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

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Not just architectural (which in itself is broader than just technical),
but also ethical and directly related to the right to communicate -- the
main reasons for bringing it to IGF as a main theme.

One of the ten "Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet in
Brazil" formulated by CGI.br says: "Network neutrality -- Filtering or
traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria only,
excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or
any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment."

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> 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?
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
====================================
new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
====================================
____________________________________________________________
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