Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:19:33 +0530 From: "Guru@ITfC" <guru@itforchange.net> Subject: [communication 1733] FW: [governance] charter 1.2 To: <communication@wsisasia.org>, <apc.asia@lists.apc.org> Message-Id: <20060620134932.89A85434042@sk04.jca.or.jp> X-Mail-Count: 01733Dear Al(l) :-) See email below and attached for an attempt to keep 'development' on thefront burner of the Internet Governance Charter .... Which we think is =ofcritical importance to most of us in Asia ...._____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore ________________________________From: Parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:59 PMTo: governance@lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria'Subject: RE: [governance] charter 1.2I think we need to decide first if we will put any political content in =-either as a vision, or as a part of mission - or we will NOT put anypolitical content in. Non-political and generally meaningless contentpassing as political content is a major subterfuge, often practiced bystatus-quoists which we must avoid. If we cannot reach an agreement of =basicpolitical vision for the group lets make it clear upfront. And, in contribution to the process, after reading the rules, mentioned =byyou, I propose we drop all options for vision (or mission) that does notmention equity, human rights, social justice and development. (In fact Ialso ask for inclusion of $BAS(Bight to development’, though Milton in a =fewearlier mails put a gag order against use of that term).To make my politic clear (and I want to know that of others who are =arguingfor vision/ mission options)I am not looking for spending my energies onthis or any other forum where the direction of activities are not guided =bythese principles. Believe me, much as I like the Internet, and use it a =lot,I am not interested in spending my time on Internet improving in =directionsthat will merely make it more useful for its present dominate users, =like me(for example). I will surely like it to so develop, but I would not =expendmy professional energies in that direction. I hope I made the =distinctionclear. To re-state, I am only interested in working with this group if =theeffort is to help Internet technologies contribute in direction of =equity,human rights, social justice and development. This is basic, and Iunderstand it is these kinds of things that are supposed to constitute =thebroadest political vision of an individual or group.I have been trying to avoid such confrontation, but it was appalling howMilton could suggest >>"justice" instead of "social justice" because I've always perceived =thatas a confusing redundancy (what other kind of justice is there?)>>>and out went $BAT(Bocial justice’ from the draft to be replaced by a =moremeaningful word $BAK(Bustice’. BTW, Milton, if you really think =$BAT(Bocial’ insocial justice is a confusing redundancy you may also want to clarify =withyour funders Ford Foundation who has this term – social justice - =includedprominently among their three program lines. And since I know you are =not alay man, but an academician, I know this is not your ignorance but yourpolitics. And $BAS(Bight to development’ is taken as an un-necessarily$BGM(Bong =phraseology onwhose conception of human rights” (again, of course, Milton). Most =times, CSis found fighting about non-inclusion of enough progressive language indocuments that are adopted officially in UN like conferences. It is =quiteinstructive therefore to see that we in IGC are not able to agree tolanguage that is already adopted recently in the WSIS (see GenevaDeclaration of Principles) and of course many times earlier. IGC cannotescape these facts – so lets face them frontally. Lets also read the CS declarations made after Geneva and after Tunis andknow where we stand vis-à-vis representing the wider civil society. =Apartbeing full of issues of equity and development, one notices that =$BAT(Bocialjustice’ is the first issue that both these declarations open with. So =whyisn$BCU(B there a single voice on this list to speak up when not only is =theterm $BAT(Bocial justice’ thrown out of the vision statement, it is =described asan irrelevant term. Even to go by the process based description of IGC$BCT(B mission as the =charterdraft stands today – $BES(Bepresentation of civil society contributions =inInternet governance processes” – whom are we fooling. WSIS related =CS madetheir views clear in its 2 declarations, why is this group unable to =accepteven the single issue both declarations open with – social justice. =Justbecause others do not have the capacity and resources to be advocating =theircause strongly in the IG related CS forums, some very sectional =interestscannot take themselves to be the CS view or close by, and seek to =positionthemselves as the platform for $BES(Bepresentation of civil societycontributions”. The clear fact is that IGC, in its present form, =cannotaspire to this position – and lets accept us. Or do we need to look =for moreproof. And for someone who may claim that the WSIS CS isn$BCU(B the whole CS, I =agree.But please do not try to look beyond, the CS outside the WSIS is even =morepolitical. So if a much broader element of the CS – the WSIS CS – can adopt =more than15-20 pages long declarations, I wonder what should be made out of ourinability of adopting a line or two of a vision statement. And efforts to speak lowly or lightly about the very need to evolve anyprinciples at all (as I said, a typical status-quoist stance) is =surprisingfor a group which calls for governments to evolve $BEB(B set of =Internet-relatedpublic policy principles” . Why is IGC itself incapable of (or wary of =eventrying with any seriousness for) evolving any kinds of principles for =itself(or for IG) at all.Parminder ________________________________________________Parminder Jeet SinghIT for Change, BangaloreBridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message-----From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 PMTo: Internet Governance CaucusSubject: Re: [governance] charter 1.2On 16 jun 2006, at 11.14, Avri Doria wrote:>> I am not sure what is the process being followed whereby some >> suggestions>> get listed as new options along side earlier ones, and some >> suggestions get>> listed as text over-writing earlier options.in rereading my answer i see i did not answer this completely.- my general urge is to remove options. i would like us to be able to vote on a charter that has no options.- if someone sends in alternative text, i add it as an option (as i did with Miilton's orignial text)- if someone then writes suggesting that something be removed of altered, i ask the group before doing so (for the most part - i am making some decisions on my own which i know people might object to - e.g. i did not ask for approval for my rewrite of Objective 3 before putting it out.>> This is much less than even the number and process of the>> drafting group.>> The drafting group was open to all and those who wanted to first crack at the charter joined. However, the drafting group has no ownership of the draft charter. when it was passed to the caucus at large it beame a draft that belongs to the caucus as a whole.>> The list was as silent when the initial>> draft was posted as it is now, when the text is pretty much >> reversed in>> substance.>> the list was not silent - otherwise I would have made no changes.On the subject of substance. As I see the goal is to write a charter that governs the process of the caucus. all of the political substance, vision etc, is purely optional and is something that only belongs there if we can find words the entire caucus can live with. The setting up of the grand vision for the caucus and its specific positions is something that will be done after we have a charter with an agreed upon process and real coordinators. for now, anything controversial in vision or other politically or theoretically sensitive areas needs to be dropped.a.1733_2.rfc822 (attatchment)(tag is disabled)