[governance] Intereses
jfcallo at ciencitec.com
jfcallo at ciencitec.com
Wed Feb 13 16:59:10 EST 2013
Don José Felix:
Importante planteamiento que hace. Seria interesante que Avri Doria,
escriba tambien en español, solo asi tendremos una vision democratica
de cualquier accion en bien general de Internet y en particular de los
usuarios.
Gracias
José F. Callo Romero
CEO ciencitec.com
José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com> escribió:
> Mejor dicho, la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros era para que no se
> tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas propuestas. Y seguir con lo
> mismo ¿Hasta cuando?
>
> Y que casualidad que usted Avri Doria tiene el paquete salvador, y el resto
> tenga que votar como carneros por lo que Ud. a propuesto, que no es mas que
> lo mismo de siempre.
>
> Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?
>
> Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.
>
> Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a la
> tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes y
> simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos, ¿intereses creados?
>
> Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas conservadoras
> establecidas
>
>
>
> *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche*
> * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
>
>
> 2013/2/13 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>> > [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>> >
>> > As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
>> > be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
>> > made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
>> > the deadline.
>> >
>> > Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
>> > that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...
>> >
>> > In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
>> > have remained unchanged since the last update.
>> >
>> > Greetings,
>> > Norbert
>> >
>> >> The decision process is going to be:
>> >> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
>> >> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>> >> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>> >> the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>> >> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects
>> >> to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>> >> proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>> >> current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>> >> unchanged in that regard.
>> >> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>> >> resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>> >> improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
>> >> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>> >> will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>> >> try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>> >> charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>> >> enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 1
>> >> ===========
>> >> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>> >> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
>> >> way forward:"
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
>> >> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
>> >> on the process that was followed."
>> >>
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
>> >> will be added.
>> >>
>>
>> Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process. extract a few of
>> your sentence. something like:
>>
>> Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by
>> the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went through a repeat process
>> of calling for consensus, we had last call for members only, the co-cos
>> called consensus, we were done.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 2
>> >> ===========
>> >> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>> >> IGF Improvements"
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>> >> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>> >> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
>> >> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>> >> implemented."
>> >
>> > Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
>> > how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
>> > ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
>> > territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
>> > CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
>> > consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
>> > the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
>> > undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."
>>
>> As I recommended. MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these
>> so-called multistakeholder recommendations. To do this they first subject
>> it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body
>> politic.
>>
>> >
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> >> the draft text.
>>
>> Insert:
>>
>> Before MAG implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend
>> that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open
>> comment by the IGF body politic.
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 3
>> >> ===========
>> >> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> >> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> >> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> >> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
>> >> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>> >>
>> >> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>> >> does it “really need to do”?"
>> >>
>> >> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>> >> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> >> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> >> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> >> of."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 4
>> >> ===========
>> >> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>> >> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>> >> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
>> >> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
>> >> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
>> >> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
>> >> what not to implement."
>> >>
>> >> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>> >> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>> >> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
>> >
>> > Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
>> > unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
>> > should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
>> > MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
>> > power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
>> > do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
>> > this highly problematic move."
>> >
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> >> the draft text.
>> >>
>>
>> see the response above.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 10
>> >> ============
>> >> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>> >> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
>> >> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>> >> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>> >> and institutions involved in this process?”
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>> >> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
>> >> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
>> >> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
>> >> more that it already is?"
>> >
>> > Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
>> > key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
>> > not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
>> > the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
>> > after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
>> > ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"
>>
>> I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the
>> best idea..
>>
>> >
>> >> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>> >> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
>>
>> It is clear in everyones mind. Just the images are completely different.
>>
>>
>> >> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>> >> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>> >> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
>> >> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>> >> develop a shared understanding."
>> >>
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> >> the draft text.
>> >>
>>
>> "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>> propose that the following policy question
>>
>> be included as a workshop topic for
>>
>> 2013
>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>> >> =============================
>> >> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>> >> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>> >> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>> >> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>> >> on Human Rights as a general theme?"
>> >
>> > Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
>> > ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
>> > when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
>> > multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
>> > its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."
>> >
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> >> the draft text.
>>
>> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>>
>> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> to be continued...
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list