<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=WINDOWS-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi Ginger,
<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>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.4 (Linux)">
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
<style type="text/css">!--
@page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><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>
<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. 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. 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>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C3657C25-E375-40EB-B445-99D511C6481E@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">As such, the text below is a total non sequitur that will
leave other parties wondering whether the IGC no longer understands the
negotiations it has participated in and the positions it has advocated
for the past seven years. I oppose including such language. It would
be preferable to build off of one of the relevant statements on the
matter that were laboriously negotiated and approved back when more
people were participating, but unfortunately we don't have a complete
archive and I don't have everything saved anymore. However, I do see
at least one text online that could be adapted, from Feb. 2008,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8">www.igcaucus.org/node/8</a>
<br>
<br>
[The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations.” Governments invoked these principles throughout the
WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, “promote and
assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in
Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any
follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate.
The Internet Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic
activity in this arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government’s
statement that implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as
a cross-cutting issue at the core of all IGF discussions. To help
kick-start that cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main
session in Hyderabad concentrate on two WSIS principles of general
applicability for which progress in implementation can be most readily
assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation. The session could
consider patterns of practice across Internet governance mechanisms,
and identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.]
<br>
<br>
We could just delete "To help kick-start that cross-cutting
consideration, we propose that a main session in Hyderabad" and suggest
that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of those
principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis mandate.
Could also reference and support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative as a
building block for such an effort.
<br>
<br>
If you want to re-pitch a rights framework, it would be better to do so
in under, "7. Do you have any other comments?" In that context, it
might also be good to cite examples that pertain to global Internet
governance, rather than national policy (or alternatively, to contend
that relevant issues of national policy like universal access should be
subjects of GIG, although then presumably we'd have to say how).
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
<br>
Bill
<br>
<br>
On Jul 12, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the
WSIS principles?
<br>
<br>
Principle 1 of the WSIS principles states:* We, the representatives of
the peoples of the world*, *assembled in Geneva from 10-12 December
2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information
Society,* declare our common desire and commitment to build a
people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society,
where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and
knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve
their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and
improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and
principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully
and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
<br>
<br>
A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on Human
Rights. Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and
principles a significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a
minority of voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of
the IGF.
<br>
<br>
The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of
openness and universal access. This framework must continue to
emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in
Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals
to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in
keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant
aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
<br>
<br>
The inclusion of " rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of
the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each
other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should
govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>