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

Tue Nov 29 12:03:06 EST 2005

>> How about "the principles set out in"  the treaties? Or "the civil and 
political rights protected by" the treaties?

After all, it's the rights we care about, not the treaties....>>>

I agree. In fact I myself thought the language could be better, but since
this particular language was submitted by the HR caucus, I deferred to their
choice of words. 

Parminder 

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:17 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch; 'Governance '
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance
[revised text suggestions]

How about "the principles set out in"  the treaties? Or "the civil and 
political rights protected by" the treaties?

After all, it's the rights we care about, not the treaties....

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Parminder wrote:

>
> Bill, the text reads well. Just two points for consideration of the group.
>
>
> One, replace the following line in para 3 (of Bill's text)
>
> These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote
> international human rights treaties."
>
> With
>
> These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote
> international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to
information
> and online opportunities for all, and promote development."
>
> Two, in para 1 about functions of forum, we speak about 'issues' in
general,
> and not specifically 'Internet related public policy issues' (the language
> of WGIG as well as of Tunis Agenda). I think the phrase 'Internet-related
> public policy' can be added before 'issues'.
>
> 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: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:16 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance
> [revised text suggestions]
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

-- 
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

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