[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius
michael gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 08:22:09 EST 2010
McTim,
Thanks very much for your detailed and very collaboratively framed reply...
The area of common cause that I see between those at the grassroots
concerned with using ICTs for development and those concerned with the
opportunity of developing those ICTs so that they can be used by grassroots
folks (and others) for development (and other) purposes is that the absence
of the tools that the technology developers are developing means that the
grassroots folks can't do want they want to do with the ICTs.
I very much see and sympathize with the strategy you are articulating here
but I unfortunately must demur to those with much more knowledge and
strategic sense than I do in the "Rights" area (such as Lisa and Parminder)
as to how (or if) exactly to frame the above from a "rights" perspective.
Best to all,
MBG
-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:33 PM
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list