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

[Parminder]

Hi All

 

I propose that the caucus writes to the IGF/MAG on these omissions - about
openness and freedoms/ rights. 

 

 

We could specifically propose that the main theme "Promoting Cyber-Security
and Trust" instead reads " Promoting Cyber-Security and Trust, while
ensuring openness" (we can word it better)

 

And that the two main sessions under this theme, which at present are

 

(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime?

 

(2) Fostering security, privacy and openness

 

Instead should be

 

(1) Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime?

 

(2) Fostering privacy and openness (can we somehow add FoE, or would it be
un-strategic)

 

We can argue that sub-topic (1) covers security issues, so sub-topic (2) can
discuss other issues, and it is not necessary to repeat the same security
issues in (2) as well..

 

 

In the same letter we should congratulate the MAG for selecting "Internet
for All' as the overall theme, especially with the mention that this term is
adopted from or was in analogy with the UNESCO's 'Education for All'

 

Further to it we should say that 'reaching the next billion' does not appear
the right sub-topic under it (we can state various reasons that we have
discussed) and that if the universalization term is somehow found unclear
(which assertion we find somewhat strange, since this is used in so many
contexts in policy circles, including global ones) we can use the term
'Ensuring (or Achieving) Universal Access' which should be no problem at all
because almost all countries have universal access provisions in their
telecom policies.

 

In the same letter we can also mention that we find the new format of a
greater relationship between stakeholder organized workshops and the main
workshop space a very good innovation or development. If we so believe, we
may also say that the wholly open main session debates format is a good
development, though I am still not clear how this debate will take place,
and some integrity to the whole process ensured.

 

Parminder 

 

 

, -----Original Message-----

> From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk]

> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:41 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme

> 

> Thanks for these clarifications Adam.

> 

> I'm sorry for not raising any of these concerns earlier - I haven't

> participated directly in the consultations owing to time constraints and

> wrongly assumed that other people would be carrying the 'rights flag'.

> I've resolved to engage more actively from now on.

> 

> Is there any opportunity for us to get involved in shaping the main

> workshops aside from the option of merging workshops?  I do think it's

> important that rights aren't only seen as a security issue.  However,

> there was an excellent workshop organized by unesco/osce on the

> intersection of security and rights last year - is anyone who was involved

> on this list?

> 

> Is there any interest within this caucus of presenting the under-

> representation of openness/rights issues within the main agenda to the

> secretariat as a shared concern?  Either of the caucus as a whole, or of a

> group of us? Any ideas Vittorio? Obviously the bill of rights coalition

> would probably be interested too.

> 

> I realise that the caucus submitted comments on themes for the IGF in

> February, and it was proposed that openness should be a cross-cutting

> issue.  It was also proposed that the IGF should focus on how to uphold

> the Geneva principles, and these reaffirm a commitment to human rights.

> So I don't think that going back and stressing a commitment to seeing

> openness and/or rights more substantively on the agenda, or stated

> explicitly as a cross-cutting theme, would be contradicting earlier

> proposals.

> 

> Thanks,

> Lisa

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]

> Sent: 12 June 2008 12:07

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme

> 

> Lisa, Vittorio, you're right to be concerned. I'm

> looking through the workshop proposals trying to

> find possible civil society proposed/oriented

> workshops that might merge to work on the main

> session workshops, and there's not much there on

> what should be the security/openness section. So

> comments below are not meant to defend the MAG,

> blame anyone, or defend how we've arrived at this

> situation.

> 

> 

> >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.

> 

> 

> The way the IGF process works it needs someone to

> introduce an issue, to argue for it so it gets

> into the rolling documents (synthesis papers

> etc), and the caucus hasn't done that for

> "rights" (speaking for myself, no excuses, in the

> MAG I simply hadn't considered it, I'd have

> needed reminding.)  Same answer really to

> Vittorio's question about the Bill of Rights

> coalition: I remember one statement read by

> Carlos in February, but that was more a call to

> join the coalition, not a contribution of themes

> or suggestion for the agenda (and February was

> the time for that.)  Since then I can't remember

> any contribution, nothing about the agenda or any

> MAG document, no recommendation for a theme, not

> even an independent workshop proposal.  So

> probably the concerns of the coalition won't be

> part of the meeting unless the coalition pushes

> them.

> 

> 

> >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.

> 

> 

> Yes, they have been subsumed. However the

> programme's been emerging since February, the

> themes outlined in the summary of the February

> MAG meeting

> <http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf>

> and the paper prepared for the May consultation

> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cont_may08/Programme_Agenda_and_Format_of_the_

> Hyderabad_Meeting_.pdf>

> are not so different from what's in the current

> Hyderabad paper.  And there's been no reaction

> about this direction until now. I don't remember

> any comments following the February MAG paper

> saying hold on, this is the wrong direction we

> want rights/openness/ etc back in there in this

> particular way.

> 

> The February summary also says "The final

> programme will be defined in light of the

> proposals made for holding workshops..."  Looking

> back at the draft schedules in both those papers

> and then the workshops proposed by CS led

> organizing groups there aren't many that are a

> good fit with some of those proposed themes,

> particularly on the security/privacy/openness

> area.

> 

> So now there's not much to work with to influence

> the main session workshops under the Promoting

> Cyber-Security and Trust heading. I don't see any

> CS led workshops relating to "Are we losing the

> battle against cyber-crime?", probably also

> "Fostering security, privacy and openness", which

> is a surprise as it was intended as a session

> where the relationship (balance) between

> security, privacy and openness would be explored.

> Lisa, just seen your note replying to Linda where

> you say "the human rights framework can help to

> balance out many of the tensions we're facing in

> the internet arena, for example between security

> and openness", so there is room here to introduce

> the rights framework you're talking about, but

> not at the moment given the way the workshop

> proposals are written.

> 

> We've been saying we support the idea of thematic

> workshops feeding into or linked to the main

> sessions, but we haven't thought how to propose

> workshops that do that.  CS led proposals are

> certainly interesting (Global Partners and

> Associates on mainstreaming human rights, APC on

> sexual rights and the Internet/content regulation

> and the caucus on a rights agenda) but they are

> not well suited for moving over into the main

> sessions or to help define those sessions as they

> were developing from the February meeting.

> 

> Perhaps the caucus' rights agenda for Internet

> governance could be re-worked so it could work

> with the "Fostering security, privacy and

> openness" workshop (though it would mean loosing

> the right to hold it as an individual workshop.)

> 

> 

> 

> >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.

> 

> 

> Can write to the secretariat now expressing

> concerns and make proposals for the final

> programme. The programme will be discussed at the

> September meeting, comments will be taken into

> account (it's still a rolling document.)

> 

> If we feel issues have been overlooked and the

> MAG can't find a balance of views in the group

> arranging a main session workshop then we can ask

> to bring in expertise from outside. An the

> obvious place to start looking for expertise

> would be the coalitions.

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> Adam

> 

> 

> >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

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080612/aa996e58/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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