[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:18 PM

Here is a suggestion.  Why don't we pitch instead of a "Right to Internet
Development", which would be the right to develop Internet policy and
standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion,
independent from commercial and governmental interests.

McTim


On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development
> agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions
> which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might
> achieve this I would be interested.


On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:18 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
>        First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference to
> "development"



> the notion of a "Right to Internet development" is,
> --- rather too narrow and in a sense group
> specific
>  MBG
>


"Right to Internet Development" or the 'right to develop Internet Policy' is
something that we already have. The Internet Governance process is a
mutli-stakeholder, participative process already; at the IGF, unlike in any
other forum, the Civil Society equally participates in the policy making
process, at least in the first step of it.

So, why do we have to proclaim 'Right to develop Internet Policy' as a
right, when participation is already a happening process? Why discuss and
demand what is already given?

But somehow a discussion on this, (without naming is as "Right to Governance
or policy making" ) would be a good idea. It is time to have a discussion on
the concept of participation or mutli-stakholder governance, as this is a
phase of transition from the the first five years of mandate to the next
five years of mandate. But it would be far more meaningful and effective, (
and a lot less controversial)  if we can package this as a discussion at
Vilinius on the trend of / need for / virtues of Mutli-stakhoder Governance.
The idea is to have this concept fully endorsed for perpetuation, after
which any issue, even Rights,  can be discussed.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100202/7ac95f4f/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

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