OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Fri Feb 5 16:10:26 EST 2010 

I agree all three should go forward.

We can also circumvent a consensus call and formal statement with language
such as "members of civil society would like to suggest three possible main
session themes" and by using the language generally agreed to either
beforehand and on this list without formally adopting new statements as
such.


> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:53:57 +0000
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Cc: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for
> 
> 
> 
> Lee W McKnight wrote:
> 
>> Similarly I thought we were just tweaking wording on NN/open internet
>> and see no harm in following Parminder's suggestion there as well.
> 
> I agree.
>> 
>> HR text re-proposed by CS would almost be expected and more
>> noticeable for its absence, I would think.  If if goes nowhere in MAG
>> well at least we tried.
> 
> I agree here as well. The HR section is a matter of wording rather than
> a substantial issue. We can get it accepted by MAG if we take into
> account the objection of MAG members who take issue with rights based
> approaches and resort to language instead that circumvents this conflict.
> 
> jeanette
>> 
>> Lee
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________ From: McTim
>> [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:50 PM To:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: OFFLIST:Re:
>> [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius
>> 
>> Ginger.
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone... I just got in to Geneva, and see that there have
>>> been no responses to this. Jeremy, if it is ok with you, I think we
>>> should follow up on Parminder's proposal.
>> 
>> I think 6 hours is a bit hasty to make such a judgement.  Our charter
>>  does not say that "Silence equals consent".
>> 
>> I am ok with Bill's formulation, but don't think we have time to
>> debate the addition of additional text.  While I am all for NN and
>> Open Internet, we can't agree amongst ourselves if we should phrase
>> it Open Internet or NN, so I think we should leave it out for now.
>> It doesn't seem to be global concern, but primarily a US c issue.
>> Perhaps I've missed some NN issues coming from other countries.
>> 
>> I am of the opinion that since we failed on the Human Rights theme
>> last time, we should not try it again.  I do trust Bill's analysis
>> re: the acceptance of a DA as a ripe topic.  I think we will hurt our
>>  chances if we includes the Human Rights theme as we did previously.
>> 
>> -- Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it
>> is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Parminder: can you write up the actual wording for your proposal? I
>>> think it is better if it comes from someone in the list. If you and
>>> Jeremy agree, we can post:
>>> 
>>> Parminder, since there have been no comments, please post your
>>> proposed wording as soon as possible. We will then open for
>>> comments and call for consensus... unfortunately probably 24h and
>>> 24h due to time constraints.
>>> 
>>> Can you guys please try to get back to me asap?
>>> 
>>> Thanks! Ginger
>>> 
>>> Parminder wrote:
>>> 
>>> I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take
>>> this language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/
>>> Open Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights
>>> and principles' in the list, abstract a short para on it from the
>>> earlier statement which is relatively  not very sharp, and in size
>>> no longer than the paras on dev agenda and NN. We shd put it out
>>> for a day or so of last comments and then a final version for a
>>> consensus call over 48 hours.
>>> 
>>> In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour
>>> workshops on the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized
>>> last year, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these
>>> themes within the IGF context. And if 'internet rights and
>>> principles' is included as a main theme, that the DC on IRP has
>>> been doing good work in this area for considerable time now, an dis
>>>  in fact the most active dynamic coalition (the much celebrated
>>> concept in the IGF).
>>> 
>>> Parminder
>>> 
>>> William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we
>>> are proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea.
>>> In the event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for
>>> Hyderabad, and we really can't use it anymore, it's dated. On Feb
>>> 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote:
>>> 
>>> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key
>>> focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development
>>> also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio
>>> conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted
>>> significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet
>>> governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop
>>> was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the
>>> Swiss government, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and other
>>> partners from all stakeholder groupings on, ³Toward a Development
>>> Agenda for Internet Governance.² The workshop considered the
>>> options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action
>>> that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet
>>>  governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop
>>> expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being
>>> pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda
>>> concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that
>>> this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there.
>>> We also support the Swiss government¹s proposal to consider
>>> establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop
>>> recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda.
>>> 
>>> How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive
>>> thrust of what was previously agreed: A Development Agenda for
>>> Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda
>>> and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed
>>> as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a
>>> broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance
>>> for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational
>>> terms.  To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a
>>> main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and
>>> some its members have organized workshops or produced position
>>> papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could
>>> entail.   In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el
>>> Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme.
>>> The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages
>>> between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and
>>> consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into
>>> IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate.
>>> We also continue to support the Swiss government¹'s proposal to
>>> consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could
>>> develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. Bill
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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