<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 15, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Parminder wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch" type="cite"> 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. </font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'd say it reaffirms THE principles on IG as listed in DoP 48-50 and consistently referred to by all as the principles.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Again, here we have to agree to disagree, but insofar as I've never heard anyone else contend that the whole DoP are the principles on IG, including here, I don't see how we can credibly submit a statement premised on this expansive claim.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> <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></span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I guess you read that as a statement of rights? I don't. To me the principles are the "should" provisions, and these are not stated as rights (though, again, one could read them from that perspective and try to build a case etc).<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2"><font size="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;"> <big><br> Is Geneva principles the same as WSIS principles or are they different. </big></span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>different from principles on IG</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2"><font size="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;"><big>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></big></span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I believe the reference there is to the principles on IG. Loose writing. Happens in negotiations.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2"><font size="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;"><big> <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></big></span></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>As I noted the other day in the bit of article I quoted, 48-50 can be viewed as such, although 50 was really mandating WGIG. I am thankful that 49 has never been referred to as "the principles on IG" anyplace that I can recall, it's well worth forgetting.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2"><font size="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;"><big> <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></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I understand your intentions but think advocacy in the MAG about the Sharm program and what are the IG principles are two separate things.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2"><font size="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;"> </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></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Understood. But we're in total disagreement on this, alas. I would have thought it sufficient to stick to a formulation that all can agree on,</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:5C759FCC-13B1-4C27-9236-20ED688C8119@graduateinstitute.ch" type="cite">"The WSIS principles on Internet governance can be viewed from a rights-based perspective.</blockquote></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Whereas you want to assert "A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights," which I and I suspect some others just don't see. Since we can't resolve this bilaterally we need to hear from more people. I'll go with whatever majority sentiment is, if there is one, we're not negotiating a nuclear arms treaty, I've said my piece and will not hari kari if the caucus ends up saying something that makes no sense to me. </div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><br></div></body></html>