AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements

Dr. Francis MUGUET muguet at mdpi.net
Tue May 5 19:41:22 EDT 2009 

Dear David

Your paternalistic comments are not going to hide the fact that those
hearings are non inclusive, non transparent.

> Oh grow up Francis. Just because the EU has an invitation-only event,
> there's no need for you to sulk. Why not contact the relevant people
> yourself and question them and make some suggestions.
>
> Suggesting there are ulterior motives when you have no grounds for
> such except paranoia is going too far.
I respectfully suggest that you should open your eyes.
The attendees to those hearings have been hand picked to approve a
 draft report already written beforehan

>
> I'd suggest you are unaware of how the EU operates,
it is exactly the reverse...;  it seems that you have kept too many
illusions about governments
and more so , how lobbies operates... within governments and
international organizations.
> or government for that matter. Governments regularly consult with
> people and invite them to discuss issues. We should be pleased the EU
> is being open with what they are doing

Best

Francis
>
> David
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Dr. Francis MUGUET <muguet at mdpi.net>
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com>
> *Cc:* WSIS Civil Soc. WG on Information Networks Governance
> <gov at wsis-gov.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 May, 2009 11:37:31 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance
> arrangements
>
> Hello
>> In message <49FDDECC.5060004 at mdpi.net>, at 20:13:32 on Sun, 3 May
>> 2009, Dr. Francis MUGUET <muguet at mdpi.net> writes
>>
>>> It appears that the call for those hearings has not been inclusive, if
>>> not secretive...
>>> EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement  ( 06
>>> May 2009, Brussels, Belgium )
>>
>> It's not a "call", the meeting is invitation only - which is not
>> itself sinister as the Commission clearly wants to hear from specific
>> organisations and people firmly established in the IG space (and
>> attending IGF meetings is a plausible indication of that). If that
>> doesn't include you, then you should examine why that might be the case.
> This is twisted non-inclusive arrogant logic, it is not for the
> uninvited to examine why they are not invited !!!
>  but to the organizers and invited ones to ask questions to
> themselves....
>
> For example, one question is why  Louis Pouzin, one  the very few
> european internet pioneer is not invited...
> ... but he is invited in Boston...
>
> I am raising the question why a few lobbyist firms are invited instead ?
>>
>>> For logistical reasons participation is by invitation only.
>>
>> My guess is they couldn't book a bigger room because there's too many
>> other meetings going on that day.
> You are too kind
> Well, this trick is well known.... this is quite gross...   
>>
>>
>>> but the call refers to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ?
>>
>> The original invitation
> It would be interesting if you are kind enough to post the text of
> this invitation
>> doesn't mention it at all. This meeting is about IG, not the IGF -
>
> strange...  the agenda of the
> EU Commission hearing on future Internet Governance arrangement
> <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm>
> ( 06 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium )
> includes the WSIS in the first place....
> and the WSIS means the IGF !!!
>
> *Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements *
> 6 May 2009, 10:00 – 17:15
> Brussels – Charlemagne Building1, 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/chal enges?
> 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 wil 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?
>
>
>> even if the attendees are all IGF veterans. 
> but not WSIS veterans...  by the way, the list of the invited is known
> to the invited ?
>
>>> The lead towards the EuroIGF. should be taken by all open-minded
>>>  European stakeholders, involved in the IGF process,
>>> whether in person, or remotely.
>>
>> Anyone could start a "EuroIGF", there are <geo-region>IGF's springing
>> up all over the place. All that happened was that Catherine Trautmann
>> won the "first come first served" race for the name.
> Is it like a domain name ? !!!
>> But then nothing much happened (as I have explained before).
> There are two ways of looking at an IGF in Europe :
>
> 1) An IG Forum of the EU, with its own organization, mandate distinct
> from the IGF,
> possibly set up by an act of the EU parliament or the EU commission
>
> 2) A subset of the UN IGF whose members are stakeholders from Europe
> ( not only the EU,  but Europe as defined by the Council of Europe )
>
> I would suggest the first one to be called the EuroIGF,
> and the second one the IGF-Europe, they are distinct and complementary,
> and the EuroIGF could fit into the IGF-Europe.
>
> It is possible that the EuroIGF might have a more stronger, effective
> mandate that the IGF.  This could be quite promising....
> However, the way the EuroIGF is brought to birth raises eyesbrows
>
> as Meryem observed
> /Business (and when I say business, I really mean the business sector)
> as usual on other issues. IG seems to be seen as a consumer issue only. /
> and as Jean Louis  recently posted :
>  /EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already worked out the Meeting
> (draft) Report and proposes it for possible minor amendments and
> endorsement (see below) by the "invited partipants".
> /
> The EuroIGF process is not starting well, to say the least...
>
> Civil Society should start to promote ASAP an open, transparent
> multistakeholder
>  IGF-Europe, with all stakeholders, EU or non-EU,  to counterbalance
> the lobbies that seem to have taken control  of the EuroIGF process
>
> Best
>
> Francis
> /
> /
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------ 
> Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D 
>
> MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
> http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
> muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net
>
> ENSTA/KNIS  http://knis.org
> 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE 
> Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 
> muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet 
>
> PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org
>
> World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
> Civil Society Working Groups
> Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair 
> Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
> Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
> Info. Net. Govermance  :  http://www.wsis-gov.org  web
>
> NET4D : http://www.net4D.org 
> UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org 
> WTIS : http://www.wtis.org   REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org
> ------------------------------------------------------ 
>
> Legal notice :
> Except stated explicitely,
> this message shall not be construed as the official position 
> of above mentionned entities
>
> Notice légale ;
> A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué,
> ce message ne constitue la position officielle
> des entités mentionnées ci-dessos
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo!7 recommends that you update your browser to the new Internet
> Explorer 8. Get it now.
> <http://au.rd.yahoo.com/search/ie8/mailtagline/*http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJxbnQwdTJhBF9zAzIxNDIwMjU2NTkEdG1fZG1lY2gDVGV4dCBMaW5rBHRtX2xuawNVMTEwMzQ0OAR0bV9uZXQDWWFob28hBHRtX3BvcwN0YWdsaW5lBHRtX3BwdHkDYXVueg--/SIG=11k6t9t1c/**http://downloads.yahoo.com/au/internetexplorer/>.


-- 

------------------------------------------------------ 
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D 

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

ENSTA/KNIS  http://knis.org
32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE 
Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 
muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet 

PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair 
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
Info. Net. Govermance  :  http://www.wsis-gov.org  web

NET4D : http://www.net4D.org 
UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org 
WTIS : http://www.wtis.org   REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org
------------------------------------------------------ 

Legal notice :
Except stated explicitely,
this message shall not be construed as the official position 
of above mentionned entities

Notice légale ;
A moins que cela ne soit explicitement indiqué,
ce message ne constitue la position officielle
des entités mentionnées ci-dessos
-------------------------------------------------------

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090506/76aff854/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

More information about the Governance mailing list