<!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">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">All<br>
<br>
I have not been able to figure out at all what is lost by keeping the
rights part here in Q 2 , and also linking it to WSIS principles. I
have already pointed out to the fact there is no precise definition of
the term, and it is open to a range of interpretations, as seen by the
secretariat linking the DoP to this question, as also the discussions
in MAG. Why would we not choose the interpretation that most suits us
today, which also seems to have some official support. <br>
<br>
I have argued earlier that if we give up the linkage of rights to WSIS
principles we will be compromising the gains we have made about
inclusion of rights in WSIS agenda, whereby rights are to be discussed
in Sharm in the session on WSIS principles. <br>
<br>
Also if the linkage can be built, we can use the IGF mandate, para 72
(i) to assess embodiment of 'WSIS principles' in IG processes to
included assessment of 'rights' in IG processes. The thing we
principally want to do today. <br>
<br>
I would want to text to stay as it is, and also where it is, ie Q 2.<br>
<br>
To accommodate Bill's concern<br>
<br>
I am ready to change the sentence - 'A reading of the WSIS principles
shows repeated mention of rights' <br>
<br>
to ' a reading of Geneva declaration of principles shows repeated
mention of rights' ...<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
<br>
Ginger Paque wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A5F264C.3060406@gmail.com" type="cite">Bill and
all,
<br>
<br>
Q2 the issue of rights, particularly the section:
<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>
<br>
Is it acceptable to say the following, and also apply Bill's suggestion
to move this section to Q7?
<br>
<br>
The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the
Internet Governance agenda. 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>
(this continues as below, and would be moved to Q7 with the above)
<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
<br>
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. Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that
should govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
<br>
<br>
gp
<br>
<br>
<br>
William Drake wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
I'm sorry but this means nothing. We can't reinterpret the whole
history of negotiations and tell governments you think you agreed to x
but actually you agreed to y because Chengetai or whomever put a link
to the whole doc rather than correct section, which isn't possible in
this case.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5 articles
of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I agree with
Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
By recognizing that these are references to the UDHR etc at the front
of a text about the info society generally, not a statement that
multilingual domain names, net stability, transparency or anything else
are recognized by the parties as rights. Which again is not to say that
one couldn't view and advocate those points from a rights perspective.
The ONLY "right" that is specifically mentioned/agreed in the WSIS
principles on IG is in 49, which says states have the (apparently
exclusive) right to make public policy.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options--
<br>
(Q6 also)
<br>
A) that we use this shortened version:
<br>
<br>
The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to
provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be
used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater
diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage of IG
activities with the broader range of civil society concerns
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agree
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">in for example the areas of poverty
alleviation, the environment and gender.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
FWIW the caucus has previously made statements about the need for the
IGF to focus on IG per se rather than ICT4D and questioning unclear
links to environmental policy.
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
<br>
Bill
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>