<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Dear Wolfgang.. thanks for raising this.. when I wrote that message I
was actually going to include the CS 2003 declaration URL.. but I was
so busy that I did not. <br>
<br>
It is a very strong document. I looked at it recently, and it contains
many issues which have not been focused on in WSIS follow up, but which
are important and relevant for internet governance and public policy,
such as copyright, the public domain, global citizenship, and more. <br>
<br>
Even the title is an important reminder: "Shaping information societies
for human needs".<br>
<br>
I support Wolfgang's suggestion that we work toward a new declaration. <br>
<br>
We hope to use a new Global Information Society Watch interactive
webspace (which will be launched in 2011) to ask civil society to
reflect on what has been achieved (or not) in terms of the 2003
declaration we developed.<br>
<br>
The Tunis phase civil society declaration is at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/contributions/co13.doc">http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/contributions/co13.doc</a> <br>
<br>
Its title is "Much more could have been achieved" :) As a matter of
interest, I paste below what it says about internet governance....<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<style type="text/css">h2 { margin-bottom: 0.11cm; }h2.western { font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; }h2.cjk { font-family: "DejaVu Sans"; font-size: 12pt; }h2.ctl { font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; }p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }</style>
<h2 class="western" lang="en-US">Internet Governance</h2>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><font
face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="2">Civil
Society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet Governance
Forum (IGF), which it has advocated for since 2003. We also are
pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the
issues we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of
existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other
cross-cutting or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally
dealt with within current arrangements. However, we reiterate our
concerns that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing
specialized international organization, meaning that its legal form,
finances, and professional staff should be independent. In addition,
we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a place for
dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also
provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building,
including in close collaboration with external partners in the
research community.</font></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><font
face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="2">We
are concerned about the absence of details on how this forum will be
created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities
of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with Civil Society. We
emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet
governance, will be impossible without the full participation of
Civil Society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a
mere advisory role. Civil Society must be able to participate fully
and equally both in plenary and any working or drafting group
discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other
stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes.</font></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><font
face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="2">The
Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical
Internet resources in its paragraphs 69 to 71. This, in itself, is an
achievement. It is also important that governments recognized the
need for the development of a set of Internet-related public policy
principles that would frame political oversight of Internet
resources. These principles must respect, protect and promote human
rights as laid down in international human rights treaties, ensure
equitable access to information and online opportunities for all, and
promote development.</font></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><font
face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="2">It
is important that governments have established that developing these
principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very
unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only
willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in
cooperation with international organisations. Civil Society remains
strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and
legitimate public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires
the full and meaningful involvement of non-governmental stakeholders.</font></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><font
face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="2">With
regard to paragraph 40 of the Tunis Agenda, we are disappointed that
there is no mention that efforts to combat cyber-crime need to be
exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by
fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and
privacy.</font></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><font
face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="2">With
regard to paragraph 63, we believe that a country code Top Level
Domain (ccTLD) is a public good both for people of the concerned
country or economy and for global citizens who have various linkages
to particular countries. While we recognize the important role of
governments in protecting the ccTLDs that refer to their countries or
economies, this role must be executed in a manner that respects human
rights as expressed in existing international treaties through a
democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full involvement
of all stakeholders.</font></font></p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><br>
</p>
<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-US"><font
face="Verdana, sans-serif"><font size="2">To
ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes
place in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to
better understand how core Internet governance functions – as for
example, DNS management, IP address allocation, and others – are
carried out. It is equally important that these same actors
understand the linkages between broader Internet governance and
Internet related matters such as cyber-crime, Intellectual Property
Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building
and economic development. The responsibility of creating such
awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present
involved in the governance and development of the Internet and
emerging information and communication platforms. Equally it is
essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the
Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will
emerge.</font></font></p>
<h2 class="western" lang="en-US"><br>
<br>
</h2>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 29/10/10 15:43, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07358@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Je34an Louis
I agree, however the CS Delcaration is listed among the official documents on the WSIS Website.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/geneva/index.html">http://www.itu.int/wsis/geneva/index.html</a>
With other words, it is not a forgotten document and we should do something that it is remembered in the years ahead. Why not to work towards a new CS Declaration 2015. I expüect that with the WSIS Forum 2011 we will see something - led by governments - towards 2015. With so many new issues it would be a good opportunity to re-organize CS along the WSIS Plenary experience in 2011 and to draft an plan how to move towards 2015 from a CS perspective (as part of a multistakeholder approach)
wolfgang
________________________________
Von: Jean-Louis FULLSACK [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jlfullsack@orange.fr">mailto:jlfullsack@orange.fr</a>]
Gesendet: Fr 29.10.2010 15:22
An: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Betreff: re: AW: [governance] New CSTD consultation on WSIS follow-up
I fully agree Wolgangs views and proposal. Progress made in WSIS goals' achievements is also to be measured with regard to our own ones.
I'd just recall what I still consider as a major failure in the so laudated multistaholderism. When we finalized our Declaration and launched it, we all emphasized and demanded that our Declaration was to be considered as an official WSIS document, in the same capacity as the intergovernmental Declaration and the Plan of Action. I was one of those of us who interceded with Adama Samasekou to obtain this consideration. In vain. That was a major disappointment for the most of CS organizations at the end of the Geneva Summit.
That's why I'm still rather "agnostic" towards the multistakeholder cult, especially when it comes to be a model for future global governance.
Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>