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

[Adam Peake]

I think Ken's explained things clearly.  "Universalization" wasn't 
popular with all (all MAG members or all contributions to the 
consultation). It meant different things to different people, though 
Parminder's comments during the open session were helpful to many MAG 
members and came pretty close to swinging it. But in the end some 
were sure it was controversial in and of itself, some thought it 
fine, some just weren't sure... and that wasn't satisfactory as a way 
forward for the group.

Objections didn't break along the typical stereotypical lines you 
seem to be guessing, it's probably best to be more charitable/less 
negative.  I was pretty ambivalent, I generally find session titles 
unimportant, what matters is civil society groups get involved in 
shaping the main session workshops and main debates.

Ian, about ISOC's "The Internet is for Everyone" the overall theme of 
the meeting is "Internet for All" following UNESCO's "Education for 
All".

I don't see any CS theme being lost, just a re-working of the five 
simple catch-all themes. They were getting tired, many comments asked 
for something new. The main sessions in Rio were generally pretty 
dull.  So we have the new format of main workshops/main debates.

As previous years the intention is to accommodate all workshops, but 
comments have been pretty universal in asking for less overlap and 
better organization of the workshops and other parallel meetings, so 
MAG hopes more workshops will merge that in previous years. And will 
try to encourage more to merge.

None of the caucus workshops should be lost. But they need to be 
finished by June 30.  And if we can find opportunities for merging 
then that would help the overall schedule.  There are three to do, so 
a good idea to get started.

And as Ken also said, the Hyderabad paper's a rolling document, we 
can make comments (as a caucus, individuals, small groups...) But I'm 
a bit surprised by what seem to be quite strong negative reactions, 
the new schedule's not too different from the synthesis paper issued 
before the consultation, and the gist of the paper was in the summary 
report of the MAG meeting made available on May 16 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.16.05.2008.final.pdf > 
(day after the meeting), Avri mentioned it was available to the list 
on May 16. Probably overlooked in all the discussion about the nomcom 
etc. Which is a shame.

Adam




>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