[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[McTim]

Hi Siva,

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
<isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

We have the ability, but do we have the "right"?  Things like the ITU
sponsored treaty and the Microsoft IDL may threaten this ability.  I
suggest we assert a "right" to enshrine the status quo.  If a cyber
war treaty written/overseen by the ITU mandated that only states could
formulate IP address policy, then our "right" to participate in these
policy discussions would be curtailed, no?

I know it might be a far-fetched example, but no more far-fetched than
some I have heard on this list ;-)

 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.

yes, IG is a mutli-stakeholder, participative process already.

I dispute the notion that the IGF is an IG policy making body, and I
also dispute the notion that it is the only forum that has
mutli-stakeholder, participative processes already.

>
> 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?

Capacity building mostly. Last weeks discussion re: the US DoD IPv6
allocations show us that even amongst those with some clue, we still
have a long way to go to educate folk at the IGF about how IG is
actually done.  I suspect that having a main theme on this topic would
educate many.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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