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

[Meryem Marzouki]

Dear Ken,

Thanks for these inputs and explanations. I do understand your point  
on 'universalization' and the risks this might convey. I do share  
your concerns about dominant cultural schemes - which are already in  
place, BTW. However, I'm not really convinced that here, these  
concerns have been the reason why the word has been abandoned.  
Moreover, I'm wondering why, in an arena like the IGF, terms should  
be discussed and agreed upon in advance. Isn't the very purpose of  
the IGF to discuss this?

In any case, the issue is not new, actually, and even universal human  
rights are still subject to discussion by some, including in view of  
introducing cultural relativism bias.

I'd be interested in hearing about the "various" reasons that led to  
withdraw "of users". Is there another next billion to be reached?  
like a billion of dollars?:)

On your second point, I already noticed that the themes have  
subheadings. But I'm not reassured at all. Especially when I see that  
"Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional"  
are only understood under "Managing critical Internet resources". Not  
to mention those subheadings under "Promoting cyber-security and trust".

I'm still of the opinion that this agenda is a business agenda,  
including the guarantees expected from governments in view of  
fullfilling this agenda. This is not at all satisfactory from a CS  
viewpoint, at least not from my understanding.

Best,
Meryem

Le 10 juin 08 à 12:17, Ken Lohento a écrit :

> 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

____________________________________________________________
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