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

[McTim]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> McTim wrote:
>
> of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more
> comprehensive conceptual framework for IG."
>
>
> I still don't know what "Internet rights and principles" means.
>
>
> It is difficult to get into that discussion now... w e have done it earlier
> often and the caucus seems to have overwhelmingly endorsed the concept. Now
> if at the last moment of trying a statement you say you dont know what it
> means, not much can I do about it.

Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was defined?
 I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't find a
definition of it in any of them.


Thats the very name of the proposed
> theme, and i think it was proposed in a couple of statements last year, in
> fact, i think as the overarching theme of the IGF itself..

Correct, and not chosen by the MAG/Secretariat IIRC for political
reasons.  I don't see that the climate has changed, but certainly
could be wrong.  Jeannette warned us about this, I don't think she is
wrong.

>
> I note that the above changes do not address the  "rights-based"
> discourse text that Jeannette warned us about.

We have to know that including this means possible (near certain?)
failure.  Do we want to tilt at this particular windmill now?


>
> I have no idea what this means either: "The change in the technical
> methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings
> of how to apply legal categories. "
>
>
> Simple. That as HR extra texts are written at present, they may need to be
> reinterpreted in their application to the current situation where new means
> of communication are bringing about far reaching changes at many levels...
>
> It is up to the coordinators now to put the text for consensus call or not -
> and do it without the part of 'internet rights and principles' or with it. I
> propose we propose all the three themes, since there is a standing agreement
> in the caucus about them. But the call must go out now. Otherwise it will be
> too late.
>
> Also ,McTim, as per your last email raising process issues, I think you are
> trying to apply methods of technical elists to the working of this group.

I'm trying to apply Best Practices in IG, learned over decades of
experience by the people who have been doing it.  Are you suggesting
that we abandon openness, transparency, etc?

The fact remains that a proposal was posted to the list, had some
support, and even had one member ask for a consensus call on it.  The
coordinators should have judged that it was ripe for consensus or not
and shared that with the list.  This was not done, opening up the
possibility of an appeal.

> The subjects, contexts and thus the methods may have to be very different

I would not want us to abandon BP in IG for any reason.


-- 
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