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

Sat Dec 3 14:25:22 EST 2005

I agree with Avri's and Jacqueline's comments on this. We might have 
government involvement, but our vision of a pluralist governance at 
world level is valid for every other level, of course.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Jacqueline Morris wrote:

>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
>
>
>  
>

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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