[governance] IGF workshop on 'framework convention on the Internet'

[Parminder]

Hi everyone,

 

I was wondering whether - though IGC did not give any substantive inputs for
IGF - we can do a couple of workshop proposals. This is much easier since
the group only needs to identify that a topic is important rather than agree
on a set of issues all the way...

 

I was going through the inputs given by various CS actors to the IGF
process, and it strikes me that many of them have called for a more formal
process of integrating 'progressive' values into the IG system. And to this
end, for employing a global process for developing some higher level
principles for IG.

 

IGF has proposed a 'framework convention' (FC), Vittorio speaks of adopting
a 'Internet bill of rights', and the contribution of my own organization
builds the case for a development agenda (which as I proposed earlier on
this list, can only be operationalised through a FC kind of a approach). 

 

(An improved version of our submission to IGF - A Development Agenda for
Internet Governance - Call for a ‘Framework Convention on the Internet’ - is
enclosed)    

 

Other submissions like by HR caucus, APC, Civil Society Working Group-
Scientific Information, WSIS Academia, Education and Research Task force, IP
Justice,  ..... also make points which, more of less, do tend towards some
kind of international policy framework incorporating various values and
often a rights framework. APC has earlier called for a convention process in
its submissions during the WSIS.  

 

(Council of Europe’s submission also speaks about

“The notion of the Internet’s public service value and the role of key
actors in this connection should therefore be discussed in the framework of
Internet Governance.”

And 

“Proactive Internet Governance measures to ensure that states discharge
their duties vis-à-vis the public and the common good require international
cooperation, for example by developing both appropriate 

.and normative
texts which elaborate and map out the principles and values of the
Internet”.)

 

Altogether there seems to be a considerable body of opinion in CS about a
‘framework convention’ kind of a process. Enough at least for us to discuss
this issue at the IGF. 

 

It also appears to me that the vague wordings in Tunis agenda speaking of
“enhanced cooperation” involving all stakeholders for developing ”globally
applicable principles on public policy” is itself something that can be
interpreted in the above light. In any case in the first quarter of 2006 UN
Secy Gen was supposed to start a formal process for this ‘enhanced
cooperation’ but I haven’t heard anything on this. (Is there something that
I have missed?) And what is surprising is that no one is speaking about this
at all.  

 

Obviously, no talk on the above issue suits those who are served well by the
present IG dispensations. 

 

I think there is space for much more substantive discussions at IGF than
what its agenda (and possible outcomes) as listed on the IGF website
indicates. In fact, even the US indicated recently that IGF should be a
place where the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet can be taken
up.

 

Under the circumstance it appears the build-up to IGF is not such that holds
promise for optimizing a pretty good opportunity. And the first meeting will
decide much about what really IGF stands for. And if we do not work now
towards keeping a strong political process alive at IGF, it will very easily
be reduced to an annual conference
  

 

CS, and especially IGC, has special responsibility in this regard to lead
issues especially of the higher political level. A ‘development agenda in
IG’ and ‘call for a framework convention on IG’ are two such political
issues on which workshops can be held. Our enclosed paper combines the two
issues. This may appear to present the FC issue in a rather partisan way
(which is intended for a specific purpose). But since the appeal for FC kind
of process is much wider, I propose that IGC supports a workshop on ‘a
framework convention on the internet’ and discuss its context,
justifications and possibility.      

 

Since there seems to be no formal process right now for agreement in IGC for
sponsoring such a workshop, I am not sure how this can go forward. But I
think the topic of a workshop itself is less controversial than a
substantive position and that we can agree with some proposal for IGC
sponsored workshops. And I propose the above one
.

 

Parminder  

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060818/42a36b28/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: A Development Agenda for IG - ITfC.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 51652 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060818/42a36b28/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060818/42a36b28/attachment.txt>