<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Bill<br>
<br>
Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles have considerably
changed </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">subsequent
to my email</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> from the
just 'multi-lateral, transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' to
include substantive aspects of '“should ensure an equitable
distribution of resources,
facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of
the
Internet, taking into account multilingualism.” I see it as a very very
significant progress from my point of view, and would request all
subsequent IGC statements to take note of this. You have asked me what
i meant by 'self-selected'. You know that you (and IGC statements)
have till now only spoken of the process related principles and not
these substantive principles which are obviously very important. Thats
self-selection :).<br>
<br>
Secondly, when I say all DoP is WSIS principles it is obvious that with
regard to IG we will only be counting those which can be seen in
relation to IG. (However i do read your statements of history of
negotiations with interest.) When IG is directly referred to in
detailing these principles so much the better, but I wouldnt hesitate
to apply other principles in WSIS docs to IG, thats the idea of
prefacing such summit docs with declaration of principles. I, as others
from civil society did during the last MAG meeting, will push for a
rights-based approach to IG as part of such WSIS principles taking from
the relevant DoP text on rights. <br>
<br>
Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy here,
and am spending time on this because I consider it an important
discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text to
the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful. <br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
<br>
<br>
William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:A59623CD-0466-46BC-B56F-712D32D54FC0@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi Ginger,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer
specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the
entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies
generally.</blockquote>
Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked ' WSIS
principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further clearer the
current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS principles include DoP
(Geneva declaration of principles) principles. To quote the paper
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.27cm;"><font
face="Arial, sans-serif">"This session builds on the WSIS Principles,
as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis
Agenda for the Information Society"</font></p>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not
surprising since that's the first official document in which the
principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in the
regional declarations etc). That doesn't mean that the WSIS principles
on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP (covering e.g.
e-education, e-health, etc etc etc). Indeed, the second bit you quote,
"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">as
contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis
Agenda," demonstrates the point. The entire Geneva DOP is not
contained in the TA. The WSIS principles on IG are, and they are
enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs.</span></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><br>
<br>
I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined
construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in para
72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral, transparent,
democratic and multistakeholder - that you mention. </div>
</span></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't know what self-determined means, it's been pretty clear
for years what everyone's been talking about, as the transcripts of the
consultations etc would demonstrate. But I would agree with you that
people have often been selective in invoking the principles, depending
on their objectives and the particular matters under discussion. As
I've written elsewhere (piece in Wolfgang's power of ideas book),</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Paragraph 48 establishes
guiding principles on the conduct of governance processes, namely that,
they
“should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full
involvement
of governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations.”
The latter point is amplified by Paragraph 49’s statement that Internet
governance, “should involve all stakeholders and relevant
intergovernmental and
international organizations.” Going further, Paragraph 50 holds that
Internet
governance issues “should be addressed in a coordinated manner.” While
this
point is raised as a preface to the call for the UN Secretary General
to
convene a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to study the
issues, the
need for coordination was invoked often enough in the course of the
WSIS
process to suggest that it stands as a generalizable principle as well.
Taken
together, these prescriptions constitute what could be called the
procedural
component of what came to be known as the “WSIS Principles on Internet
governance.”
In addition, Paragraphs 48-50 set out a substantive component, i.e.
that
Internet governance “should ensure an equitable distribution of
resources,
facilitate access for all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of
the
Internet, taking into account multilingualism.”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think it's clear that the agreed principles on IG include both
procedural and substantive components, and the latter pertain directly
to the notion that IG should promote development. I'd guess you'd
agree with that. But this is very different from saying that the rest
of the DOP that is not on IG can be characterized as the WSIS
principles on IG.</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">The present state of
discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position that WSIS principles
basically means all of 'DoP plus' which includes the four principles
that you mention. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The MAG doesn't have a mandate to redefine or reinterpret
international agreements or rewrite the entire history of the WSIG/IGF
discussions. It has a mandate to program a conference, and in trying
to figure out where to place discussions on programs in order to
satisfy stakeholders has frequently taken some liberties with concepts
etc. Moreover, the discourse you refer to is of course contested, with
the Chinese saying one thing, others saying other things, etc. So if
some parties are actually contending that the principles on IG include
every DOP provision on every issue concerning the global information
society, rather than just the ones on IG, then with all due respect
this is pretty far from dispositive. Utterances made in program
committee meetings for international conferences are not authoritative.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">In fact the compromise on the
rights debate in the MAG was that rights will now get discussed under
'WSIS principles' section in IGF - 4. I consider it as a major step
forward from a narrow 'process-oriented principles' approach that a a
few in civil society want to exclusively take to a broad ' substantive
principles' approach that was the real intent of TA and other WSIS
documents.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Both the procedural and substantive components can be viewed from a
rights perspective, although that would require a certain level of
conceptual precision. The text I was responding to was different in
scope.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So...if you are suggesting that a caucus statement on the
principles should go beyond the procedural component (which was the
focus of the prior statement I referenced) and cover the substantive,
we can readily agree. If you're saying that every last bit of the DOP
is actually about IG and/or that this is true because some people said
so in a MAG meeting, let's just agree to disagree rather than
subjecting the list to one of our patented bilateral soliloquies :-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>