[governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon Feb 8 03:15:54 EST 2010
Hi, I support Ian's suggestion.
jeanette
Ian Peter wrote:
> I should mention I am advancing this suggestion because it might get
> through MAG, not because I think rights are unimportant. Nor to amend
> what has been adopted as a general statement.
>
> And also the gist of it is to discuss basic principles for internet
> governance. WSIS gives us a start but perhaps its time to explore what
> else needs to be said here. Maybe it comes out as defining basic
> principles or something – anyway I am simply seeking a phrase and a
> topic broad enough to get MAG on board.
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Date: *Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:28:10 +1100
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)
>
> Or alternatively, if we talk about
>
> “towards defining basic principles for internet governance”
>
> Have we got a way forward?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Deirdre Williams
> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:20:34 -0400
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)
>
> If 'rights" is the word that puts people's backs up why not use "human
> aspects (or human as opposed to technical aspects) of Internet
> governance", as Ginger suggested in the lead message of this string. The
> terminology includes rights, but also got frequent mention in the
> opening of the Sharm IGF, and, at least by implication, in "including
> the next billion" in Hyderabad so should be difficult to simply dismiss.
> Deirdre
>
> On 7 February 2010 20:25, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm with the pragmatist; however Jeanette thinks she can phrase
> rights (& principles) to get a main theme at IGF is what I vote for.
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:09 PM
> To: Paul Lehto
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake
> Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette)
>
> 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
> <governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance>@lists.cpsr.org> To be
> removed
> > > from the list, send any
> > > message to:
> > >
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe
> <governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe>@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
> <governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance>@lists.cpsr.org>
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >
> > >
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe
> <governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe>@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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list