[governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius

[McTim]

Apologies for the length of this post, but I am going to try and reply
to both PJS and Fouad in a single post to avoid multiple messages.

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:49 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.

Who would be opposed and could you explain why they might be opposed
(leaving out the folk who have already voiced their opinion on list)?
I came up with the idea specifically to find something that might
appeal to many on the 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?

See my reply to Siva yesterday.

I will attempt to summarise again:

1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed. Since you see
this via a political lens, I will say that given that politics is the
art of the possible, we know already what is not possible.  This is an
attempt to repackage the concepts of rights and development in to a
politically palatable Theme.  Even though HR and DA were discussed,
this is no guarantee that they will be accepted.  Optimism around this
as a certainty is unfounded in reality.

2. Your formulation of a DA for IG  found here:
http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/OECD-ITfC.pdf is based upon
faulty assumptions of what the Internet is.  You seem to see it a a
"thing" that can be "claimed as a public infrastructure with a strong
public goods perspective." The Internet, being a network of network is
fundamentally the protocols/ports/adddresing schemes, etc that allow
us to do Internetworking.  It's very easy for us to see the Internet
as something that can be very useful in economic and social
development.  However, I would suggest that these effects are
epiphenomenal, and that it is difficult to regulate epiphenomenon. It
is far easier and more effective for those interested in IG to
participate in the activities that have enabled the growth of the
phenomenon and that will continue its growth in the future.

3. I don't know that i have ever asserted that we all have this
"right" before. What I have asserted is that we have the ability.  I
am merely seeking to discuss a possible right to advance capacity
building around these issues at the IGF.  This is a desperate need
IMO.

4. I've only got 6 years of experience in Internetworking in Africa,
that may not be a long enough time to judge, but from what I have
seen, economic and social development can come from Internet
diffusion. Internet diffusion relies somewhat on capacity building on
IG issues.  We have seen tremendous progress in re: Internet access
here in Africa, much of it because of the exceptional work done in
capacity building by CS orgs like AfNOG, which falls squarely under
the definition of CS that Fouad sent. He was not a subscriber several
years ago when we had this discussion about who is CS and who is not,
but by the definition he sent: "Civil society refers to the arena of
uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and
values.", I can make no conclusion other than that the African IG
bodies are CS.  To suggest that two stakeholder groups could not hold
the same view is detrimental to our cause. If we truly represent the
user, we should empower them to participate in IG activities.

>
> In any case, a new unclear theme can simply not become a main session theme.

How do we know until we try?  Is it your personal opposition to such
an idea or a thorough political analysis of the MAG?  If the latter,
could you explain who might vote for or against such an idea?

> 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.

I know what NN means to me, and I know what constitutes a DA for IG in
my mind.  However, you have differing views about what they mean.  I
am all for both openness and development arising from IG.
I'm all about both, really.  If you or others would like to write a
statement for the IGCs consideration, I would be happy to read it.
Meanwhile, the statement I have put on the table is still the only one
in consideration AFAIK.

Finally I refer to the charter text:

"The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the
caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot
be discussed by the caucus within the time available.
In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with
the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect
the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of
those members who are physically present at the meeting."

What this means to me is that IGC members can say anything they want,
but cannot represent their opinions as IGC positions.

-- 
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