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

[Lisa Horner]

Thanks, this sounds reasonable to me.  However, there's some discussion amongst the organizing group of the caucus rights proposal about whether to agree to merge, and whether this would be with an 'openness' main workshop or the 'access' one.  So if the statement needs to go to the secretariat sooner rather than later, we should hold fire on comments regarding merging proposals.

Thanks,
Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: 13 June 2008 09:16
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme

I agree with Milton about the second part.

For the first, I suggest we write to the 
secretariat saying something along the lines 
of...  we are concerned that the theme "openness" 
is in danger of being lost in the session 
currently titled "Promoting Cyber-Security and 
Trust". Based the February consultation, summary 
document, and synthesis paper for the May meeting 
we expected a stronger emphasis on rights would 
be maintained in this session. We suggest the 
second part of the session, currently "Fostering 
security, privacy and openness" focus more on 
"fostering privacy and openness" than on 
security, which will be the prime subject of the 
first part of the session.  Of course security 
will be an important element of the second 
workshop, just as concerns for privacy, openness 
and preservation of fundamental rights will be an 
important element of the first workshop.  What we 
are suggesting is a balance between these issues 
across the two workshops, and therefore into the 
debate the follows in the afternoon.

With this in mind, we volunteer the Internet 
Governance Caucus workshop proposal "A Rights 
Agenda for Internet Governance" as one of the 
candidates for merging in the second workshop 
session.

(if we agree to do merging the caucus proposal?)

And we could also add that we expect this balance 
between the themes of security and openness will 
be reflected in the programme description 
developed during the September consultation.

We need to make practical proposals. Keep things 
simple. And we need civil society represented in 
developing this main session.

Thanks,

Adam



>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8CCC4.711FB7F8"
>
>Parminder:
>I support the first half of what you propose, 
>but not the second half. They are two very 
>different issues of course.
>Milton Mueller
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
>------------------------------
>Internet Governance Project:
><http://internetgovernance.org/>http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:49 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lisa Horner'
>Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme
>
>
>
>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 ³Internet for All¹ as the 
>overall theme, especially with the mention that 
>this term is adopted from or was in analogy with 
>the UNESCO¹s ŒEducation for All¹
>
>Further to it we should say that Œreaching the 
>next billion¹ 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 ŒEnsuring (or Achieving) Universal Access¹ 
>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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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