[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy]

Hello McTim,


On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
It looks like a comical situation to think of an ITU mandated policy
process.  ITU's concerns are business profits. What the ITU really wants to
do is to mine profits out of the Internet,  so the ITU tries every trick to
use its ill-fitting status as a UN Agency to steer policy makers towards an
Internet Policy with a certain design that would open up doors wide for ITU
member Telecoms.  These telecom business designs are wrapped up and
misleadingly presented to the world as nobler concerns for Global Security.
 Until Governments understand how they are played by the ITU, the freedom of
the Internet will remain threatened.

(The ITU shouldn't be allowed to interject itself in Internet Governance as
a 'UN Agency' , but instead could be offered seats within the business
quadrant of the Internet Governance Forum.)

Our central concern is to ensure that the Internet remains free and
open. Internet Policy has to evolve by a participative process. We need to
do all that we can to ensure our participation.  If that can only happen by
asserting that we have a 'right' to participate, I am with you on this. But
would this be the most effective approach?

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy



> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100203/f14107ee/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