[governance] Re: Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday.

[McTim]

1. yes
2. yes
3. NO
-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel



On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of
> electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in
> Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on
> Tuesday.
>
> With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now
> making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should
> allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva
> Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we
> have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the
> meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as
> possible. My skype login is gingerpaque.
>
> I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read
> together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown.
> The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent
> suggestion.
>
> An all agreement vote would read:
> 1: Yes
> 2: Yes
> 3: Yes
>
> Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions.
>
> 1.
> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for
> the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the
> Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all
> business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the
> focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the
> Internet. This main session should examine the implications 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.
>
> 2.
> 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.
>
> 3.
> 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.
>
>
> In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a
> development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a
> certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These
> successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010.
>
> The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and
> productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic
> Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the
> Vilnius agenda.
> Thank you very much.
> Best,
> Ginger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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