[governance] Re: Syria

[Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro]

You are right Carlos, precisely because of Governments different
perspectives because of their different jurisprudence, agendas and interest
is why we should never let any single institution to look after global
internet policy processes, there are just too many variables. On another
note, more interesting developments in Syria and abroad can be found:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-syria-opposition-technocrats-idUSTRE7994R520111010

2011/10/11 Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>

> Hmmm, this reminds me of USA's silence when its pawns, Bahrein's
> dictatorship, arrests and condemns physicians and nurses, or when its
> other pawns, the Saudi Arabian dictatorship... but these are not issues
> for this list, I guess.
>
> The BR government has already made clear in several instances that the
> document is a *draft*, that it is discussing it with Brazilian civil
> society (and I can testify it is) and that it will be rewritten. Romulo,
> the Itamaraty person chiefly involved in this process, is open to
> dialogue with anyone, Brazilian or not, as Bill himself can testify.
>
> BTW, this trilateral forum called IBSA is *not* focused on Internet
> governance (this is just a small part of a much larger effort since at
> least 2003, when even the talk of IG was non-existent), and there is a
> complex set of discussions on a wide array of themes for collaboration
> in process.
>
> Also, the ways of civil society participation in government policy is
> not uniform in the three countries, each government has its own views,
> and this is a joint proposal. So be it, central countries' folks try to
> sit on their own tails while bashing us for having our tails.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 10/09/2011 06:48 AM, William Drake wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> >
> >> Also see the abstentions when reading the failed resolution and it is
> >> the message that it sends which is far more pronounced and profound.
> >
> > including Brazil, India, and South Africa, which also opposed UN
> > sanctions on Iran's "peaceful nuclear program" when the government there
> > was busy hunting down and executing protesters.  But want a new UN body
> > to develop global Internet policies and "integrate and oversee the
> > bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the
> > Internet, including global standards setting."  Then we can have
> > intergovernmental horse trading over all aspects of global IG with
> > Russia, China, et al linking voting deals on issues like their proposed
> > code of conduct for acceptable Internet speech, TLDs, address
> > assignments, standards, etc. to deals on sanctions and other
> > geopolitical items.  That should help ensure a stable and open Internet…
> >
> > Bill
>



-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111011/e765e1e3/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