[governance] IGC questionnaire response to date

[Garth Graham]

On 12-Jul-09, at 5:41 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> I am posting this in such a rough form because we have very little  
> time. Please opine on substance. I will post an edited version  
> later today, so please do not take up editing and grammar issues--I  
> suggest we get consensus on substance first, and polish last.  
> Please post agreement / objections as soon as possible so we can  
> work them out.

I have now had a chance to review the rough draft, and later updates  
of specific questions, to see if the substance of a previous comment  
I'd made is included or covered by existing wording.  I don't see  
that it is.  As drafted, the response is more trees than forest, and  
I was pointing to the need to state a "civil society" role in  
defending fundamentals.  And, given the issues flagged and the  
wording in the responses to the first 6 questions, the only place I  
can see to include it would be under any other comments.

> 7. Do you have any other comments?

For the future, there is a need for ongoing discussions that evolve  
and deepen 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 even 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."

The IGC believes that civil society "in it's role" has a  
responsibility to advocate for the Internet's basic assumptions and  
principles as a fundamentally different view of the nature of  
governance.  The Internet is "open" because the rules about changing  
its rules are open.  One reason, perhaps the main reason, why IGF  
must continue to exist and to evolve is because the implications of  
those issues of "narrow and broad Internet Governance" for governance  
are only beginning to be understood.  Capacity of collaborating  
agencies at any level to use the Internet for development will be  
improved by a deeper understanding of, and agreement on, what the  
Internet's existence signifies.____________________________________________________________
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