[governance] CS statement comments

[karen banks]

hi wolfgang

** please read Version 4 before commenting - i think your comments are 
probably in response to version 2**

>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.

text has been completely revised with all refs to Art 29 removed.. - please 
check latest - Version 4

>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).

wolfgang, you'll need to propose exact language at this point, we have 
about 30 minutes ;)


>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.

avri agrees - someone needs to make a call on this - i know that many 
people appreciated seeing the detail during the report meeting

** i think if we leave the list out - we have to be clear that we have put 
thought into such detail but will leave our contributions til prepcom **

>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.

again, i'll need replacement/revised text at this point if you want to get 
language in

thanks for all wolfgang, considering you've only just got back

karen


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