AW: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting

Sat Feb 26 13:27:00 EST 2011

omg

Does the $90million cover include costs for unmet SLAs and exposures to
service providers? Although they are exempt from litigation, I suppose
because they were legislated to disconnect. This very act of using a "kill
switch" supports the argument for removing control from a national level to
an international level.

The only question is whether there would be tiered controls or not. I
suppose the arguments would have to come under the ICESCR and perhaps a new
schedule within the GATS - creation of options.

But first, we would have to revise or add on Montesqiue, Locke and Hobbe's
philosophy to capture the basis of possible controls and who should have
control.

I suppose option 2 would be to create a new exception (where internet is
threatened) to justify a humanitarian intervention especially if the
internet is an enabler for rights (economic, social, cultural as well as
civil and political rights) although the argument against this would be
sovereignty and the right to bring into effect the Doctrine of Necessity
when national security is threatened, the only question is "how far", there
is ample precedents to justify the level of flexibility afforded to
governments during the Doctrine of Necessity.

This is why the voice of Civil Society is critical as watchdogs and even
advocates for those who cannot speak nor defend themselves.

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

> This debate has already started. I have already been asked "how do we
> turn this thing off?"
> Prepare for a long "kill switch" debate. In return I presented the
> estimated cost ($90 Million) of using a kill switch in Egypt. Ouch.
> Governments have to understand that using a kill switch demonstrates a
> complete loss of control on their part - exactly the opposite of what
> they were looking for.
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> Le 25/02/2011 11:16, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" a écrit :
>  > Thanks Miguel
> >
> > you are absolutely right. However I have the fear that as soon as
> governments realize what the Internet can trigger (look into the Middle East
> developments) their conclusion will be how to get it under governmental
> control. We should be prepare for such a debate.
> >
> > wolfgang
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Miguel Alcaine
> > Gesendet: Fr 25.02.2011 11:10
> > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
> > Betreff: Re: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Anriette,
> >
> > Governments are not aware of the reasons why they should actively
> > participate in IGF, particularly many developing countries which are
> > not aware even of the reasons why they should participate in anything
> > regarding IG.
> >
> > There are a few Governments involved, but they have remained the same
> > since the beginning and the majority do not care.
> >
> > It is a challenge to explain to them, when there is an opportunity to
> > do so. We need to show them the link between IG - Development - Socio
> > Economic Impact.
> >
> > Finally, I agree that this treat might have an impact on IGF sooner
> > thant later, although I consider IGF to be a necessary part on the IG
> > ecosystem.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Miguel
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
> >> Clarification below McTim:
> >>
> >> On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <
> anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> >>>> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written
> >>>> submissions, and the open consultation.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not quite sure that is what happened today.
> >>>>
> >>>> My other observations, as an observer, are:
> >>>>
> >>>> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make
> proposals
> >>>> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary
> >>>>
> >>>> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well
> >>>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the
> most
> >>>> influential group by far in the MAG.
> >>>>
> >>>> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling.
> >>>>
> >>>> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and
> >>>> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for
> effective
> >>>> participation in the meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from
> >>>> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments.
> >>>>
> >>>> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are
> they
> >>>> there?
> >>>>
> >>>> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space.
> >>>>
> >>>> * I think the private sector and the technical community should
> reflect
> >>>> on their strategies
> >>>
> >>> What is their strategy(ies)?
> >> Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond
> >> themselves.
> >>>
> >>> ... they work in the short term, but will they work
> >>>> in the long term?  They feed into the criticism of the IGF from
> certain
> >>>> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to
> >>>> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the
> process
> >>>> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want
> to
> >>>> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet
> access,
> >>>> regulation, openness etc. issues.
> >>>
> >>> How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well
> >>>  prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the
> >>> most influential group by far in the MAG."
> >>>
> >> Two different 'theys'.
> >>
> >> It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have
> >> never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech
> >> community.
> >>
> >> Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate.
> >> Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort
> >> to comment on the IGF programme.
> >>
> >> I believe they should work inside the IGF space.
> >>
> >> But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's
> >> legitimacy and impact.
> >>
> >> My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with
> >> developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or
> >> get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you
> >> don't have very well though out positions it is even harder.
> >>
> >> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers?
> >> What do MAG members think?
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >>
> >>> ??
> >>>
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
> >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> >> executive director
> >> association for progressive communications
> >> www.apc.org
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> 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, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > 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, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110227/55cba55b/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t