[governance] RE: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version (McTim's changes)

[Garth Graham]

On 5-Jun-09, at 8:41 AM, gurstein wrote:

> Clearly this is not a consensus position as it doesn't, as Ginger  
> points out, respond (or include) my (or Garth's) comments.

Rather than repeat myself (although what I've been saying is quite  
scattered across several threads), here's wording to initiate  
discussion of an issue of basic definition  that a revised draft  
might include:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:52 AM
> To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; McTim; Michael Gurstein; YJ Park
> Subject: IGF Review Consensus Statement for Consensus (latest version
> (McTim's changes)
>
> .......

> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been  
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome  
> of the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and  
> congratulates the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its  
> successful implementation of the principle of mutlistakeholderism  
> from 2006 until the present.
>
> The IGC believes that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow  
> and broad Internet Governance issues among stakeholders involved in  
> the IGF process by providing workshops and dialogues based on the  
> mutltistakeholder principle.

Okay to there,  Then say ....

However, the IGC is concerned about two essential issues:

1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and  
the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum  
driven by decisions instead of discussion.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with near- 
unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the  
review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive  
participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review  
of the current process could be spent in the search for ways to  
foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country  
voices through, but not limited to, remote participation.

2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens  
understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance,  
particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.

Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration  
and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe  
that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition  
of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather than a matter  
negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society,  
“in their respective roles,”  if roles and identities are agreed to  
be self-determined then the definition must become: "The development  
and application by anyone of shared principles, norms, rules,  
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution  
and use of the Internet."

GG
  ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance