[governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in

Tue Apr 28 12:40:03 EDT 2009

Hello all

Sivasubramanian wrote :

<Inclusion of "internationalization of Internet Governance" and "Digital Divide", including the question "Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how?"  are very positive.>

I find this far less positive ! The EC is still wondering whether those excluded from the net should be "represented" in the IG process ! Four years after Tunis and its Agenda and Declaration assuming the inclusiveness of those people it's hardly to understand ... and even more to support such a position. 

Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Jeanette Hofmann 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in 

  Hello Jeanette Hoffman,

  The themes for discussion states Security and Stability as a priority and the theme description on Security and Stability is 'leading' ( like a 'leading' question that prompts a desired response). Security and Stability are emphasized, but Privacy is nowhere in view. 

  The theme description on "The Role of Public Authorities" is emphatic as well. I couldn't miss the implication of the question "should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities?" And in the same passage hints at a possible conclusion "private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary"

  The theme description on Accountability and Legitimacy points out that "many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes" and in the context of the emphasis on security, role of public authorities, private sector leadership, I would take this as an inclination to belittle the users and users' representative groups.

  Inclusion of "internationalization of Internet Governance" and "Digital Divide", including the question "Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how?"  are very positive.

  In the context of the visible mood of the EU to legislate and legislate new rules and more rules on Internet regulation, I am prone to be a little cautious about how the hearings would go.

  Perhaps the caucus could emphasize that the hearing should redefine its questions on User participation, independent organizations as also include and equally emphasize aspects such as Openness,  Privacy and other core civic values.

  Thank you.

  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
  http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

  On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

    Hi,

    the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go?

    We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the IGF public consultations?

    The website for the meeting:
    http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm

    I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website:

    Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements
    6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15
     Brussels – Charlemagne Building , Room DURI

    09:30 Registration & coffee
    10:00 Introduction by the Commission
    10.30 WSIS
    11.15 Security & stability
    12.00 The role of governments
    12.45 Round up morning discussion
    13.00 Lunch
    14.15 Accountability and legitimacy
    15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance
    15:45 Coffee break
    16:00 Digital divide
    16.45 Round up afternoon discussion
    17:00 Concluding remarks

    ***
    Theme description
    1.      WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS that should be addressed?
    2.      Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing about them in particular with a view to their international dimension?
    3.      The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be more closely monitored by governments and relevant public authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and necessary components for the effective management of the Internet?
    4.      Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider international community and, if so, how?
    5.      Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned?
    6.      Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? Should the interests of those who don’t yet have Internet access be represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how?

    jeanette

    ____________________________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090428/f12b1c76/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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