[governance] open consultations and MAG meeting

[Meryem Marzouki]

Actually, controversies are about so-called 'harmful content', at the  
IGF and everywhere else. Almost everyone was aware of that for years,  
BTW (FYI, these controversies are around for about 15 years, what  
happened is simply a willing to transfer them to IGF, as a kind of  
forum shopping attempt).
There are also controversies on child pornography, or, more exactly,  
on how to fight child pornography on the Internet (trafic of images  
of child abuses, cyber-grooming, etc.) while respecting human rights  
and the rule of law. Especially when the proposed 'solution' is  
filtering and blocking.
Despite these controversies (which certainly remain also in the IGF  
venue), there have been actions taken, including at the international  
level, including through an International Convention (the Council of  
Europe Convention on Cybercrime, open for signatures by any country  
in the world). There are many other instruments of various forms and  
different binding levels.

What would an IGF round table provide in this situation? And, BTW,  
what is a "Round Table"? I mean, has this format been defined? Is  
there any precision on how it will differ from a workshop or a main  
session? In which way is this format more outcome oriented? I've seen  
these round tables mentioned by many people in the consultation  
transcripts, everyone seem to know what it means, but it seems I  
missed their definition and I hardly understand how they could be  
more outcome oriented that, say, workshops.

Meryem

Le 2 mars 09 à 17:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Sorry if I wasn't clear. There seems to be a difference between  
> debates about child pornography and child protection. The latter is  
> subject to controversies while the first is mentioned as an example  
> for a topic ready for more outcome oriented discussion formats such  
> as Round Tables.
> jeanette
>
>
> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> There is something beyond my understanding here (sorry!). How  
>> could it be acknowledged that "Controversies persist around the  
>> question of what actually constitutes child _protection_" (i.e.  
>> people don't even agree on what is the topic about) and, at the  
>> same time, be decided (or felt) that these topics "are ready for  
>> some form of outcome, be it in the form recommendations, proposed  
>> codes of conducts, action lines or whatever"?
>> Meryem
>> Le 2 mars 09 à 16:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>>> And if there is an issue which is addressed at all levels and  
>>>> everywhere, it is indeed "child protection". Yet, if I've well  
>>>> understood, the IGF is eager to address it,
>>>
>>> It is not that _the_ IGF is eager to adress it. There were at  
>>> each IGF meeting multiple workshops organized on this issue and  
>>> almost non of the organizers was willing to merge with other  
>>> organizers. According to those who attended these workshops,  
>>> there is a lot of agreement and not much new stuff coming up at  
>>> the moment. Controversies persist around the question of what  
>>> actually constitutes child _protection_.
>>> There was a strong sense at Hyderabad and at the public  
>>> consultation and at the MAG meeting that a few specific topics  
>>> have reached a point where no new insights can be gained by  
>>> organizing yet another workshop or main session to adress them.  
>>> Instead, they are ready for some form of outcome, be it in the  
>>> form recommendations, proposed codes of conducts, action lines or  
>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> The IGF provides the space or container to produce any such  
>>> outcomes.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>>
>>> and on top of this has the
>>>> 'sentiment' that it has now 'matured' in IGF  
>>>> circles.___________________________________________________________ 
>>>> _
>>>> 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

____________________________________________________________
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