[governance] (no subject)

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Dear all,
 
sorry for my late reply, just back in my office.
 
Here are some comments, probably based on an earlier version. Ignore if it does not fit.
 
1. Para 17 & 79 (FOE)
With regard to Freedom of Expression, Article 19 and Article 29, I recommend strongly, to avoid to be pulled again into a non-constructive debate. Referring to Article 29 gives more autocratic regimes an argument to justify restrictions on the individual right to freedom of expression in the name of "higher values" of the society as a whole. So keep this pandora box closed and stress the importance of the individual right to freedom of expression for the Internet. Full stop. Probably we can refer to the "Marrakesh Declaration" which has very clear languge about this.
 
2. Para 30, 31, 32 (MS)
With regard to the roles and responsibilities I propose to add a para which says that there is need to formalize more in detail procedures for interaction among the stakeholders on the global level with regard to concrete issues. Here we can make probably a difference between "full involvment in policy development" and "reasonable involvment in decision making" (where appropriate). Remember, the original ICANN Plan reserved 9 voting seats in the board for AL/CS. Now the role os more involvment in policy development (via liaisons etc.). We should be very clear, that we want to have procedures in place which guarantee (to a certain degree) that "input" leads to "impact". It is also important to make claar, that the multistakeholder principle, as introduced by the WSIS Declaration of Principles, is primarily for "international (global) policies". Insofar, it is correct to make a difference to "national procedures" as it is done in this para. But by recognizing the principle of sovereignty, we should be also celar, that on the global level (and in particular if it comes to Internet related issues) we have to go beyond the traditional understanding of "national sovereignty". So keep the reference to the principle of "national sovereignty" low, otherwise we strengthen the positions of governments which use this principle to justify restrictions in the name of the protection of their sovereignty. It is true, as Richard Beird has said recently in Milton´s conference, that our present system of international relations starts its thinking from the "national perspective". (And the USG does it every day with regard to all global issues - from the Rome Statute to the Kyodo Protocol). Governments are fighting for the national interests and international treaties are not more than a fair (sometimes unfair) balance  of these "national interests". But the Internet has paved the way for a new approach. There are now also interests of a global community, which goes beyond purely national interests. CS should use this opportunity to introduce an approach, where thinking starts from a "global perspctive" which later can be translated into national policies. I know this is a big challenge, but in the long run, there is no alterantive (at least for the so-called global problems). 
 
3. Para 40 - 47 (Forum Function)
I would recommend not to be too specific at this time. The long "to do list" is an invitation to create a new burocracy. While I agree that the Forum needs a clear mandate and a secretariat, this wish list at this moment is not so helpful. I support a continuation of the debate on this list about the details of the forum, but this should be introduced at a later stage in a seperate paper after more careful considerations. Here we can also make some comments on the role of the academic and research community, the idea of a "Global Academic Research Network on Internet Governance" (GARNIC), an advisory board etc.  
 
4. Para 48 - 71 (Oversight)
I agree that Option 2 is the closest one (probably with some elements of Option 3). But here again I would make a differentiation. Governmental oversight should be introduced only where needed. I do not see any need for governmental oversight for a number of issues, which can be better organized by the affected and concerned (global) constituencies. As said earlier, to "internationalize" oversight over the root could create more harm than benefits. On the other hand, unilateral oversight by one government is also not accaptable. I support fully the call for a special multistakeholder sub-working group at PrepCom3 to look deeper into this issue. Related to this point, I also recommend no to go into too much details with regard to the USG Statement from June, 30, 2005. Probably it makes sense to work on a special reaction to this statement, but at this stage our first priority is to comment on the WGIG report and not on comments to the WGIG report. Certainly I see the importance of this US statement (and I welcomed it in my intervention in Luxembourg as a contribution which fills a gap and completes the picture) but I would not mix it up here with our statement to the WGIG report.
 
Best and sorry for being late. Please ignore, if it does not fit.
 
wolfgang

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