[governance] Mapping IGC Member Activities] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words"

Sat Sep 7 12:16:02 EDT 2013

Dear All,

Apologies for the delayed response, was out whole day at the beach today as I was busy with birthday celebrations and offline the entire time. I have had a long day and night and am emailing at 4am Fiji time and am going to bed soon so advanced apologies if my thoughts are a bit fragmented.

Firstly, welcome to all the new subscribers to the IGC. 

By now civil society (reference is made to those on this list) should be open to understand that there are strong differing views on the degree of control, management of certain aspects of internet governance particularly when it comes to oversight of critical internet resources. 

(I would like to suggest that we organise a debate (friendly one) either as a webinar or a pre- event as a special feature on this topic that could be done in Bali. This will give a chance to hear the different views. The challenge will be in framing the topic)

This aspect of internet governance is no doubt an extremely controversial aspect of discussions and there will always be diverse views on this and people can feel very strongly about a point of view and it is their right to.

I personally have come to accept that you will always have polarized views and it would be mad to even try to attempt to get people to concede on points that they will never concede but it is also okay to agree to disagree. There is far too much at stake in the global mandate and within each country's front to confine ourselves to a corner discussing something that is "unfixable". 

 We should focus on things within our reach that we can address and suggest solutions, share lessons, suggest solutions.

Last year we were faced with all kinds of perceived and actual threats to online freedoms from SOPA, PIPA to abuse of the exceptions to Article 19 of the ICCPR. 

With competing markets, shortage of resources, economic meltdowns, the volatility of the Dow Jones, global food, water and energy crises, states have to deal with all kinds of volatility from civil war as we are seeing in countries like Mali. Droughts that have been hitting the earth for the last decade has led to global wheat shortages, causing rising wheat prices, bread shortage causing civil strife etc. In the midst of this volatile craziness, where there are multiple issues to be grappled with, civil society has to make its voice known as far as the advocacy of an open and free internet. It is one thing to agree to things globally but the real test is in the backyard of ordinary nation states and territories.

As it is there is already so much noise (challenges, competing priorities, political, socio economic issues) have to address that issues that we as a global community identify as critical or threats to an open and free internet can easily be laid on the backburner. 

Recently, we heard from our friends in Pakistan on what they are doing in their countries to raise awareness. Perhaps it could be useful to hear what civil society members are doing in their respective countries whether in Universities, or within their organisations or within their countries governments to advocate for an open and free internet. We could map and list this on the etherpad and it could prove useful for those wishing to share resources and experiences. What are your thoughts?

My view is that if we want to impact the global debate, we should simultaneously do it in- country and externally as well. I am also interested in what has happened with the courts in New Delhi in relation to the censorship (facebook etc) that was discussed on the list. How are our friends (civil society) in Syria doing? I met someone from Iran (former Minister ICT and now civil society rep who was persecuted by the new government and fled to the US for refuge) on the IGC  list in DC last year where he had told me that in Iran was deliberately slowing access so that the Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt would not happen in Iran.

It would be great to hear also from our Egyptian friends who could advise us whether their new constitution still gives power to the Government to order to stop access like they did during the revolution in Egypt and whether judicial review is now allowed or constitutional redress because as I understand this was limited under the old constitution. When the Telcos and ISPs stopped access in Egypt, they came under fire from the international community but their unique challenge then was they were operating in a context where they could not question the orders in the courts due to the way their constitution was crafted. 

Not too long ago we were discussing Ethiopia and how the Network operators were blocking VOIP as it was robbing their call revenue. We had interesting dialogue about the challenges in their context. 

In my own country, Fiji, I have been working on creating bridges between civil society, private sector and the state when it comes to internet governance. Currently, I am in the process of drafting Fiji's cyber security strategy, policy and now cyber crime law. This has been challenging in a country that has a history of being riddled with challenges to the rule of law and coup d' etats.  I have found discussions during the consultations to be enlightening, invigorating and honest. At the same time it allows people to hear other parties concerns when it comes to things like national security versus individual liberties and not abusing the exceptions etc. 

The diversity of all these contexts clearly show that what applies in one country cannot be true for all as there all kinds of diverse contexts. Yet it is in the face of this very same diversity that we grapple not only with national issues but global ones as well. Our strength is when we are able to find resources in the midst of the diversity and make diversity work for us.

There are so many issues within Internet Governance to deal with and these can be categorized under Administrative (discussions on management, bodies, enhanced cooperation etc), to substantive policy issues (Whois accuracy, Privacy, civil liberties, IPv6, redelegation of ccTLDs, gTLDs, IDNs, standards, W3C and thousands more) that demand civil society attention and input.

At the end of the day, it is important that we remember that there are many battles but we should pick which one is worth our corporate effort. How do we wish to focus and synergise our advocacy. I would suggest, let's start with each sharing what they are doing within their own countries in terms of advocacy of our IGC mandate as per the Charter.

Kind Regards,
Sala
(co-coordinator in search of candidates who will stand in the elections)

P.S Parminder and Bertrand, I would suggest taking the discussions offline and am confident that you can sort your electronic conflict of language and semantics offline. Best wishes! If you still have trouble, please contact us (coordinators only) offlist and we will try to help to resolve it.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 7, 2013, at 10:01 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Saturday 07 September 2013 03:24 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
>> Parminder,
>> 
>> Bertrand offered to discuss this with you offline at one of the coming occasions:
>> 
>> "We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks."
>> 
>> Rather than drawing the whole list into this argument, I suggest you take him up on his offer. He should be back from vacation now.
> 
> Peter
> 
> If you would have read my email you'd see that I consider this as much a matter to place on this list as Bertrand thought it originally with regard to his email. So maybe you should have told Bertrand to write such stuff offline.
> 
> As for the specific text you quoted, I hate patronizing even more than direct accusations, especially when patronizing is done 'after the act'....
> 
> parminder
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Peter H. Hellmonds
>> 
>> 
>> On 07.09.2013, at 11:04, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Bertrand
>> 
>> It is almost a month now and you have'nt reverted [...]
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> The rest of the thread clipped on purpose.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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