[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

Lisa Horner lisa at global-partners.co.uk
Tue Feb 2 06:38:58 EST 2010 

Hi all

Apologies for coming to the conversation late, but I just wanted to say that I'm a little uncomfortable with restricting ourselves to the "right to (open) internet development" too.  I think that it's a key issue and that participation in internet governance and development is really important.  But I think that there are a broader range of human rights and development issues that aren't included in this framing.  Issues of participation are huge, and I think could be treated as a category in their own right, or within the human rights and development framing.  But all human rights and development issues can't necessarily be encompassed within "participation".  

As the calls for including "rights and principles" as a main theme have been rejected in the past for being too vague, I think we need to be really careful with our formulation and really clear on what we're talking about.  With rights and development issues having been discussed extensively in IGF workshops, I think there's a strong argument to be made for their "promotion" in the IGF agenda. But we have still yet to make that argument clearly, especially regarding rights.

I'm really interested in joining our calls for consideration of human rights and development dimensions together.  For me, they are indivisible from each other...the realisation of human rights is part of "development", social, economic and cultural human rights are indivisible from civil and political rights, and human rights can be used as a tool to fight for development.

However, the point has been made many times in our discussions that we should be strategic in what we're calling for.  Many stakeholders will push against having sessions on human rights, but may be more open to talking about development.  Should we therefore be calling for sessions on development, and in practice use them to talk about human rights?  Or is it important in moral and symbolic terms to continue to push explicitly for human rights to be included?  How do we strike the balance between being strategic and practical, and standing for what we believe in? 

All the best,
Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 February 2010 09:33
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:48 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> I've been re-reading the below and I guess I'm uneasy with this (and with my
> earlier "endorsement") as it is now presented.
>
> I'm uneasy for a couple of reasons:
>        First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference to
> "development" as I normally use the term i.e. referring to economic and
> social "development" rather than software "development"... I thought
> initially there might be some way of linking the two conceptually in this
> formulation but now looking at the formulation below I'm not so sure

While true that "Given that Internet development and innovation contributes
significantly to economic and social development" is the only linkage
in the text, I would be happy to add further detail if you have
suggestions.

The other development aspect of this is what we have been calling
Internet Governance for Development.  If we really are serious about
this, then we need to get more people who are in desperate need of
development involved in actual Internet Governance.

You are more versed in ICT4D than I, so please add what you think is missing.
From my perspective, I see lots of examples of ICTs aiding (or
actually creating) development.  Two local examples, mobile money
transfer services banking the unbanked, and
http://www.ushahidi.com/work  Who I ammeeting later today).  You
probably know many more from your telecentre work.

However software (we could work in the right to open source if you
wish) is only a small fraction of what I am on about in re: Right to
Internet Development.  In your work on telecentres, I imagine every
single one uses the TCP/IP suite. They uses IP addresses, either
public or private, they use DNS and BGP (or their upstream does).
These are developed by folk all over the world in a bottom up,
transparent, open and consensus driven approach.  I doubt many of the
folk who use the telecentres actually participate in these processes.
Articulating a right to do so might be useful in bringing more people
into these processes.  That's what I this proposed theme is about.

>
>        Second, as I've said in the past, I'm not very well versed in the
> use of the "Rights" concepts in these contexts but again on the face of it
> it now seems to me that the notion of a "Right to Internet development" is,
> as it is being presented below, rather too narrow and in a sense group
> specific (i.e. a right for Internet software developers to do what they do)
> and in that sense represents a debasing of the overall concept of "Rights".

See above, and my reply to Siva.  I merely want to expand the bottom
of the bottomupness and enshrine what we have now, while educating
IGFers on this.
This does apply to everyone, not just coders.

> In my naïve view the invocation of the "Rights" formulations should probably
> be reserved for rather more basic and inclusive areas of application. If the
> notion being presented here is something on the order of a "Right to a free
> and open Internet" then I think it should probably be stated in some sort of
> similarly general terms i.e. terms that don't on the face of it seem simply
> to empower those with the technical capability to contribute to the
> (software) development of the Net.

it's meant to empower those at the IGF, not merely technically skilled
folk.  Some of the processes involve technical skills, but many are
largely adminstrative processes.  Look at the most active ICANNers on
this list, few are technically skilled.

I'd be happy to call it the "Right to Open Internet Development" if
that is better for you.

-- 
Cheers,

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


>
> But again, perhaps I've misread the formulation and if so I would ask for
> some additional clarification (and perhaps elaboration or clarification of
> the proposed position statement).
>
> Best to all,
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:23 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius
>
>
> All
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote:
>>
>> and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF
>> Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the
>> point not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present
>> meeting will decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about
>> these key themes for each IGF.
>>
>> I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet'
>> as a theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored
>> workshop in IGF Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken
>> forward in a main session
>> now)
>>
>> Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an
>> oral statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our
>> statement looking back at Sharm el Sheikh.  It is entirely appropriate
>> to split up our statements like this, and there is precedent for it.
>> So, let's get to work on such a statement now.
>
> Done (rewritten our statement from pre-Egypt:
>
> IGC Statement on Themes for IGF 2010
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus supports the "Right to
> Internet Development" as a major theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius. This should
> lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and
> clarification of Principles and Best Practices in relation to Internet
> policy development, and how they relate to pre-existing conditions in
> Internet Governance. It also includes a space for discussions about the
> responsibilities of all parties.
>
> This concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness,
> transparency and bottom up Internet policy and standards development. This
> framework will continue to emphasize the significant theme of the need to
> maintain interoperability and openness to ensure the continued availability
> of the Internet 'commons', while adding the important issues of devices,
> content and applications of their choice. In keeping with current national
> and international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects
> of the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
>
> Net neutrality can often mean different things to different people. The IGC
> feels that at a minimum, net neutrality discussions in the IGF should
> recognize the principle of nondiscrimination of Internet traffic based on
> the ownership, source, destination, port or protocol, keeping in mind that
> providers must actively manage their networks in the face of growing threats
> from SPAM, DDOS attacks and other forms of abuse. this principle must apply
> to both wireless and wireline broadband infrastructure.
>
> The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the
> responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It
> allows for open examination of the principles that govern Internet policy
> making.
>
> Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to
> economic and social development, the IGC strongly supports the rights of
> people everywhere to contribute to the continued eveolution of the Internet
> and its policy and standards making bodies.
>
> Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this
> multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and
> expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF
> 2010 in Latvia as a proven method to include new voices. Best Practices in
> this area would be a sub-theme of the Right to Internet Development.
>
> --
> 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=
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list