<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">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-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 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-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 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></body></html>