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

Sat Dec 3 21:45:56 EST 2005

I too spoke only of national sovereignty over ccTLDs and not
governmental.......

I think Izumi's formulations look a good basis for agreement. 

Parminder 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net 

  _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:12 AM
To: Parminder
Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch; bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de; 'Governance'
Subject: Re: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on
Tunis

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/20051204/27d6ebed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance