Thanks Guru...
I am a part of the CS Internet Governance list and am aware of the interesting
discussions and debates :-)
For people who would like to monitor the discussion or jump in, please feel free
to subscribe to this open list (with open archives)...
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
But given there is diversity/difference of opinion, the question on what goes
into a charter now becomes a debate between two perspectives:
- to make it as a jumping point for more political/ideological
consensus-building within the Caucus; or
- keep it as a process document (i.e., a guide on the modes and mechanisms of
the caucus) for now
Given that there is very little online participation for whatever reason (i.e.,
only about 5 people are consistently posting), I think that we should start with
getting agreements on the latter without abandoning the discourse of the former,
both within and outside the Internet Governance Caucus. It is meant to be a
pragmatic view, given what I know will be the limits and possibilities of the
online discussion...
best
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Guru@ITfC <guru@itforchange.net>
To: <communication@wsisasia.org>; <apc.asia@lists.apc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:49 PM
Subject: [communication 1733] FW: [governance] charter 1.2
Dear Al(l) :-)
See email below and attached for an attempt to keep 'development' on the
front burner of the Internet Governance Charter .... Which we think is of
critical 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 PM
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria'
Subject: RE: [governance] charter 1.2
I 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 any
political content in. Non-political and generally meaningless content
passing as political content is a major subterfuge, often practiced by
status-quoists which we must avoid. If we cannot reach an agreement of basic
political vision for the group lets make it clear upfront.
And, in contribution to the process, after reading the rules, mentioned by
you, I propose we drop all options for vision (or mission) that does not
mention equity, human rights, social justice and development. (In fact I
also ask for inclusion of 'right to development', though Milton in a few
earlier 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 arguing
for vision/ mission options)I am not looking for spending my energies on
this or any other forum where the direction of activities are not guided by
these 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 directions
that 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 expend
my professional energies in that direction. I hope I made the distinction
clear. To re-state, I am only interested in working with this group if the
effort is to help Internet technologies contribute in direction of equity,
human rights, social justice and development. This is basic, and I
understand it is these kinds of things that are supposed to constitute the
broadest political vision of an individual or group.
I have been trying to avoid such confrontation, but it was appalling how
Milton could suggest
>>"justice" instead of "social justice" because I've always perceived that
as a confusing redundancy (what other kind of justice is there?)>>>
and out went 'social justice' from the draft to be replaced by a more
meaningful word 'justice'. BTW, Milton, if you really think 'social' in
social justice is a confusing redundancy you may also want to clarify with
your funders Ford Foundation who has this term - social justice - included
prominently among their three program lines. And since I know you are not a
lay man, but an academician, I know this is not your ignorance but your
politics.
And 'right to development' is taken as an un-necessarily"long phraseology on
whose conception of human rights" (again, of course, Milton). Most times, CS
is found fighting about non-inclusion of enough progressive language in
documents that are adopted officially in UN like conferences. It is quite
instructive therefore to see that we in IGC are not able to agree to
language that is already adopted recently in the WSIS (see Geneva
Declaration of Principles) and of course many times earlier. IGC cannot
escape these facts - so lets face them frontally.
Lets also read the CS declarations made after Geneva and after Tunis and
know where we stand vis-à-vis representing the wider civil society. Apart
being full of issues of equity and development, one notices that 'social
justice' is the first issue that both these declarations open with. So why
isn't there a single voice on this list to speak up when not only is the
term 'social justice' thrown out of the vision statement, it is described as
an irrelevant term.
Even to go by the process based description of IGC's mission as the charter
draft stands today - "representation of civil society contributions in
Internet governance processes" - whom are we fooling. WSIS related CS made
their views clear in its 2 declarations, why is this group unable to accept
even the single issue both declarations open with - social justice. Just
because others do not have the capacity and resources to be advocating their
cause strongly in the IG related CS forums, some very sectional interests
cannot take themselves to be the CS view or close by, and seek to position
themselves as the platform for "representation of civil society
contributions". The clear fact is that IGC, in its present form, cannot
aspire to this position - and lets accept us. Or do we need to look for more
proof.
And for someone who may claim that the WSIS CS isn't the whole CS, I agree.
But please do not try to look beyond, the CS outside the WSIS is even more
political.
So if a much broader element of the CS - the WSIS CS - can adopt more than
15-20 pages long declarations, I wonder what should be made out of our
inability of adopting a line or two of a vision statement.
And efforts to speak lowly or lightly about the very need to evolve any
principles at all (as I said, a typical status-quoist stance) is surprising
for a group which calls for governments to evolve "a set of Internet-related
public policy principles" . Why is IGC itself incapable of (or wary of even
trying with any seriousness for) evolving any kinds of principles for itself
(or for IG) at all.
Parminder
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 PM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] charter 1.2
On 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 06/20/2006