[governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding

[Adam Peake]

>I agree Ginger
>
>Let's ge some specific words together along the lines you have mentioned.
>
>


Agree, but let's not just wait for the 
consultation. IGC emphasized rights repeatedly 
last year.  There was support (I think I remember 
correctly) during the September consultation in 
particular (the old bill-of-rights caucus and I 
think govt of Italy.)  I hope our MAG members can 
raise again on the MAG list now.  Keep the 
discussion going on the MAG list.

Adam



>
>Ian Peter
>PO Box 429
>Bangalow NSW 2479
>Australia
>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>www.ianpeter.com
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>Sent: 16 April 2009 06:26
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in 
>May regarding "Internet Rights and Principles"
>
>I would like to propose that the IGC make a 
>short, direct statement to the OC in May, 
>gently, or non-aggressively requesting that 
>Internet Rights and Principles be given a 
>priority placement in the IGF 2009 for 
>establishing a definition of the phrase, in 
>response to the statement in the Programme Paper 
>(<http://igf.wgig.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.23.03.2009.rtf>http://igf.wgig.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.23.03.2009.rtf) 
>that:
>
>³While some favoured the inclusion of ŒInternet 
>rights and principles¹ as a cross-cutting theme, 
>the view was also held that there was no 
>established definition of this theme and that 
>therefore it should not be discussed at the 
>Sharm El Sheikh meeting.²
>
>Personally it seems to me that if an issue as 
>important as this one cannot be discussed 
>because a definition does not exists, then that 
>means it is past time to clarify the meaning of 
>the phrase.
>
>The section on Critical Internet Resources 
>includes the note that ³There was a general 
>agreement that no topic, however contentious, 
>should be excluded from the discussions under 
>this heading. It was recognized that this 
>cluster of issues could benefit most from an 
>open discussion.²
>
>I think we should find a way to ask for that 
>same qualification for Internet Rights and 
>Principles.
>
>If we have a statement prepared before April 
>21st, it could be sent to the IGF Secretariat 
>for consideration in the revised version of the 
>Programme.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>
>
>Ginger
>
>Ms. Virginia (Ginger) Paque
>DiploFoundation
>Coordinator IGCBP 09
>
><http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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