[governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
froomkin at law.miami.edu
Sat Dec 3 14:19:26 EST 2005
Without wading into the public good issue, may I wordsmith (B) a tiny bit?
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Let me try:
>
> (A)
> With regards to para 63, Civil Society believes that a country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD)
> is a public good of both people of the concerned country/economy and of global citizens who
> have various interests to the country/economy. As such, we recognize the importance of role
> of the respective governments to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should be
> exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in existing international
> treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full involvement of all
> stakeholders at the national level."
>
> If we have problem with the first sentence, that could be the case,
>
> (B)
> With regards to para 63, Civil Society recognizes the importance of role of the governments
> to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should be exercised in a manner that
add after comma: but emphasize that it must
instead of "it should"
> respects human rights as expressed in existing international treaties through a democratic,
> transparent and inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders, inter alia, the
> Civil Society, at the national level."
>
> Just a try...
>
> izumi sitting in Vancouver ICANN meeting
>
>
> At 10:41 05/12/03 -0800, Avri Doria 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
>
>
>
--
http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's warm here.<--
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list