AW: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers

Wed Aug 25 15:23:54 EDT 2010

I support fully to put the Human Rights Declaration into the Center. However, the 1948 Declaration is not a legally binding treaty and it was not ratified by UN member states. It was adopted as a "Declaration" in the UN General Assembly. The legal binding document, tjr "treaty" - which needs ratification - is the "International Covenant on Polical and Civil Rights" from 1966. It is ratified by more than 160 UN member states. Just to be legally precise. 

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mi 25.08.2010 21:11
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto'
Betreff: RE: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers

I like very much framing the overall presentation in the context of the
UDHR.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:11 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Cc: Jeremy Malcolm
Subject: Re: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers

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=

____________________________________________________________
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