[governance] draft statement

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Looks OK although I am not sure what you mean by "Finally we have grave
concern about the the level and application of International law, especially
with relation to human rights, of the cooperation models.". There are issues
on how Iwhat is public and private international law in ICT field.
International law in Human Rights is often countered by the argument of
national sovereignity. Perhaps the words they already use in WGIG e.g.
"freedom of expression" or even "right to communicate" which ITU and others
discuss, may be better received and they can mean the same thing- just a
suggestion. 
 
As for cooperation models, sounds good but again it is new territory so are
you referring to any particular model that countries have agreed to under
international law. Do you mean they have to give everyone equal voices in
this new cooperation model. We tried to invoke some "trust" or "cooperation"
models used under the "common heritage of mankind" principle- if you read
our statement. Under that concept, again there are no real models that apply
as they currently are cooperative models between stakeholders but civil
society is a new player there too. We are in new ground, and other than
that, no real issue other than let's be clear to get the best effect.
 
Thanks for the hard work you and others have put into trying to get
statements out and to help the process along.
 
Regards,
Laina
signing off at midnight in Singapore
 
 

  _____  

From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:50 PM
To: Izumi AIZU
Cc: Governance Governance Caucus; Jeanette Hofmann
Subject: [governance] draft statement


with edits done (even fixed one of my own typos]

& do you still have the same concerns after this meeting?  i added a line on
human rights.



Statement on new chapter 5 proposals
Sep 29
 
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus

 
 
Good evening everyone.
 
My name is Izumi Aizu of Glocom speaking on behalf of the Civil Society
Internet Governance Caucus.
  
First, we welcome the fact that Subcom A has finally started to discuss the
core issues .
 
Civil society welcomes the proposal made this morning by the delegation of
Canada. We think it embodies the Geneva Principle of multi-stakeholdership
including the full and equal participation principle, and greater emphasis
on inclusion from developing parts of the world. We also welcome the
explicit recognition of the WGIG process, the open consultation process. 
 
With this encouraging proposal from Canada, Civil Society would like to
reiterate our position on participation: We seek for full and equal
participation of all stakeholders as a matter of principle and a matter of
practice. 
 
On the proposal made by the European Union, we have carefully read and
analyzed it and have come to the following conclusion. First, we like to
thank EU for having informal consultation with Civil Society this afternoon.
We had very constructive meeting and made a meaningful dialogue. As we said
during the meeting, we have some concerns and reservations in the following
areas.
 
While we also believe that some adjustments or improvement is necessary in
the area of Internet Governance, including that of the current ICANN
framework,  we do not agree that governments alone should be given any
special role over other stakeholders as is expressed in this new EU
proposal. We do not agree with the language in para 63. which says "with the
special emphasis on the complementarity between all the actors involved .
including governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations each of them in its field of competence;", we have problem
with "each of them in its field of competence " which would confine our
ability for full engagement, especially since the agreed language in para
42c attempts to limit civil society to community  activity.

We do appreciate your inclusion of the 'end-to-end principle' in para. 63
since that gives the maximum level of freedom to users at the edge of the
network.
 
We also do not support "Para 64. Essential tasks" as a whole. We do not
think that the areas described from a) to e) in specifics should rest under
the sole involvement of international government involvement, which is
clearly against the multi-stakeholder principle WSIS has agreed with.
 
We also do not agree with the limited duration of the Forum.  We see the
need for the periodic review as is described in Canada proposal, but are not
in full support of the default sun-set provision the EU proposes. With the
same concern, we have doubts about the 2 phase approach of creating the
Forum first, finish that, and then starting the transition. 

Finally we have grave concern about the the level and application of
International law, especially with relation to human rights, of the
cooperation models.
 
We hope that EU together with other colleagues here in Geneva will find ways
to improve these areas and come together for mutually agreeable solution.
Again we need true multi-stakeholder practice with full and equal
participation.
 
Thank you very much.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050929/1c32675c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance