[governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance

[William Drake]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann

Thanks for sending this.  How quickly do we need to move, what's Ralf's
time frame?

> C. Internet Governance
>
> Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the
> creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that
> it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe
> need to be dealt with.

I would not say "its proposal."  While CS people were the earliest
advocates on record, it would be a fair bet that many government people
will not remember what we said in the Geneva CS Declaration, or what some
of us wrote or said in subsequent consultations prior to the creation of
the WGIG.  Probably more will remember the proposal from Talal (VC of
UNICT TF) at the 11/04 Berlin meeting.  Others may have no idea where the
idea came from, or prefer to believe that it came from them (I heard
precisely this from one of the key Like Minded Countries).  As such, such
language may look a bit like grandstanding and self puffery which, given
the sensibilities of some about CS and the prospect of sharing the floor
with us in the Forum, might not be advantageous.  Ditto "we are
satisfied."  And I wouldn't use deal and dealt with.

I would suggest instead:

"Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet
governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated since well before the WGIG
process.  We also are pleased that it will have sufficient scope to deal
with the issues that we believe must be addressed."

> We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this
> forum will be created and on how it will be funded.  We insist that the

I think it's odd to decry an absence of details that were never
contemplated for inclusion in the Tunis language and indeed were not
necessary at that stage.  The feeling among government proponents was
precisely that the only way to get it through was to leave these vague for
now and set up a process to sort things out later.  As the latter will be
done, it seems premature and a bit rookie-ish to be wagging our finger at
them on this; I would delete the first sentence.

> modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil.

"society."

> We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas
> of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full

Second clause is not parallel.  Suggest,

"We would like to emphasize that success in the IGF, as in most areas..."

> participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely
> playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and
> influencing outcomes.

Construction doesn't make sense, 'playing' and 'in' not parallel.  Do we
want to demand that we will influence outcomes, which sounds like we want
an up front guarantee before we've earned it?

Suggest,

"By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory
role.  Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both
plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have
the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and
outcomes."


> The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical
> Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement.  It is also
> important that governments realized the need for the development of a
> set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of
> Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect
> and promote international human rights treaties (HR caucus)

So we've decided to endorse the EU position?  When did we do this, I
missed it?  What kind of principles, set where, taking what form?

We should not say that it is "important that governments realized the
need" both because the tone is pedantic and because those who favor this
patently realize the need, they've said it.
>
> It was important that governments realized that developing these
> principles should be a shared responsibility.  It is, however, very

Again, the tone is a bit off-putting, at least to me.

> unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only
> willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in
> cooperation with international organisations.  Civil society persists in
> its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not
> involved in its formulation.

This is not a demand, it's an assertion.  One that I'm not sure I
understand, as stated.

> With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention
> that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be excercised in the context

exercised

> of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights,
> particularly freedom of expression and privacy.

Hmm....39, to which it is integrally linked, says "This culture [of
security' requires national action and increased international cooperation
to strengthen security while enhancing the protection of personal
information, privacy and data. "  And this is then followed by 42, which
states, "We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive,
impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation
and dissemination of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to
ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter
spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of
expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles."

Are we just saying that HR needs to be mentioned each time security is
mentioned?


> To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the
> public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet
> understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated,
> what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime,
> Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights.
>   Therefore the ongoing creation of public awareness is the
> responsibility of everyone involved in the governance and development of
> the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms.

Uh, sure...What's our point in saying this, as opposed to the many
substantive hot topic things the statement does not say?  It seems an odd
use of limited space, and an odd point on which to end.

Sorry, but I'm just a bit puzzled, overall.  In general, and with all due
respect to whomever, I think our earlier agreed texts were better.

Best,

Bill


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