[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[Fouad Bajwa]

Hi Parminder and all,

I would like to confirm this from both the OCs and MAG meetings
including the IGF2009 that both 'NN/open Internet' and 'development
agenda in IG' were heavily discussed topics both within and outside
IGF and have substantial interventions as well as material to back
them both on the record from the process floor and around the
multistakeholderism, through publications and research and it is only
a matter of time that these two become Main Session Themes for the
upcoming IGFs'.

Secondly as far as the ITU is concerned, it should be kept as a
stakeholder in equality with all members of the multistakeholderism
and from their current pursuits and from what I heard in the past,
they should be kept with the ICC or simply private sector group.

Third, we may also have to go through this issue of clarity within our
understanding of IGC members to keep IGC safe of any possible attempts
of bending-over tipping over of members of the other groups of the
multistakeholder and trying to lobby their interests through the IGC.
There may be issues where the multistakeholderism may be in rough
consensus together but on the stance of ITU, I know that atleast IGC
would say no to ITU's attempts already discussed on the list
elsewhere.

Fourth, I have been observing some confusing discussions being
triggered on the IGC lists and comments popping up either seeming to
be diversions from the main issues at hand by members that are not
from the heart and spirit of what we mutually understand as CS and
I've always shared this understanding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society

This clearly differentiates the oppositions as well as forces that are
in interplay between facilitating opinion building and sectoral
politics from the space that we currently volunteer in and represent
in order to to promote global public interest objectives in Internet
governance policy making. We bring the voice of the people and the
users but not the state or commercial interests or any such combined
interests.

Where ITU discussions come into place, we have to be very clear on our
understanding because that is what we will counter on the floor as
well as during the upcoming meetings next week. Finally, is a possible
issue of clarity that it is not a rule or any standard practice that
IGC Co-ordinators read IGC statements. Originally there are may IGC
members present on the floor as well as remotely through our messaging
applications and any member from the IGC is free to deliberate,
intervene, counter and manage the responses arising to evolving issues
(depending on the member's volunteering and/or availability present
physically or remotely). We  all appreciate the hard work undertaken
by Ginger and now Jeremy as well as past co-ordinators to prepare
statements as well as voluntarily present them on floor during the
meetings/consultations.

All of us are free to bring our understanding and knowledge about HR,
NN/Open Internet and Development Agenda in Internet. I am sure we as
CS members are very clear on the prevailing issues of Human Rights and
we have been participating in the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights
and Principles and more members will be present to take stand.
Similarly, when issues pertaining to NN/Open Internet come up, the
entire floor comes to life and with the evolution of the need for a
possible Development Agenda in Internet, our members like Bill and
other dear friends have been working by conducting workshops and being
present in the meetings, consultations and IGF to bring the issues for
dialogue and intervene on the floor.

This process can neither be prevented nor overpowered, its the public
opinion and the dynamics of the discussion space and politics that
instantaneously take place that all our member in their capacities,
positions, beliefs, understandings, convictions, groups, communities,
organizations try to intervene on, deliberate on, counter, maneuver,
handle etc (whatever the dynamics of discussions taking place)

Lets be very clear on some things that we have very strong mutual
consensus and understanding of issues very important to us for the
benefit of the voices we represent and being present on the floor to
program the IGF does not mean that pre-agreed statements and paper
work always help. We also have IGC meetings all around the day during
the mornings, at lunches, in the evenings and its a continuous process
that then comes back to this list and keeps on evolving and improving.


-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA



On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> McTim
>
> I must say that i do not see any possibility of a proposed theme on 'right
> to development of Internet' going anywhere in the OC and MAG.
>
> However more importantly, i really do not understand the content on this
> theme - and what exactly you seek to achieve?
>
> BTW, I think all these years if there is one thing I have heard you assert
> repeatedly it is that everyone already has an absolute right to the
> development of the Internet (through, what you always claim, is the
> absolutely open and unhindered access to bottom-up Internet policy forums
> you keep mentioning). So if everyone already has this right, what exactly
> are we seeking here?
>
> In any case, a new unclear theme can simply not become a main session theme.
> On the other hand, 'NN/open Internet' and 'development agenda in IG' are
> both now well discussed themes inside and outside the IGF, and have enough
> 'body' to be considered to be main session themes.
>
> Parminder
>
> McTim wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>  How do we strike the balance between being strategic and practical,
> and standing for what we believe in?
>
> This is my attempt at all 3.  HR seems to be a nonstarter (at least it
> hasn't gotten anywhere in the past).  It's strategic and practical in
> that I think that the 4th stakeholder group would probably get behind
> it, as well as PS and some governments.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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