[governance] IGF Review process - comments: IGC statement?

[Parminder]

Quick comments, will read in detail and come back again.

i support Bill's opposition to the now bracketed part which is giving a 
new definition of IG. I also oppose use of any phrase like 'Internet 
model of IG' in the earlier para.

I would have liked to be more constructive and offer text here in the 
last few days, but I have been for a few different reasons been off-work.

However, as I earlier suggested there a lot of IGC text of IGF review in 
the last year or so and it will be good to pick chunks form it since it 
already has support. I of course support the parts on inclusiveness and 
participation levels in the text below.

I do think even if we have sent a lot of statements and text to IGF 
before, it is very useful to get text into the synthesis document. It 
may get read by important players as they prepare and present their view 
on IGF reform.



parminder

Ginger Paque wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> There has been no comment on Bill Drake's re-posting of the IGF 
> Secretariat's questions, which I have posted at the bottom of this 
> email for your reference. In the case that the IGC has something to be 
> included in the synthesis paper, we would need to have a consensus 
> statement by July 15th.
>
> In our last attempt (June) at a consensus statement, the two biggest 
> problems seemed to be that a) some people feel the proposed statement 
> is too critical and/or not supportive enough of the IGF Secretariat's 
> work. I have re-read the proposed statements and find them to be 
> supportive, but including suggestions, as the Secretariat requests. 
> Please take a look and comment again.
>
> b) some people feel the statement is not substantive enough. I ask 
> that anyone who would like to add to the statement please post 
> proposed text.
>
> Below is a combined proposal, mostly of Michael Gurstein's and Garth 
> Graham's previous suggestions:
> The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
> actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
> the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and congratulates 
> the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on acceptance of the principle of
> multi-stakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC believes 
> that the IGF has raised awareness of both narrow and broad Internet 
> Governance issues among those stakeholders involved in the IGF process 
> by providing workshops and dialogues based on the multi-stakeholder
> principle.
>
> [We feel however, that at least from the perspective of civil society. 
> this principle has not been fully implemented since many of those with 
> an active, even a crucial interest in the health and deployment of the 
> Internet have for a variety of reasons not been engaged in this 
> process.] [This bracketed text opposed by Jeanette Hoffman] 
> The IGC is particularly concerned about two essential issues:
>
> 1. The lack of participation by the developing world in the IGF and
> the counter-proposal to create an exclusively intergovernmental forum
> driven by decisions instead of discussion. [Ginger: I think this is 
> two points in one and should be separated]
>
> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with
> near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the
> review  should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive
> participation.   More importantly, the energy not needed in a review of
> the current process could be spent in the search for ways to foster
> more active inclusion of rarely heard and developing country voices
> through, but not limited to, remote participation.
>
> And here we include for example, Indigenous peoples worldwide, people 
> with disabilities, rural people and particularly those who are the 
> poorest of the poor and often landless or migrants, those concerned 
> with promoting peer to peer and open access governance structures 
> built on an electronic platform, those looking to alternative modes of 
> Internet governance as ways of responding to specific localized 
> opportunities and limitations, and those working as practitioners and 
> activists in implementing the Internet as a primary resource in 
> support of broad based economic and social development.
>
>
> 2. The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens
> understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance,
> particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.
>
> [Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection,
> integration and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we
> believe that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG
> definition of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather than
> a matter negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil
> society, “in their respective roles,”  if roles and identities are
> agreed to be self-determined then the definition must become: "The
> development and application by anyone of shared principles, norms,
> rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the
> evolution and use of the Internet."] [This bracketed text opposed by 
> Bill Drake][Ginger: I would completely eliminate number 2, or make it 
> much more specific]
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090710/d1fa37fc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance