[governance] CS Speakers for Baku

Wed Oct 10 06:02:08 EDT 2012

when formulating human rights approaches we should always remember that the framework is based on some concepts that include:

respect for the individual and the community of writing and reading

compassion for feelings of others in the community of writing and reading

concept of "reasonable" in the community of wirting and reading 

the application of intents content in a reasonable manner

the laws of the applicable individual and connected jurisdiction(s) 

interpretations of the laws of the jurisdictions with respect to the reasonable position 

the questions of what is neutral content vs what requires moderation by a panel of moderators for instance as to the broad based principles of governance for regional content - perhaps based on the WSIS regional caucuses

understanding regional issues and stakeholder groups - should there be a second tier of human rights moderators on internet issues ? : top tier - global ; second tier - regional aspects and application understandings group 

See article below 
Regional Security Councils – A Way Towards UN ReformFebruary 18, 201

link to  content at: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=45576 

The article noted above is a proposal by my father. This is a reflection of mine regarding the internet, based on his article. 

Thank you. 

Amali De Silva - Mitchell ( Former President Vancouver Community Network Canada - Participant WSIS ) 

This is a personal note and in no way reflects the opinions of any organization. 

________________________________
 From: Nnenna <nne75 at yahoo.com>
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku

+1 On each of the points below.  I am currently in the Côte d'Ivoire Internet Governance Forum and my drafting capacity is limited.  However, I would like to see a line that extends "Multistakeholderism" down to active national participation of all stakeholders. AFAIK, in as much as in some countries, the government is weighing in, in ways that may appear overbearing, in others, the decision-makers are actually note interested or think it is an NGO thing.

Can we have a "Development Agenda" paragraph? I am also thinking that "Participation" may also need to be a paragraph of its own

Best

Nnenna

Nnenna  Nwakanma
 |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants
Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development
Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820
Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org 
nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com

________________________________
 From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: 'Ginger Paque' <ginger at paque.net>; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:07 PM
Subject: RE: [governance] CS Speakers for Baku

From:gpaque at gmail.com [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque

I think that both points are important... I would say 'in addition to' not 'rather than'. Whom we choose sends a signal as sometimes as significant as their words, and we tend to know their general positions as well as speaking abilities when we nominate them.

Ginger and colleagues:
Yes, of course it is "in addition to" not "rather than" - but has there been any substantive discussion yet? Frankly I think what they say is more important than who we choose, but agree that in some cases "the medium is the message."  At any rate we are long on "who" and rather short on "what" at the moment, so…  

let me throw out three short statements on issues that I passionately believe should be addressed. In doing so, I will make an attempt to address them in a way that takes into account the differences among us and hope others do so in the same spirit. Other candidate topics would include IPR, development…I defer to others there.

Human rights
CS believes that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet realizes the promise of Article 19 of the UN UDHR. To erect (national) legal barriers to the free flow of information is a bad idea and contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and remove them must follow established, transparent processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. 

Security and Securitization 
CS opposes efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments and/or private actors. We consider the surreptitious use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs.

Multistakeholderism
Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so CS welcomes the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But CS cautions that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself.  Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by MS institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. MS processes must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights. 

Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
http://blog.internetgovernance.org 

____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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/20121010/2f53cd40/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