[governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Yes to all three, although I find it unfortunate if we stick to the 
rights and principles language which will get us nowhere.
jeanette

Ginger Paque 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
____________________________________________________________
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