RV: [governance] Statement to OC meeting in May regarding "Internet

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Carlos Afonso wrote:
> Jean, the report is not neutral, it reveals an attempted positioning
> derived from pressures which will continue. This is enough reason to be
> more proactive and point out the importante of discussing the theme.

Hi Carlos, we agree on the conclusion. I just tried to caution against 
preaching to the choir. The majority of MAG members doesn't share the 
opinion that rights and principles shouldn't be on the agenda.
jeanette

> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi Ginger, as I wrote before (email of late March),
>>
>> there is no decision to exclude rights and principles as a theme, and
>> even less so on the grounds that it is not properly defined. You quote
>> from a reporting section that summarizes a discussion of the MAG.
>>
>> It is important for us to explain why we want to see rights and
>> principles discussed but we should not generalize or misinterpret the
>> opinion of a minority of MAG members.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Ginger Paque wrote:
>>> Here is a starting draft for discussion, please opine:
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> The Internet Governance Caucus notes the statement from the Programme
>>> Paper: “....Some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and
>>> principles’ as a cross-cutting theme”. This concurs with the
>>> widespread support for this concept from various stakeholder groups
>>> at the February open consultations.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> However we are concerned at the decision to exclude it as a theme
>>> this year on the grounds that there is “no established definition of
>>> this theme and that therefore it should not be discussed at the Sharm
>>> El Sheikh meeting.”
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> We are surprised by this reasoning for exclusion and request that the
>>> MAG revisit this subject given the wide support which has been
>>> expressed. Given that these matters are specifically contained in the
>>> Tunis Agenda (paras 70 and 42) we do not see lack of definition as a
>>> reason for exclusion. However, if it is not possible to include this
>>> concept until it is defined within IGF, we ask that the IGF 2009
>>> include a prominent plenary space to establish this definition, in
>>> preparation for more comprehensive discussions in future debates and
>>> meetings.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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