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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> 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.

In other words, you don't trust Ken's and Adam's reports? I can confirm 
what they said.


> 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?:)

There were concerns about the connotation of the term users. In some or 
many countries "users" are seen as passive consumers not as producers of 
content or developers of software. This is why "users" was dropped.
jeanette
> 
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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