[governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Sat Dec 3 14:11:29 EST 2005
I agree. While in theory it is the people (and thus also individual
users) who is the souvereign, in practice things tend to look a bit
different. So, I think it is in our interest to stress the principles,
responsibilities and limits of governmental authority.
jeanette
Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed out
> often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we
> accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes,
> I believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but do
> not beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to
> sovereignty.
>
> It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason
> for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so.
>
> I would prefer that we use language that indicates a
> county's responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights,
> privacy rights and equality of access.
>
>
> a.
>
>
> On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global
>> CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments
>> recognized in the point 63 should be exercised.
>>
>>
>>
>> The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me
>> almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on
>> this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its inclusion
>> - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text on IG.
>>
>>
>>
>> I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for
>> others people's comments, if any.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs,
>>
>> stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the
>>
>> sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded
>>
>> into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights,
>>
>> non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language.
>>
>> Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs
>> "should be
>>
>> exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various
>>
>> international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse
>> inputs
>>
>> from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor
>>
>> expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said
>>
>> where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt
>> we'd
>>
>> manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if
>>
>> someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your
>>
>> editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on
>> this.>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________
>>
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>>
>> IT for Change
>>
>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>>
>> 91-80-26654134
>>
>> www.ITforChange.net
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
>> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM
>> To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de <mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
>> Cc: Governance
>> Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on
>> Tunis
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ralf, (and all)
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS
>>
>> statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and
>>
>> were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in
>>
>> accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the
>>
>> debate and move toward closure for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the
>>
>> draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I
>>
>> made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the
>> group
>>
>> in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept
>>
>> this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed
>>
>> reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my
>> knowledge
>>
>> there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been
>>
>> variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected'
>>
>> principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page
>>
>> listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the
>>
>> IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to
>>
>> the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with
>>
>> some success. The language I suggested was:
>>
>>
>>
>> "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive
>> approach to
>>
>> Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in
>>
>> accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new
>> mechanism
>>
>> or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend
>> monitoring,
>>
>> and capacity building in the field of Internet governance."
>>
>>
>>
>> According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette,
>> Avri,
>>
>> Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody
>>
>> objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that
>>
>> other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view
>>
>> anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on
>>
>> IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the
>>
>> arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't
>>
>> objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as
>>
>> agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key
>>
>> objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward
>>
>> section on page 10:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum
>>
>> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and
>> support
>>
>> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods
>>
>> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research
>>
>> community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to
>>
>> create a new working group that will make recommendations on the
>>
>> modalities of the IGF."
>>
>>
>>
>> Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree
>>
>> with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first
>> sentence,
>>
>> but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were
>>
>> expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should
>>
>> not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that
>>
>> the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on
>>
>> relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either
>>
>> formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect
>>
>> this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that
>>
>> want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would
>>
>> bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil
>>
>> society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't
>>
>> understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said
>>
>> "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the
>>
>> forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might
>>
>> evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge
>>
>> separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus
>>
>> or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay"
>> for
>>
>> the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all
>> and
>>
>> should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to
>>
>> all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated
>>
>> into two groups?"
>>
>>
>>
>> That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence,
>> but
>>
>> the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the
>> event
>>
>> you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment?
>>
>>
>>
>> A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum
>>
>> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and
>> support
>>
>> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods
>>
>> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research
>>
>> community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG
>>
>> since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent
>>
>> decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum
>>
>> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and
>> support
>>
>> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods
>>
>> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research
>>
>> community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the
>>
>> creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the
>> IGF,
>>
>> and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas
>> for
>>
>> and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to
>>
>> capture the various views expressed without committing us to any
>>
>> particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read,
>>
>> "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet
>>
>> Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has
>>
>> advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody
>>
>> has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs,
>>
>> stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the
>>
>> sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded
>>
>> into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights,
>>
>> non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language.
>>
>> Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs
>> "should be
>>
>> exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various
>>
>> international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse
>> inputs
>>
>> from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor
>>
>> expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said
>>
>> where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt
>> we'd
>>
>> manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if
>>
>> someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your
>>
>> editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording
>>
>> of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is
>> easy
>>
>> to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too.
>>
>> There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and
>>
>> the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus
>>
>> list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a
>> path of
>>
>> least resistance, but do what seems right.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public
>>
>>> awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the
>> four
>>
>>> para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a
>>
>>> role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections
>> that
>>
>>> come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way
>>
>>> constitute a downgrading of this important concern.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy
>> list
>>
>> and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so
>>
>> whatever.
>>
>>
>>
>> Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other
>>
>> folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your
>>
>> task. Thanks again for coordinating all this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> *******************************************************
>>
>> William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch <mailto:wdrake at ictsd.ch>
>>
>> President, Computer Professionals for
>>
>> Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org <http://www.cpsr.org>
>>
>> Geneva , Switzerland
>>
>> http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series
>>
>> http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
>>
>> Morality is the best of all devices for leading
>>
>> mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche
>>
>> *******************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> governance mailing list
>>
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list