[bestbits] [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
Deirdre Williams
williams.deirdre at gmail.com
Mon Jan 26 11:31:38 EST 2015
Dear Jose,
Thank you.
I think this message makes very good suggestions.
Expect to hear more from us when Analia and I can reply together.
Meanwhile thank you again
Deirdre
Estimado José,
Gracias.
Creo que este mensaje hace muy buenas sugerencias.
Espera escuchar más de nosotros cuando Analia y yo puedo responder juntos.
Mientras tanto gracias de nuevo
Deirdre
On 26 January 2015 at 12:15, José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Podemos estar un poco lejos de una estructura similar y de composición
> de ideas y voces, pero eso no quiere decir que estemos lejos de llegar
> éticamente a un acuerdo de las diversas voces de los grupos, tanto
> dentro de la CSCG o de NCSG, o de diversos grupos no afiliados e
> independientes sobre la Gobernanza de Internet.
>
> Lo que falta es un llamado al dialogo y discusión sobre un fin, en el
> cual todos den su opinión y sobre ello llegar a un acuerdo en donde no
> haya vencidos ni vencedores.
>
> Podemos comenzar como ejemplo un dialogo de ideas y sugerencias en
> nuestra lista, pidiéndoles a todos los miembros que den su parecer o
> su punto de vista de los temas que se debe de discutir o enriquecer
> para llegar a un acuerdo, porque creo que aun dentro de nuestra lista
> governance.lists.igcaucus.org, no todos comparten las misas opiniones
> o ideas
>
>
> Todo esto no quiere decir que de inmediato tendremos un mapa claro de
> las voces de los diversos miembros o de las demás agrupaciones
> aceptando, pero si estoy seguro de que proporcionará un mapa claro de
> las voces reales que existen dentro de las diversas agrupaciones sobre
> la Gobernanza de Internet, y con ello dar el nacimiento a lo que
> podría ser a nivel mundial, como por ejemplo:
>
> · Los supuestos básicos en lo que se debe de regir una “Constitución
> Única” sobre la Gobernanza de Internet.
>
> · Sus visiones y metas.
>
>
>
> Todo ello es un reto, pero la idea es que aun siendo un reto grande,
> tenemos que tener la voluntad de decidirnos a encontrar una forma de
> unir criterios, ideas y voces, de que si podemos llegar a formas
> innovadoras de unidad de ideas y de trabajar alrededor de ella.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche
> Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
>
>
> 2015-01-26 10:00 GMT-05:00 Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>:
> > N.B. Of course there also is APC as a clearly identifiable CS party under
> > the parasol of rights, but I would say more specifically women rights (as
> > several other CS families can also claim HR as their compass.) Anyway,
> that
> > was just to correct an oversight. For the rest it is up to each grouping
> to
> > come up with their best and accurate self-characterization. And just for
> the
> > sake of being complete, Diplo is an hybrid in my view and I'm not sure
> how
> > they would characterize their CS commitments (and btw, if my information
> is
> > correct they have announced their intention to withdraw from CSCG which
> > causes another problem if you rely on the latter to define which groups
> will
> > be included in this proposed opus.) Civicus has never really engaged
> wiith
> > CSCG as far as I can tell.
> >
> > mC
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Wolfgang,
> >>>
> >>> I am glad you raised this again, because I think the idea is great.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure that a direct correlation with CSCG and with the
> different
> >>> groups within civil society who are CSCG members is the best way to
> proceed
> >>> (eg one JNC article followed by one Best Bits article etc) - because I
> think
> >>> many of our best people sit between and across various groups and I am
> not
> >>> sure that direct characterisation of opinions with groupings is always
> >>> accurate or helpful.
> >>
> >>
> >> This has been my concern, too, from my very first reply to the initial
> >> proposal, and still remains. We are far from having a homomorphism
> between
> >> the CSCG member groupings and the "diverse voices" you are referring to,
> >> Wolfgang. It seems to me the most identifiable voice(s) within the CSCG
> >> setting -- in terms of what all members stand for -- include JNC (social
> >> justice) and maybe BestBits (?), both of whom spun off from IGC where
> they
> >> still have their footprint aside possible other voices. In other words,
> IGC
> >> which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one voice. I suspect there
> is
> >> also notable diversity of voices within NCSG although it is my sense
> that
> >> they have clearer and tested working processes and are more ready to
> reach a
> >> common position on a whole host of issues than IGC does. Furthermore you
> >> have
> >> on the other hand
> >> folks such as JFC and their following, whom I am not sure to what extent
> >> they overlap with JNC and to what extent they have a distinct voice.
> >>
> >> All of this to say, you may go with the above groupings but I am not
> sure
> >> they will provide a clear map of the actual voices that exist within CS
> in
> >> terms of families of thought, basic assumptions, visions, goals, values
> or
> >> principles of commitments, etc. If we can find a practical way to
> identify
> >> those, that would be great but I recognize it might be challenging. I am
> >> just putting the idea out there so that we recognize that potential
> >> limitation and see whether we can come up with some innovative ways to
> work
> >> around it. (Again, I also understand that you may just have made the
> >> deliberate choice to start from the existing _social groupings_
> >> and let them
> >> bear the responsibility to put forward their common voice OR their
> diverse
> >> voices on the issues, taking the burden away from the architect of the
> >> project (outline of the volume) as well as from the editors and placing
> it
> >> on the groups themselves, which will not make IGC business any easier
> ;-)
> >> Nevertheless, this approach also has its won merits.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Mawaki
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> >>> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:15 PM
> >>> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; michael
> >>> gurstein ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> Subject: [governance] AW: From Confusion to Clarification
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear friends,
> >>>
> >>> six weeks ago I made a proposal under the thread "From Confusion to
> >>> Clarification" to produce a Civil Society Internet Governance
> Compendium or
> >>> Handbook. What was the idea behind the proposal?
> >>>
> >>> Civil Society is a recognized and needed stakeholder in the global
> >>> Internet Governance debate and a needed partner in the evolving
> >>> multistakeholder approaches to manage Internet related public policy
> issues.
> >>> 2015 will see a number of Internet Governance events where the voice of
> >>> civil society has to be raised: It starts with the ITU Council IG
> Working
> >>> Group Meetings in February, continues with UNESCO conferences and
> meetings
> >>> of the UNCSTD, the HRC, the forthcoming Cybersecurity Conference in The
> >>> Hague, the IGF in Brazil, the WSIS 10+ conference in New York in
> December
> >>> 2015 and others.
> >>>
> >>> Civil Society does not speak with one voice. It is characterized by a
> >>> broad diversity. This is not a weakness, this is a strength. It
> reflects the
> >>> reality. And it is not different from the diversity within other
> stakeholder
> >>> groups. In the governmental stakeholder group you have a broad
> varierty of
> >>> positions - from the US via EU, Brazil, Egypt and India to China. In
> the
> >>> private sector stakeholder group there are different approaches among
> >>> transnational corporations and small and medium enterprises from
> developed
> >>> and developing countries. And even among the I* organizations there are
> >>> differences, as we have seen recently in the positioning towards the
> >>> NetMundial initiative. This pluralism and diversity reflects the
> reality of
> >>> the Internet Governance ecosystem. If one want to achieve sustainable
> >>> progress a rough consensus has to include the main arguments from the
> main
> >>> groups of all stakeholders. To achieve concrete results openess and
> >>> transparency with regard to the various positions is a key
> pre-condition to
> >>> promote mutual understanding.
> >>>
> >>> Insofar it would be good if civil society Internet Governance groups or
> >>> individuals could describe openly what they are standing for. To have
> on
> >>> paper the various perspectives different civil society groups have if
> it
> >>> comes to Internet policy related issues would be useful anbd could
> enhance
> >>> civil society input into the forthcoming negotiations, in particular
> with
> >>> regard to WSIS 10+.
> >>>
> >>> Since I did send this proposals to this list I got numerous comments
> and
> >>> critical remarks. Some respondents supported the project and called it
> a
> >>> good idea. Others argued that this is a bad, unrealistic and
> >>> counterproductive idea. Many partners made concrete proposals how such
> a
> >>> project could be further enhanced. Taking into account all the feed
> back I
> >>> got since last month I would specify my proposal in the following way:
> >>>
> >>> I. Ian Peter, in his capacity as acting chair of the CSCG, should
> >>> function as the main editor. Each member of the CSCG should nominate a
> >>> co-editor. The role of the editor and the co-editors would be
> technical.
> >>> They should not intervene into the content of the individual
> contributions.
> >>> The six co-editors of the six member groups of the CWSG should invite
> four
> >>> contributors from their group, one for each chapter. It is up to the
> groups
> >>> whether the individual author expresses his own individual position or
> >>> represents the position of the whole group. Each contribution should
> be 4 -
> >>> 8 pages. Each author would be free to cover either the whole subject
> or to
> >>> select a special sub-item.
> >>>
> >>> II. The book should have four chapters:
> >>> 1. Human Rights and Internet(Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy,
> >>> Content, Culture etc.)
> >>> 2. Security in Cyberspace (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime,
> >>> Surveillance, National Sovereignty etc.)
> >>> 3. Social, Economic and Cultural Development (Digital Divide, Market
> >>> Domination, Competition, Infrastructure Development, Cultural and
> Linguistic
> >>> Diversity etc.)
> >>> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols, Accountability
> >>> etc.)
> >>>
> >>> III. Timetable
> >>> It would be good to have a first draft ready until early May (for the
> >>> Meeting of the UNCSTD). The final e-Version of the whole book should be
> >>> ready until early September for use by the WSIS 10+ negotiations
> groups. A
> >>> formal presentation should be organized during the 10th IGF in Brazil.
> >>> Efforts should be undertake to produce also a paper version for
> distribution
> >>> at the 10th IGF in November 2014.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang
> >>>
> >>> PS:
> >>> I have described the "Four Baskets" more in detail in my blog in
> CircleID
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150103_internet_governance_outlook_2015_2_processes_many_venues_4_baskets/
> >>>
> >>> w
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi everybody
> >>>
> >>> After weeks of confusing conflicts let´s move towards clarifying
> >>> collaboration. What we have seen in the recent (sometimes unfriendly)
> >>> disputes is that there are many different civil society activists with
> >>> different civil society positions. This is confusing, both for
> newcomers who
> >>> want to join civil society groups in Internet Governance discussions
> as well
> >>> as for other stakeholders who want to collaborate with civil society.
> On the
> >>> othher Hand: This is natural. The civil Society Stakeholder Groups has
> >>> similar differences as the governmental stakeholder group if you
> compare the
> >>> governmental positions of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, EU, Brazil,
> >>> India, Japan, Australia etc.
> >>> This not the Problem. The probllem is that you have to know what the
> >>> position. So it is about transparency and clarity.
> >>>
> >>> Here is a proposal how to move forward: We have seen so many people
> >>> writing long e-mails arguing for their position. Wouldn´t it be better
> if we
> >>> use this energy to write more comprehensive and structured position or
> issue
> >>> papers so that newbies or outsiders will better understand what the
> real
> >>> points under discussions are in CS circles? We have seen rather
> different
> >>> arguments around the same issue from JNC to APC and NCUC folks.
> >>>
> >>> I propose that we start to work on what I call a “Civil Society
> Internet
> >>> Governance Handbook”. This handbook would allow all CS groups within
> the
> >>> CSCG to present their own individual points of views so that everybody
> knows
> >>> what the positions are. The book could be structured into four main
> >>> chapters:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Human Rights (Access, Freedom of Expression, Privacy etc.)
> >>> 2. Security (Cyberwar, Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime etc.)
> >>> 3. Economic Development (Market domination, competition, infrastructure
> >>> development etc.)
> >>> 4. Technical Coordination (Names, Numbers, Protocols etc.)
> >>>
> >>> Each of the six groups under the CSCG (IGC, BB, JNC, NCSG, Diplo, APC)
> >>> could nominate four authors (one for each chapter). Each author would
> be
> >>> free to argue for her/his position (five to maximum teen pages). There
> is no
> >>> need for consensus. Every author would be free to present her/his
> radical,
> >>> moderate, liberal and whatsoever position on one of the four main
> issues.
> >>>
> >>> Such a compendium would help to bring more transparency into the
> process
> >>> and would enable a more fact based discussion in the IG events ahead
> of us.
> >>>
> >>> We could deliver this as an e-book (probably with an Annex with main
> >>> official texts as Tunis Agenda, Sao Paulo Principles, UN Resolutions
> etc.)
> >>> until the May 2015 Sessions in Geneva. In total this book would be
> around
> >>> 250 pages. If we find a sponsor we could publish this for the New York
> event
> >>> in December 2015. Such a book would seen by the rest of the IG
> Community as
> >>> a helpful contribution, it would strengthen the role of CS in the
> emerging
> >>> IG multistakeholder mechanisms and would be also an input into the
> WSIS 10+
> >>> process.
> >>>
> >>> The chair of the CSCG (together with the co-chairs from the six groups)
> >>> would be the editor.
> >>>
> >>> Any comment?
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> 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:
> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
--
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150126/56bef81a/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list