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

William Drake wdrake at cpsr.org
Wed Nov 30 03:11:32 EST 2005


Good morning Ralph,

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

> --> I will check back later tonight if there is an agreement on the IG
> part. Would be glad if I can just copy&paste and replace the text below.

As you know, the text has evolved and a bunch of people have weighed in,
so please don't use the old text you copyedited, which the caucus never
discussed and agreed.  We of course don't have clear and fixed procedures
in place to reach closure, but perhaps once the text seems stable Adam or
Jeanette can issue a 'last call' for objections from Vancouver.

> --> We also need a para from this caucus for the last part "IV. Where to
> go from here – our Tunis commitment":
>
> "Element two:
> How CS is going to structure itself to engage with the IG forum [wait for
> outcome of IG caucus meeting – whether a specific WG would be setup to
> make recommendations on the modalities of functioning of the
> future IG forum]"

This will not be resolved in time to fit into the statement.  There's been
no follow-up discussion on Avri's proposal or any others with respect to
the caucus' constitution and procedures going forward.  It's anyway not
obvious that a statement of view on what governments agreed has to say how
exactly we will organize internally.

Below the current version with amendments reflecting input from Parminder
and Froomkin last night.  I still think para 6 is pretty orthogonal to the
issues on the table and, by extension, all the position statements we've
made (can imagine government people asking, what's your point here), and
that it would be better moved to a section on info society generally, but
whatever.


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
Internet-related public policy 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.

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.

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 protect and promote
the principles of international human rights treaties, ensure equitable
access to
information and online opportunities, and promote development.

4.  It is 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.

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.

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.

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



More information about the Governance mailing list