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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph.  As I have pointed  
out often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake  
when we accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over  
ccTLD.  Yes, I believe they need to be operated in the countries'  
interests, but do not beleive that should be automatically construed  
as translating to sovereignty.

It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no  
reason for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it  
so.

I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's  
responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights,  
privacy rights and equality of access.


a.


On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions.
>
>
>
> One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the  
> global CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of  
> governments recognized in the point 63 should be exercised.
>
>
>
> The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me  
> almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone  
> on this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its  
> inclusion - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text  
> on IG.
>
>
>
> I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for  
> others people's comments, if any.
>
>
>
> >>>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.>>>
>
>
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
>
> IT for Change
>
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>
> 91-80-26654134
>
> www.ITforChange.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- 
> bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM
> To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de
> Cc: Governance
> Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement  
> on Tunis
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051203/edec7fd1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance