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

[Parminder]

McTim

We may not much more time for this, but if your problem, as I read it, 
is that you think our statement seems to jettison considerations of 
technical principles in favour of 'internet rights and principles', 
which is of course not at all meant, we can change the concerned 
sentence a bit, basically removing the term 'alternative'.

"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 becoming  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'."

may be changed to

"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 becoming  increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG."


we will need to put this for consensus call in the next 12 hours, if it has to be read out on 9th  in the open consultations.

Parminder 





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?
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100207/783f88db/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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