[governance] Caucus process comment

[Vittorio Bertola]

Adam Peake wrote:
> The final version of our initial response is attached.  Do we want to 
> use this as a basis of our contribution to prepcom3, or start again?

I think we can use it as a basis - nothing really new happened - but I 
note that, now, the structure is a bit confusing; for example, about the 
forum, we are stating two paras in the initial statement, then three 
more paras in the long statement, then three further paras in the annex. 
If possible, we should just have one long statement rather than a 
general statement + annexes.

> Could we please begin discussing how we will respond for prepcom.
> 
> Ronda, Izumi: perhaps you could explain why you think "netizen" should 
> be included and how. It's become clear that netizen means much more than 
> just "user", that's why it didn't make it into the final version of the 
> initial response.

I'm not sure whether that means that there is no consensus here on the 
fact that users should have specific rights other than use the Internet 
and be quiet :-P

Seriously, ex post, I think it was a mistake for us in the WGIG not to 
stress much more the "people-centred" part of our vision for a fair 
Information Society. I would recommend adding a substantial section of 
the document (possibly expanding / unifying / deriving from the sections 
on human rights / privacy / access for all) reminding of the need for an 
accepted set of individual rights for Internet users, descending from 
the more general human rights list.

Personally, I would even like to add an explicit call for a sort of 
"bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet version of the UDHR, 
to be discussed by the forum and then perhaps adopted by the UN GA. I 
know some people have been campaigning for this and will try to raise 
this again at the PrepCom.

I can work on text if the caucus likes the idea.

> Vittorio: you had issues, could you please try to draft any changes.

Well, on the forum, this was the text I had proposed:

- as an additional, initial list item of the forum mission:

"a. Releasing non-binding recommendations developed by the forum or by 
its working groups, either on substantive policy issues or on procedural
matters regarding Internet governance processes"

- as an additional para:

"The forum should have clear procedures for the selection of members of 
an executive group, who would have the functions of facilitating 
consensus, organizing work and working groups, and formally adopting 
documents and recommendations. This executive group should be composed 
by a balanced number of representatives of governments, the private 
sector and civil society, self-selected by the respective constituencies 
with open and transparent processes, who would act as individual experts."

I know Avri disagreed on some of this, but could we discuss the matter? 
I would like to see my concern addressed, in the fact that either the 
forum is effective and able to take decisions, or the status quo won't 
change in practice, and we'll have lost a chance.

Generally speaking, it might be worth reaffirming the point (as per 
Karen's forward some time ago) that we support Karklins' view of IG 
follow-up as a separate item than WSIS follow-up, to be mainly dealt 
with by the new forum. (I know this vision is shared also by some 
goverments as well.)

> Understand about the desirability of using open source, but don't think 
> we'll get everyone to change applications in the next week or so. Anyone 
> wishing to use track changes, could you save in RTF.  I believe that's 
> the standard format we've been using in civil society when drafting.  

Sooner or later we should move to ODT, but, I guess, not before 
Microsoft decides to support it... (which may easily mean never).

Ciao,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance