: it's hard to understand what is the main concern,  
because there are too many references to current works related mainly  
to freedom of expression and to "mapping existing rights in the  
context of Internet" (works which, BTW, remains questionable). Very  
different concepts seem simply mixed up. Frankly, it smells like  
beating around the (old) bush.. or like ideas that still needs  
maturing before reaching the step of a coherent discussion. This is  
BTW reflected in the list of prospective panelists: seems like anyone  
could be in, while a well focused proposal would provide directions  
on who should be approached and who wouldn't bring any strong point  
in the debate.
In summary: I don't want to oppose this workshop in the current  
consensus seeking process, mainly because I feel I haven't any right  
to do so because I haven't participated to the previous discussion.  
But, to be honest, I don't feel the proposal appropriate, as it is.  
And in terms of advocacy in favor of a 'right to access the  
Internet', I really think it would be counterproductive. But that's  
another discussion.

> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF

Most needed. It's the IGC trademark:)

Best,
Meryem____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance