FW: [governance] Program for Sharm El Sheikh - draft paper for

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Ian, hi all,


it seems there is a misunderstanding of the status of the phrase you are 
quoting below.

> There are a number of matters in it worthy of discussion, eg emerging 
> issues has been dropped. But perhaps most contentious of all is the 
> statement
> 

> “While some favoured the inclusion of ‘Internet rights and principles’ 
> 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. “
> 
>  
> 
> Should not be discussed??  I think we need to say something about this. 
> Perhaps this is careless wording and is meant to imply that the theme 
> should not be adopted (contentious enough), but internet rights and 
> principles should not be discussed??

The wording about Internet rights and principles in the program paper 
goes back to the report about the last MAG meeting. It reflects the 
discussion the MAG had about Internet rights and principles. While a 
majority of the members was positive about addressing Internet rights 
and principles more systematically, there was also at least one member 
who thought that this is not a good idea. The formal reason being given 
was that Internet rights and principles are not mentioned in the Tunis 
agenda and should therefore not be discussed at IGF meetings.

Again, this is a minority opinion. It was pointed out already in the MAG 
meeting that no new topics could ever be addressed, if only those 
explictely mentioned in the Tunis Agenda can make it onto the IGF 
agenda. At the same time, the reports and program documents have to 
reflect the diversity of opinions expressed at the consultation and the 
MAG meeting. The best the secretariat can do is to display conflicting 
issues in a way that we all know where and when we have to take a firm 
stand on an issue.

Regarding the role of Internet rights and principles as such, I don't 
think we will see this as the overall title of this year's IGF meeting. 
There is a general preference for more vague and non-offensive wordings. 
As I said before, the general title has a rather symbolic meaning 
anyway. We gain much more if we advocate for a substantive treatment of 
this theme in form of workshops and main sessions.

jeanette


> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Anyway this topic is to discuss the draft program paper and a possible 
> IGC response by April 24.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> PO Box 429
> 
> Bangalow NSW 2479
> 
> Australia
> 
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> 
> www.ianpeter.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
____________________________________________________________
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