[governance] UPDATE: CS comments, edited initial response

[Adam Peake]

Ian, Karen thanks for your comments and editing.

Might be easier for people to see where we are 
suggesting the main changes if they are in email 
and text, so they re copied below.  I will try to 
send the redlined document separately (seems we 
have a 200k limit on file size, which is 
sensible.) I have sent text about the root, NTIA, 
etc. separately, try to keep things focused.

We have used the initial response as the basis 
for our comments.  Karen rearranged them so the 
followed the order of the WGIG report.  Hope the 
following is clear. New text is marked by [new] 
... [end new].  I am not copying minor edits (one 
or two words) unless they cause some significant 
change.


* The WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance 
Caucus expresses its strong support and 
appreciation for the process and outcome of WGIG. 
[new] We believe WGIG achieved the mandate set 
for it by the WSIS Geneva Declaration of 
Principles and Plan of Action. [end new]

* Definition of Internet governance. karen asked 
if we should refer to history, ian tentatively 
suggested adding [new] a fuller understanding of 
the history of the Internet can reveal to us the 
extent to which our understanding of what the 
Internet is has changed over the last decade, and 
we can expect that the future will bring with it 
new challenges and new understandings. [end new]

* Issues in need of further development or absent from the report

We are concerned that some issues, which we 
consider to be priority public policy issues 
requiring immediate attention, are not included, 
or are not addressed significantly/substantially 
in the WGIG report. [new] We also note that two 
issues, "Allocation of domain names" (para 21) 
and "Intellectual property rights" (para 23), are 
identified as important issues relevant to 
Internet governance, but the report makes no 
corresponding policy recommendation in Section V, 
B. [end new]

* Adapting and implementing WSIS principles 
within existing intergovernmental and 
international organizations is an area that needs 
urgent attention. [new] This should be a priority 
issue for the proposed forum to consider. [end 
new]

*c. Internet Stability, Security and Cybercrime¹

Governments should address privacy and security 
jointly and transparently, in cooperation with 
all stakeholders. Invasions of privacy must be 
prevented, and where privacy is outweighed by 
other societal claims there must be clear rules, 
subject to independent judicial oversight, 
setting forth the conditions under which it can 
be violated. [new] We strongly support paragraphs 
24, 25 and 81, 83 of the report: measures taken 
in relation to the Internet on grounds of 
security, stability or to fight crime must not 
violate rights to freedom of expression or rights 
expressed in Article 19 and Article 29. [end new]

* We appreciate the attempt to recognize the 
roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, 
government, civil society, private sector in 
internet governance processes. However, we are 
concerned that the specific roles of the civil 
society and the private sector in relation to 
that of government are not fully defined, 
allowing for ambiguous and/or different 
interpretations. [new] WSIS Declaration of 
Principles, para. 49 on which WGIG based its work 
is flawed, as it fails to recognize the 
multi-faceted nature of ICT policy making 
processes and makes simplistic assignments of 
responsibilities.  Consequently, paragraphs 
30,31,32 read as a hastily compiled "shopping 
list" of roles and responsibilities.[end new]


(Next is new text to argue why CS should be 
involved ongoing, in the initial response we were 
strongly advocated for an increased role of CS, 
but only as a statement, no reasoning, so Karen 
suggested following)

* [new] Policy development in relation to 
internet governance specifically, and ICT policy 
more generally, is becoming more and more the 
realm of international and intergovernmental 
spaces.

12. [original] The caucus acknowledges that 
sovereign rights of governments should not be 
compromised [end original] [new] and that in some 
cases, national level policy-making is inclusive 
of civil society and other stake-holders. In such 
cases, it could be surmised that the interests of 
civil society are advocated effectively through 
government delegations, particularly where such 
delegations include civil society and other 
stakeholders.

However, we must acknowledge that truly effective 
"bottom-up" national policy-making processes, 
that include the meaningful participation of 
civil society and other stake-holders is not 
universal, and that international spaces are 
often important avenues for national civil 
society delegates to make their voices heard.

We strongly advocate for a mutually reinforcing 
process of support for "bottom-up" national level 
multi-stakeholder processes and an enabling 
environment for meaningful participation by civil 
society in public policy processes at regional 
and international levels, given the expanded 
diversity of stakeholders in this context. [end 
new]

* Forum function

[new] The forum should be established on 
condition that there is agreement on its scope, 
structure, membership and modalities, and that 
its activities are fully funded for an 
appropriate period of time (example, 2 years.) 
The caucus recommends that Sub-Committee A create 
a multi-stakeholder working group to address 
these and other issue regarding the forum 
function. [end new]

[new]
  i. monitor governance mechanisms to ensure they 
are open to and facilitate the participation of 
developing nations and civil society.
j. assist and support organizations and other 
entities dealing with Internet governance issues 
to improve their coordination and exchange of 
information.
k. provide a clearing house for coordination, 
resource mobilization, identification of new 
needs and gaps, in relation to supporting 
meaningful developing country participation and 
capacity building.
[end new]

* Oversight

[new] The caucus finds model one to be unworkable 
and not in keeping with the inclusive processes 
recommended throughout the WGIG report. Model two 
is clearly the most workable, and is favored by 
most civil society respondents, however, aspects 
of other models, particularly the importance of a 
host nation agreement, should be considered in a 
final model. [end new]

Suggest creating a multi-stakeholder working 
group under sub-committee A to look at 
oversight/models.

(root etc separate)

* Conclusion

[new] We recommend that Sub-committee A establish 
a multi-stakeholder working group to make 
suggestions on scope, structure, membership, 
modalities and funding models for the forum.[end 
new]

[new] We recommend that Sub-committee A establish 
a multi-stakeholder working group to make 
suggestions on oversight. A majority of CS 
respondents tend to favour Option 2, however 
aspects of other models, particularly the 
importance of a host nation agreement, should be 
considered in a final model.[end new]


Thanks,

Adam




At 8:03 AM +1000 8/13/05, Ian Peter wrote:
Hi Karen, a few comments here and there attached. In particular I've tried
to tidy up the root zone authorization response which was repetitive.

I also suggested the following as regards four models, which people might
like to comment on. If we can say something here, we should - I suggest

"A majority of CS respondents tend to favour Option 2, however aspects of
other models, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement, should
be considered in a final model."


Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2005 2:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: CS comments, edited initial response

hi all

i've rearranged the doc as promised, and made some additional comments

some proposed language, some comments

i do hope others will look over this before it has to be sent - which is
end monday aug 15th

attached in MS and OOs formats - both need tidying up when finalised text
is in - paragpraph numbers, remove blank spaces etc

karen

-- 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance