[governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals

[Ginger Paque]

Garth Graham wrote:
>
> 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.
Thanks Garth.
Here is the text proposed by Garth for Q 7. Please opine, as this 
contains some wording that must be discussed. Garth, can you give us the 
definition of "Internet model" of IG that you are using, please?

Thanks! Best, Ginger


7. Do you have any other comments?

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

Garth Graham wrote:
>
> 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