<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
William Drake wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite">Hi
<br>
<br>
Various...
<br>
<br>
On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't mean to belabor the point but I just don't understand the claim
we'd be making. DoP 48 and TA 29 say
<br>
<br>
29. We reaffirm the principles enunciated in the Geneva phase of the
WSIS, in December 2003, that the Internet has evolved into a global
facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a
core issue of the Information Society agenda. The international
management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and
democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private
sector, civil society and international Organisations. It 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.
<br>
<br>
Where are the repeated mentions of rights that the governments who
agreed these words would recognize?
<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">TA 29 reaffirms some of the
principles enunciated in the DoP, which it then goes on to detail.
Where does it say that it exhausts what could be called as "WSIS
principles'. It is as well to read the term WSIS principles as the
whole DoP as relevant to the issue at hand. <br>
<br>
<big>Section 31says '</big></font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2"><font size="2"><big>We
recognize </big><span style="font-weight: 400;"><big>
that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva
principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive,
development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society'</big>.<br>
<big><br>
Is Geneva principles the same as WSIS principles or are they different.
Para 72 1 speaks of 'embodiment of WSIS principles in IG processes',
and then para 81, still under IG section speaks of '</big></span></font></font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2"><font size="2"><big>commitment</big><span
style="font-weight: 400;"><big>
to the full implementation of the Geneva Principles'. Are they the same
or different - and what are they. <br>
<br>
If you take it that the part on IG in DoP is what is WSIS principles,
which would be para 48 onwards, would not the para 49 of your dreaded
(and I agree with you on this) 'respective roles' part also be WSIS
principles? <br>
<br>
I can understand that your arguments may have some logic as discussions
went during WSIS, but it is really not clear which set may definitively
be called as WSIS principles, and therefore it is not far-fetched at
all to consider DoP (as applying to IG) as WSIS principles, and it is
from there we pick up the rights angle which is our present effort to
push. We have been able to get some traction in the MAG to get rights
issue into IGF discussions under this label, and we simply do not want
to backtrack ourselves, when there are enough on the other side who are
ready to use all such logic. </big><br>
</span></font></font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">So, Id suggest let the
rights section stay where it is, and not only that, we also keep using
( and intensify our efforts) for positioning rights as a part of WSIS
principles which we would like to see embodied in all IG processes -
which is one of the major agenda related gains that civil society have
achieved for IGF Sharm. If we accept that rights are not a part of WSIS
principles we will be forfeiting our right to discuss rights under the
main session on WSIS principles at the next IGF. Let us be aware of
that fact. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch"
type="cite"><br>
If people really want to wed the rights agenda just to the IG
principles, fine, but there is a difference between advocating
something and insisting that it is already there when other parties
that negotiated the words will not recognize this as their intent. How
does this help the caucus' credibility? Moreover, the next sentence
needs cleaning up too, it was lifting from a statement complaining
about rights not being central to a particular meeting's agenda. And
it's not obvious what "the IGF has side-tracked efforts" could mean
(the MAG has sidetracked?), that a majority (of what?) has favored a
rights perspective, or that promoting a rights perspective is a central
obligation of the IGF (unless we're going to read what we want into the
mandate paragraphs as well).
<br>
<br>
I'd suggest something like,
<br>
<br>
"The WSIS principles on Internet governance can be viewed from a
rights-based perspective. Unfortunately, proposals to make such a
perspective central to the IGF's deliberations have been rejected."
<br>
<br>
On this
<br>
<br>
On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">In this connection, IGF is still to
achieve any clear success in the area
<br>
of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different
<br>
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet'
<br>
(section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental
<br>
organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview'
(72
<br>
c).
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any
clear
<br>
success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or something
<br>
similaR
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
It is a matter of fact.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Facts is one issue to take into account, the context of evaluation is
another. No doubt, there will be no lack of harsh reviews. While I
fully agree that we have to mention the areas where the IGF hasn't done
enough and needs to do more. Yet, we are all aware that this is not a
matter of laziness or lack of care but often due to a lack of consensus
among the MAG.
<br>
</blockquote>
I support Ian's 2 softening suggestions.
<br>
<br>
I personally don't see "still to achieve" as being all that negative.
However, I remain uncomfortable throughout with language that makes the
IGF sound like a centrally managed organization that has intentionality
and chooses to ignore this or that. I'd rather we said something like,
<br>
<br>
"Due to a regrettable lack of consensus among participants, the IGF has
not achieved...."
<br>
<br>
Finally, on recommendations,
<br>
<br>
On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Important point, thank you for bringing this
up, Ian.
<br>
As a compromise, could we perhaps qualify the statement by saying that
"some of the caucus members are of the belief that in the long
term..."?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think advocates of recs mean long-term. How about we replace
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole
will suffer in the
<br>
long term it does not prove its value to the international community
<br>
by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements
<br>
on Internet public policy issues.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
With
<br>
<br>
"Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where
appropriate.' IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the
requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met. IGC
members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly
favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of
recommendations. Since significant disagreements on this matter have
colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes
it is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing
multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever
could be appropriate and on the possible implications of such
negotiations for the IGF's unique character."
<br>
<br>
Or something like that...trying to reflect that we're divided but it'd
be good to get this issue out into the sunlight and clarify the
reasoning of the respective parties, rather than having it buried in
back channels. Let the proponents of each view make their case in an
open manner, respond to counter-views, etc. Consensus would be highly
unlikely (especially since IGF has no decision making procedures, or
members for that matter) but the process might be constructive if
handled right, and might help undermine the China/ITU argument that
since IGF doesn't do recs it's useless.
<br>
<br>
Bill
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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>