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

[CW Mail]

I agree with the three proposals.

Should the authors still wish to improve the text, under 2. please  
include a reference to financing and under 3. please edit out <giant>


CW


On 07 Feb 2010, at 12:40, 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100208/d1b44a12/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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