[governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Paul Lehto wrote:
> There simply is no action, concrete or otherwise, that is not preceded
> by ideas and principles, even if the principles are pragmatism,
> hedonism, greed or whatever. 

I don't deny this but this discussion is not a conceptual one, it is 
about agenda setting. We discuss the issue of how to make rights and 
principles the subject of a main session at the next IGF.
The MAG works by consensus. We won't get any topic accepted that one or 
several of the members don't want.
I will leave it at that. I am not even sure anymore if we are arguing 
about the same goals.

jeanette


Thus, there is no "concrete" without
> rights and/or principles, so a preference for "concrete" is not a
> "second way", it's just an application of principles to a single
> context, with no claim for their broader applicability (whenever
> rights or principles are not expressly identified for purposes of
> such)
> 
> A "concrete" proposal will have principles (for certain) and may have
> rights that underlay its actual text, so the question is, are those
> principles and rights that necessarily exist in all cases just
> undisclosed in the text of a particular case example, or have the
> rights instead been abandoned in favor of some other de facto vision
> of internet governance?
> 
> If it is the latter, we can all be thankful that, in the rights we do
> have, other people and prior generations did not give up after the
> first few rejections.  That's the key to success in fields as
> disparate as sales, politics, rights and training for the olympic
> games.
> 
> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
> 
> On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Paul Lehto wrote:
>>> Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it.
>>>
>>> Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the
>>> best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some
>>> ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get
>>> the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a
>>> revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet
>>> users.
>> I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the
>> rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost
>> every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the
>> WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you
>> hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out
>> on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session.
>>
>> What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete
>> organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal
>> title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most.
>>
>> I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically
>> lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would
>> allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF.
>>
>> jeanette
>>> Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever
>>> random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to
>>> keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy.
>>>
>>> All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people.
>>> The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights.
>>> To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number
>>> of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent.
>>>
>>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>>>
>>> On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss
>>>> it -
>>>> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF.
>>>> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased
>>>> enough so that we can better make an issue of it.
>>>> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians
>>>> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual
>>>> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows
>>>> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it.
>>>>
>>>> --MM
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM
>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
>>>> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder
>>>> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)
>>>>
>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main
>>>> session
>>>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy
>>>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more
>>>> abstract
>>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of
>>>> anything
>>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would
>>>> work? "
>>>>
>>>> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it.
>>>> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope
>>>> we
>>>> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at
>>>> Les
>>>> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other
>>>> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address
>>>> IRP.
>>>>
>>>> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to
>>>> consider:
>>>>
>>>> legal provisions (Jeanette)
>>>> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance
>>>> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance
>>>> Internet governance and the position of individuals
>>>> Internet governance and individuals
>>>>
>>>> gp
>>>>
>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> William Drake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> McTim, Parminder, you are both right.  R&P is a broad and
>>>> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the
>>>> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support
>>>> here.  The latter trumps the former,
>>>>
>>>> Why? Majority trumps reason?
>>>>
>>>> so it should be included in the
>>>>
>>>> statement.
>>>>
>>>> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main
>>>> session
>>>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy
>>>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more
>>>> abstract
>>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of
>>>> anything
>>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would
>>>> work?
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Bill____________________________________________________________ You
>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> To be removed
>>>> from the list, send any
>>>> message to:
>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>
>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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