[governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers

Wed Aug 25 14:11:13 EDT 2010

Below is just a couple paragraphs that give a topic or title for an
address that "frames" things in what I believe is both justified as
well as mandatory (because of treaty acceptance as well as inalienable
rights) for member states of the United Nations.  Note that while I
provide a conceptual introductory paragraph the entire content is left
open.  Not that this group couldn't suggest or require specific
content if that were its wish, but that my focus is to suggest what I
feel is both the proper and indeed mandatory general method of
approach, given the structure of the United Nations and treaties such
as the UNHDR.

==

TOPIC / TITLE FOR ADDRESS:   The Global Internet:  Keeping Our Word on
(and Making Real) the Promises of the United Nations' Members

INTRO:  Is there any country prepared today to denounce the agreement
of 192 member nations?  This agreement ratified by 192 nations is the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the most successful treaty in
world history in terms of acceptance.  As always, the law is hardly
needed except in areas where violations can occur, and human rights
violations do occur.  That does not indicate or prove it is time to
give up on enforcing human rights, or else violations lead to the
absurd result of abandoning all hope, which is the sign above the door
in Dante's Hell.  Quite the opposite, the rights agreed to by so many
member nations are a light unto the world, a guide, and specifically a
mandatory charter we are all called not only to publicize these
"common standards for achievement" worldwide, but specifically "by
PROGRESSIVE measures, national and international, TO SECURE their
universal and effective recognition and observance."  As we make
Progress on the Internet, we're encouraged that it is easier to build
things correctly the first time then it is to take a finished
structure and re-design it.  As the internet is continually built and
rebuilt we have that advantage, and in any case applying the Charter
and Human Rights universally and progressively not just to member
states but to any peoples and instruments under their control is our
highest opportunity and responsibility.

My comments today reflect the status of internet governance in light
of our charge and that which of course comes with any action of the
United Nations: the all-important context of the mission and
especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accepted as our
common standard and vision for the people of the world:

[Individual issues addressed here in light of rights.  Including,
perhaps, whether a new article or document spelling out merely for
purposes of making their application as crystal clear as possible, the
requirements of already existing human rights as applied to the
specific new context of the internet.  In the main, the theme is
"Making it real: Rights and the promise of the Internet." ]

END on echo of INTRO above of common standards and commitment to
rights, with reference to internal content of the speech above.
==
Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 8/25/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you discuss,
> support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, may we please
> have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) topics and main points
> to be made?
>
> We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal consensus
> that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with main points as
> defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, particularly if you
> are a nominated speaker, please post your views as well.
>
> Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger
>
>
> On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>>
>> Ginger,
>>
>> When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that made
>> an impact, I usually just remember the substance.  And on some I remember
>> the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were speaking
>> from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could not say in what
>> capacity.  I remember "I have a dream" but I do not even know in what
>> capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made some I loved but as a
>> student and I know this includes the great Ghandijji also but before
>> Independence, so in what role I do not know.
>>
>> Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite.  Whether
>> the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and not the
>> messenger.  Let us hear what our best contributors have to say, let them
>> strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further dialogue and deeper
>> thought.  Only the power of their words - or the absence of, will
>> determine if they speak for the greater community.
>>
>> As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators will
>> ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence.  I participated in the
>> vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them with an
>> empowerment to do their best and they have honored that trust.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>; Jeremy
>> Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and
>> Paul's
>>
>> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and important
>> discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we should consider
>> this carefully.
>>
>> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely
>> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with a
>> critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help the
>> IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS.
>>
>> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, we
>> must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not (imho) any
>> longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so the
>> presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared.
>>
>> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as
>> suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in favor?
>>
>> Thanks to everyone,
>> Best, Ginger
>>
>> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all,
>>>
>>> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my understanding
>>> of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention of friends here.
>>>
>>> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF open
>>> consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely allowed
>>> to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why would it not be
>>> possible and useful for the IGF itself ?
>>>
>>> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed -
>>> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among prominent
>>> members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and the road
>>> forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection of speakers
>>> should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus another but an
>>> opportunity to identify elements of consensus and possible alternative
>>> options to nurture the debate.
>>>
>>> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and elements
>>> of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to have an
>>> in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we have not
>>> conducted so far in a structured manner.
>>>
>>> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to
>>> reformulate the proposal as follows :
>>>
>>> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and
>>> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and
>>> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have
>>> a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-)
>>>
>>> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe a
>>> bit too much,  a preparation on the list could help them identify the
>>> main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and the potential
>>> points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to Mawaki's idea of
>>> "talking points"
>>>
>>> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and
>>> this would be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones during
>>> the end of the year.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Bertrand
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls
>>>> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules &
>>>> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in
>>>> the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and
>>>> frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy).
>>>>
>>>> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far
>>>> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this
>>>> is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to
>>>> reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while
>>>> emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any.
>>>> I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of
>>>> talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but
>>>> really not a collective elaboration of a full speech.
>>>>
>>>> Just my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Mawaki
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
>>>> > <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the
>>>> > message is
>>>> > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the
>>>> > issues
>>>> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and
>>>> > the
>>>> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC
>>>> > proposes a
>>>> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to
>>>> > draft
>>>> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities
>>>> > present in
>>>> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of
>>>> > democracy.
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree up until now, but...
>>>> >
>>>> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as
>>>> > has
>>>> > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for
>>>> > people
>>>> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints.
>>>> >
>>>> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you
>>>> > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and
>>>> > closing
>>>> > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC
>>>> > statements and
>>>> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated.
>>>> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding
>>>> > they will
>>>> > not depart too radically from our general views.
>>>> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as
>>>> > your
>>>> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for
>>>> > her
>>>> > views and also invite others to comment.
>>>> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some
>>>> > hours
>>>> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-)
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > 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
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ____________________
>>> Bertrand de La Chapelle
>>> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
>>> Information Society
>>> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
>>> Foreign and European Affairs
>>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>>>
>>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
>>> Saint Exupéry
>>> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t