[governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance

[Parminder]

(To the excerpts from draft CS declaration) 

>>>> 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)

 

(Bill wrote)

>So we've decided to endorse the EU position?  When did we do this, I missed
>it?  

 

I agree with your earlier mail, Bill, that IG caucus should agree to a set
of basic principles (however broad) so that when discussions take place and
there are disagreements we try to resolve them with reference to these
principles. Because often differences which on the surface may look like
pertaining to a specific issue at hand, very often stem from deeper
differences at the levels of principles. 

 

Not that it means that the agreed principles remain sacrosanct and
unchangeable, but only that the discussions on basic underlying priciples
are resolved at the level of principles (where still, we know, there will be
disagreements but then we will know what these disagreements are). And more
contingent issues, like drafting documents and supporting stated positions
on the table etc, are resolved more easily in relation to an underlying
broad agreement (or a working arrangement) on priciples.

 

In the context of the above para in the CS draft (I must state here that I
did not do this draft) is not about accepting EU position or anything. It is
about broadly agreeing that 

 

1.    Political oversight of Internet is an important issue in itself, and
not a non-issue or a relatively un-important issue (which itself may be the
position of some). And if we agree on this, the acceptance of this reality
in Tunis docs needs to be welcomed. This is certainly a very important
development over the current IG regime, and its unstated philosophy. 

2.    And if political oversight is an important issue, and therefore means
of exercising it are to be developed, it is best to do so by developing 'a
set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of
Internet resources', rather than doing it in a ad-hoc 'as one pleases'
manner. 

3.    And if CS agrees that such a set of priciples need to be developed, it
is best to give some inputs on what the CS will like these priciples to be
based on (I want to speak here about some development aspects as well, apart
from rights perspective, but that separately) 

 

The quoted para from the draft CS declaration just follows the above logic/
priciples. Now the first point is whether we agree on these or not - and if
someone doesn't agree, then to state what are the principles behind such
disagreement. And it is open to be stated here whether there is some
conflict here with some previously 'agreed' principles. 

 

And if we do agree, we can all think of whether any improvement of language,
emphasis etc is needed to make our points more clear. 

 

>>>What kind of principles, set where, taking what form?>>>

 

Here the draft CS declaration merely asserts that the Tunis docs clearly
accept that some broad public policy principles are required 'that would
frame political oversight of Internet resources' and welcomes this fact. It
does not commit to 'any' specific set of such priciples. The two issues are
separate. However the next line tries to give some leads about the values
etc that these principles should take on from - one can add one's
preferences on this count to this line.  

 

>>>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.>>

 

Governments wanting their control over IG issues, and governments
recognizing that some broad public policy principles are required for
political oversight of IG, are two very different things - conflating these
two is wrong. The distinction between the two is very important. So,
governments realizing the need for developing such broad priciples can
sensibly be welcomed. We know that US government has never shown any
'realization' of need for developing such public policy principles
(internationalized or otherwise), and we followed their intense stubbornness
on this issue throughout the IG negotiations.  

 

In fact if these principles are developed properly, and CS remains vigilant
to ensure that, these can considerably reduce the problems of ad-hoc
political interferences. The next few lines in the draft declaration
highlight the issue of CS participation in the process of developing these
principles. 

 

If we agree on the 'principles' behind the text of the draft declaration,
comments on improving language, presentation, relative emphasis etc can be
discussed. For example, in 

 

> >Civil society persists in

>> its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not

> >involved in its formulation.

 

I agree with Bill's comment. 

 

>This is not a demand, it's an assertion.>

 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:20 AM
To: Governance 
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051129/9cb89c7a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance