RES: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for Internet Related Policies

[Vanda UOL]

I do agree! Indeed it is not only a step back , going again to the same old
discussion we already had years ago, but  I don't see nothing new to justify
to raise again this debate. 

De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Robert Guerra
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 18 de maio de 2012 04:18
Para: Internet Governance Caucus
Assunto: Re: [governance] India's proposal for a 50 member UN committee for
Internet Related Policies

 

4 quick comments:

 

- Agree with Avri's that Parminder's proposals seems to be inconsistent with
the agreed to language  of the Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72). The proposal is a
dangerous step back, one that shifts discussion away from the IGF, and
reduces the effective opportunity for non-governmental actors to be involved
in Internet Governance.

 

During the WSIS process all non-governmental actors fought really hard to be
"allowed in the room"  with govts. Your proposal, I fear would reverse that
and 

shift the discussion and decision making to bodies where rules of procedure
are far more restrictive and exclusionary. 

 

- Parminder, in your article you mention that you have the support of civil
society. Just blasting your views everywhere has the media thinking all of
civil society agrees with your views. There is , well, considerable
disagreement with many of your points. Please recognize that and recognize
that and stop insinuating  that you have a broad level of support. 

 

 

- Having a differences of opinion and being able to debate and discuss and
find areas where we there might be common ground is a discussion I look
forward to..

 

thanks

 

robbert

 

 

--
R. Guerra

Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081

Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom 
Email: rguerra at privaterra.org

 

On 2012-05-18, at 8:01 AM, Avri Doria wrote:





Hi,

Without getting into the discussion over the merits of the marketing
campaign for Parminder's proposal, I  have to admit I just do not understand
how turning over a process that according to the agreed langauge of the
Tunis Agenda (paras 67-72) should be within IGF's scope to the CSTD or some
other government dominated body increases democratization.

In most every possible way I can think of, this appears to be a step
backward.



avri


____________________________________________________________
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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120524/e53370fe/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