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

Sat Dec 3 13:55:05 EST 2005

As I've said before, I disagree with Governments equalling country re
sovereignty over ccTLDs - I believe that it's the country's ccTLD,
which is held in Trust by the government or whoever/whatever holds
that trust on behalf of the country and the people of the country, but
the two are not necessarily equal, to me. So, I agree partially, but I
would prefer:

the recognition of the  sovereignty of COUNTRIES (delete governments)
over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general
principles which includes all human rights,non-discrimination, equal
access etc.

And the rest  - international treaties or whatever language others
prefer - I'm cool with. I agree that the HR stuff should be included.

Jacqueline

On 12/3/05, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>

--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

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