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

[Parminder]

> 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

Hi All,

Meanwhile we can still go forward with writing to the secretariat on our
views on main session themes, without mentioning anything about merging our
workshop(s)...

We seem to agree about the openness part. So lets do it...

However, I am not sure how the universal access part is being dismissed so
easily, and offhand, even though there was much discussion on this issue on
the list, a little earlier..

People were of two views on 'universalisation' - though I personally find
little merit in the argument against - so why not propose 'Ensuring
universal access to the Internet 'instead of 'reaching the next billion'.
What is anyone's problem in this being the sub topic under 'internet for
all' apart from multilingualism.

I think we need to articulate some reasons, rather than just say, I don’t
agree. 

Parminder 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 7:08 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme
> 
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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