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

[McTim]

Here is my take on all this,

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

<snip>

>
> Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet
>
> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the
> Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes
> the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social
> activities. This main session will examine the implication of this
> principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet
> policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet
> architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today.
>
> 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 government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder
> Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development
> agenda.
> Internet rights and principles
>
> A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a
> rights-based

Jeannette said:

"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."

It seems that the above formulation does not avoid that conflict.


discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is
> relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult
> to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights
> claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be
> uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual
> situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often
> undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories.

I can't parse this sentence.

> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to
> explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to
> this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on
> the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the
> Internet bec
> oming  increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an
> alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in
> looking at 'internet rights and principles'.

Hmmm, in the para on NN, statement reads:

"Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for
the Internet."  I assume this "technical principle" is meant as a
"good thing".  In the HR section however we say something that seems
to me to be contradictory.  If my paraphrasing is incorrect, please
let me know but it seems we want to say "technical principles were
used in the past, but now we want it based on HR instead"  Can we
realistically ask to have it both ways?


In any event there are some process issues that we need to consider
for the future.  Here is a timeline of how we got to this point
AFAICS:

Jan 29th Jeremy asked us to get to work on a statement, (which is what
a coordinator should do BTW)

Jan 31st I floated a trial balloon

Feb 1st I posted a draft, which got some (limited support) and Yehuda
asked for a call on it (which I thought was premature)

Feb 5 BD posts a second statement, which draws one comment with
suggested amendments.  6 hours later, (in a seemingly offlist
communique) we are asked to make up some new text based on that single
comment so that we can have 24hrs of discussion and then a call for
consensus for 24hrs.

I realise that our charter leaves a great deal of latitude in how
things get drafted, but this process strikes me as incredibly messy.
I am afraid that if we continue with "seat of the pants" decision
making, appeals will arise.

How do we formalise procedures so that we all know what to expect when
it comes to statements?  Does this require changes to the charter?

-- 
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