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

Fri Jun 13 10:43:11 EDT 2008

Parminder and All,

You have stated nicely; I think we need to 
articulate some reasons, rather than just say, I dont
agree.

Yes, topics may shift, focus may also shift and 
they need to be followed up. There are two ways 
to reach a conclusion. Both of them, bottom-up or 
top-bottom may somewhere coincide, through reasonable compromise.

Kind regards,
Hakik

At 08:24 PM 6/13/2008, Parminder wrote:

> > 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 dont
>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 Education for All¹
> > >
> > >Further to it we should say that reaching 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 Ensuring (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

____________________________________________________________
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