[governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC

[Samuel Klein]

Jeremy Malcolm writes:
< at least they have issued a declaration of principles (even if a
> sub-standard one), which the IGC has not done despite talking
> about doing it since last IGF.

Please focus on the principles themselves and not "they" who wrote them.
 There is no implied ownership of this set of principles.  To the contrary,
like around half of the similar statements of principles over the past
year, it is meant to spur public discussion and improvement.  Some curation
and coordination is needed to bring interested parties and views together,
but I think a significant majority could in time settle on a consensus
document.  Hopefully  including the major groups that care about and study
internet governance.

> we need to make sure that we don't continue to allow the current
> Internet governance debates to be monopolised by such popular
> movements, which are well-intentioned but often rather uninformed
> and demographically narrow.

Many groups remain isolated by their sense of identity and otherness.
 Including those that aim to help and represent everyone -- like 'popular'
groups and 'civil society' groups (both terms which, in their simplest
form, cover most of society).

I hope we [the largest-frame community of Internet users] can keep this
from being an 'us v. them' debate for a dozen different social circles,
each of which feels it is the only unbiased representative slice of society.

I also hope we can separate underlying questions about internet freedom and
its value in society, from Internet Governance.  The former is more
philosophical and less tied to near-term current-day implementation
decisions.

> we have long been talking about making a contribution, but are yet to
> actually get around to doing so [in]
>
>  1. the development of a civil society statement of principles on IG
> and a broader civil society network to subscribe to this ...
<
> the ground is moving under the IGC's feet.  At least three other groups
> (Access, and two others I'm not sure if I can mention publicly) are
trying to
> take leadership to link NGOs together for purposes of agreeing on
principles > and/or mobilising against bad laws.  This is something that
the IGC itself
> should be doing, and indeed had committed to do last year.

I must say, the language you use above makes me uncomfortable, and feels...
sub-optimal.  An ideal coalition or network won't be "led" or "owned" by
one particular group; it will draw from many and be defined by its members.


I hope people from all of these groups, and from "popular" groups that you
feel are currently apart from civil society (including the 'net activists
who are currently engaged in work like broadcasting the existence of recent
declarations), will be invited to upcoming IGC/IGF discussions on the
topic.  And vice-versa.

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>
> While I'm in strong agreement with the view that "now is the time to
> just do it", I would say that pretty much by definition, Enhanced
> Cooperation can't be done without active involvement of at least some
> governments.
>

That seems like a pretty lacking definition.  Today we have a variety of
examples of how large-scale grassroots and civic pressure can define a
framework for cooperation and drive government involvement, rather than
waiting for government inovlvement before something can happen.

This is one reason why the IGF might benefit from more involvement from
people who have been part of popular Internet movements in recent years.

It is good to have a credible and attractive invitation to governments to
cooperate, where possible, but not the only way forward.


> Every bit of civil society visibilty in this area is good since it
> reduces the temptations for governments to turn to ITU and/or
> plurilateral purely intergovernmental negotiations (like ACTA) for
> their perceived enhanced cooperation needs.
>

Yes.  Though again, governments are not always the most important groups
that need to cooperate or to define the terms of such cooperation.  The act
of cooperating well will amplify and broadcast the work of those who have
learned to cooperate; and will by definition make their work and standards
more influential than those of groups that remain isolated.

Regards,
Sam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120706/10fad98e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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