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

[Milton L Mueller]

I share some concerns with Vittorio here about the absence of the words
"freedom" or "rights" from the agenda, although I am less concerned
about the abandonment of the "U"-word. 

What I would like to know is whether there is a chance to change
anything in this agenda or are we just letting off steam? 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:45 AM
> 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