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

[Lisa Horner]

I have to agree with Vittorio.  Lumping openness and privacy together
with security as a sub-theme under the banner of cyber-security and
trust doesn't leave much hope for productive discussion about how human
rights can be developed as foundational norms to underpin internet
governance.  I agreed that the main themes needed re-working, but the
end result has been that rights are still subsumed under the generalized
theme of openness, which in turn is framed as a trust and security
issue.

I suppose that, if these themes are retained, our job as advocates for
rights in internet governance is to ensure that each of the main panel
sessions considers how each theme is in fact a rights issue.  For
example, access and multilingualism are definitely rights issues, both
working from the starting point of the universal declaration and from
the starting point of 'development as freedom' (eg. enhancing rights and
capabilities is the foundation of 'development', and the internet is a
key means of achieving this).  

Thanks,
Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] 
Sent: 11 June 2008 10:45
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
Subject: Re: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme

Adam Peake ha scritto:
> 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.

The idea of "main workshops" is a good one, but I am afraid that given 
the summarization of themes there will be no rights-related workshop 
among the main ones... I assume that main workshops will be related to 
main themes, and if you consider the exploded list of issues:

>>>  - 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.

there is zero instances of the word "rights", zero instances of the word

"freedom", and there is just one mention of "privacy" and "openness" 
(still a pretty much undefined concept), as one half of a sub-item whose

other half is "security", a traditionally opposite theme which is 
repeated again with different words as the first sub-item of the same 
group ("are we losing the battle...") and is repeated again twice 
("security" and "trust") in the main title of the group. I think that 
the message from the MAG is clear!

Maybe it's just a matter of wording and won't change much in practice, 
but this really looks like a devastating defeat for those of us who have

been spending the last three years trying to push a "rights agenda" for 
the IGF and the Internet, and now get an agenda that doesn't even have 
the words "rights" or "freedoms" in it, not even at the most minor
level.

Specifically, the Bill of Rights coalition, in the output of the last 
workshop, openly asked for "Internet rights" to become one of the main 
themes in India. This was recognized (also explicitly supported by some)

in the concluding main session in Rio. We had a written declaration by 
two governments, one of which was the last host country, supporting this

proposal. We had an international conference in Rome last September, 
with official delegations from 50+ countries and attendees from 70+ 
countries, supporting this request. At both IGFs our workshop was among 
the most attended ones, and while there were different views on the 
instruments, everyone agreed that this is a fundamental issue for the 
future of the Internet.

So could the MAG please tell us how our request was considered, why it 
was rejected, and why our themes were so much marginalized in the 
overall agenda?

Thanks,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
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