[governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis

William Drake wdrake at cpsr.org
Sat Dec 3 04:49:50 EST 2005


Hi Ralf, (and all)

I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS
statement.  The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and
were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs.  So, in
accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the
debate and move toward closure for you.

The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the
draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th.  It reflected suggestions I
made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the group
in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept
this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed
reasonable to treat that text as agreed.  Since that time, to my knowledge
there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been
variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected'
principle would apply.  Some other points are still very much in the air.

1.  I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page
listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the
IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to
the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with
some success.  The language I suggested was:

"*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to
Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in
accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new mechanism
or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring,
and capacity building in the field of Internet governance."

According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, Avri,
Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee.  Nobody
objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that
other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view
anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on
IG.  In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the
arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't
objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as
agreed?  I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key
objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed.


2.  I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward
section on page 10:

"Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum
The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support
the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods
and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research
community, to these ends.  In addition, discussions are under way to
create a new working group that will make recommendations on the
modalities of the IGF."

Here things are more messy.  The folks mentioned above didn't disagree
with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first sentence,
but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were
expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should
not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that
the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on
relevant aspects concerning the IGF."  Avri said she's fine with either
formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect
this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that
want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would
bring this clarity.  Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil
society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I  don't
understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said
"Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the
forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might
evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge
separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus
or any new working group?,"  but did not suggest text.  Lee said "yay" for
the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all and
should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to
all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated
into two groups?"

That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, but
the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the event
you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment?

A.  "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum
The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support
the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods
and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research
community, to these ends."  Full stop.  Don't say anything about a WG
since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent
decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement.

B.  "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum
The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support
the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods
and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research
community, to these ends.  In addition, the caucus is considering the
creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the IGF,
and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas for
and participate in the IGF as well."  This second sentence would seem to
capture the various views expressed without committing us to any
particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever.


3.  Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read,
"Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has
advocated since 2003."  The multistakeholder clause would be new.  Nobody
has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this.


4.  Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs,
stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the
sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded
into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights,
non-discrimination, equal access etc. "  He did not suggest language. 
Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be
exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various
international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs
from the civil society at the national level."  Personally, I would favor
expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said
where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd
manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if
someone wants to try, great.  Otherwise,  I guess it'll have to be your
editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.


5.  A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording
of the last paragraph on public education.  While the general idea is easy
to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. 
There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and
the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus
list.  Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a path of
least resistance, but do what seems right.

> Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public
> awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four
> para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a
> role in shaping.  Clustering like points and having thematic sections that
> come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way
> constitute a downgrading of this important concern.

Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy list
and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so
whatever.

Basta.  Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other
folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your
task.  Thanks again for coordinating all this.

Best,

Bill

*******************************************************
William J. Drake  wdrake at ictsd.ch
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org
   Geneva, Switzerland
http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
Morality is the best of all devices for leading
mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche
*******************************************************


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



More information about the Governance mailing list