[governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Tue Jun 10 06:29:24 EDT 2008


Thanks for the update Ken - I understand from your response and Bill's some
of the issues that make the billion users option a much safer way to proceed
(but IMHO a less useful one). 

Forward also with the campaigns to give the next billion humans human
rights, and the next billion food and shelter, and the next billion
education.

Targets are OK as interim measures I guess, but inclusive higher objectives
might also be useful somewhere...

Maybe "The Internet is for everyone " (an ISOC catchcry and a good one)might
be able to find a life here somewhere.



Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org]
> Sent: 10 June 2008 20:17
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme
> 
> Dear Meryem, Ian, colleagues
> 
> 1) During the MAG meeting, (I participated remotely), I was one of the
> people who indicated that we should not use "universalization of the
> internet" because it might be controversial. As you know, the word
> universal itself is sometimes controversial, because it refers to
> things, patterns, cultural schemes, that we may say there are common to
> all human beings. And in a lot of cases, dominant cultural schemes,
> widely disseminated, may be qualified as universal. Many would argue
> that we do say "universal access" in health, in political economy, but
> "universalization of the internet"(contents also?) is a new invented
> term, of which content has not been discussed and agreed upon. So I
> prefer that we have something less controversial (in fact other people
> had the same argument against that phrase during the open consultations
> according to what I heard, and also some MAG people shared that
> opinion). I also think some feared regulations that may be imposed on
> ISP, etc, because of universal access obligations, as William indicated.
> "Reaching the next billion of users" was then proposed to be only kept.
> I do think that this is more neutral and frankly, it indicates more
> directly what we want, which is access for all. However, other
> colleagues said it was better to withdraw "of users", giving various
> reasons. I agree "reaching the next billion" may seem evangelical, but
> personally I prefer it (or rather I prefer "reaching the next billion of
> users") to "universalization of the internet".
> 
>  2) Regarding the draft programme proposed, the full presentation of
> them is as follows (as in the draft program  sent  by Adam)
> 
> - Reaching the next billion
> 
> ** Access
> 
> ** Multilingualism.
> 
> - Promoting cyber-security and trust
> 
> ** Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime?
> 
> ** Fostering security, privacy and openness
> 
> - Managing critical Internet resources
> 
> ** Transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
> 
> ** Arrangements for Internet governance - global and national/regional.
> 
> - Taking Stock and the Way Forward
> 
> - Emerging issues.
> 
>  So first of all, I would to say that openness, diversity and
> multilingualism are of course included in the themes to be discussed.
> This new presentation was also proposed by the MAG because a lot of
> people suggested (open consultations, written contributions, etc.), that
> we have headings differents from the four or five classic used in Athens
> and Rio (Access, Diversity, Security and Openness + CIR).
> 
>  Above all, this is also a result of a multistakeholder discussion (I'm
> not sure this statement will be welcome but.:-) - And I believe was is
> essential is  included, even though personally I'm not totally satisfied.
> 
>  That presentation will have no impact according to my understanding for
> workshop selection. (the main  suggestion  made  by the MAG here is that
> some workshop  are merged, because notably of  logistical slots
> available and common themes.
> 
> Finally, it's still a rolling document and if we want to argue for some
> changes, there's still room for that.
> 
> Rgds
> 
> Ken L
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1493 - Release Date: 6/9/2008
> 5:25 PM

____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list