[governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text suggestions]

[William Drake]

Hi,

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

> Lee McKnight wrote:
> > Ralf,
> >
> > If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that
> > should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks.
>
> I will only take edits that are agreed by the caucus. I can't really
> follow the discussion here in the next few days, as I am terribly busy
> with other stuff. So if there are agreed changes from the caucus,
> Jeanette
> or Adam should send me and Karen the finalized language (to
> cs-dec at wsis-cs.org) and save us from keeping track of the discussion here.

Ralf, this is a bit difficult due to timing.  You want to finalize
immediately, but as far as I know there's been no previous discussion of
the text sent yesterday, and many people are probably traveling to or in
Vancouver and hence not reading the list.

You asked me earlier today to make concrete changes.  Below is a revised
text reflecting tweaks I suggested yesterday, to which Lee and Wolfgang
were generally favorable.  Adam seems broadly ok, but is concerned about
funding and independence from ITU; I tried to hit that note.  I think
Parminder also was broadly ok with them, he can correct me if I'm wrong. 
He and I can simply agree to disagree as to whether the 'principles'
passage will be interpreted as endorsing the EU's text insertions into the
Agenda; it doesn't really matter here.  Personally, I'm fine with the
language, but of course there are other actors that wouldn't have
preferred it (USG, business), and there might be someone here who feels
the same way, which is all I was trying to flag.  Better to get buy in at
the front end than to have post hoc objections.

In the event that we are able to get some quick dialogue, I have added
para numbers for referencing which can be deleted later, and contrasted
the new suggested texts side-by-side with the original passages.  If
people prefer the latter ok, either way let's get some views on the table.

How would the below sit with people?

Bill
--------

C. Internet Governance

1.  "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet
governance Forum (IGF), which it has variously advocated since 2003.  We
also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the
issues that we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of 
existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting
or  multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within
those arrangements.  However, we reiterate our concerns expressed during
PrepCom-3 that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized
international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and
professional staff should be independent.  In addition, we reiterate our
view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue.  As was
recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, 
trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration
with external partners in the research community."

[Reasons: a) important to specify the issue types, as this is contested;
b) not anchored, because it's key as Adam says, and Khan pushed me on it
when I said it in SubCom A---they'd like to use ITU's common services, and
the Russian language goes further; c) need to insist on the analytical
component, which governments often drop and which was underplayed in the
Agenda, or we'll end up with nothing but a talk shop.]

[WAS: 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.]

2. "We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full
cooperation with civil society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as
in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full
participation of civil society. 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."

[WAS: 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
modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil.
We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas
of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full
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.]

3.  "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 recognized 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."

[only change here from original is substitution of "recognized" for
"realized," less pedantic and consistent with diplo language. ]

4.  "It it important that governments have established that developing
these principles should be a shared responsibility.  However, it is very
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 remains
strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate
public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and
meaningful involvement of nongovernmental stakeholders."

[WAS: It was important that governments realized that developing these
principles should be a shared responsibility.  It is, however, very
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.]

5.  "With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no
mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the
context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights,
particularly freedom of expression and privacy."

[No change from original except corrected spelling of exercised, although
I'm personally not sure this text is needed, since the connections between
security/cybercrime/etc and human rights are invoked just prior and just
after the paragraph we're challenging.]

6.  "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."

[No change from original.  I'm unclear on the value-added, but if people
feel differently, fine.]

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