[governance] draft statement

[Avri Doria]

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/20050929/366b3149/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance