[governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance

[Jeanette Hofmann]

William Drake wrote:
> 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?

I've asked but havn't got a reply yet.
My sense is that we are not the only caucus in need to discuss its text.
jeanette
> 
> 
>>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
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance