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

[William Drake]

Hi,

On Jul 12, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

>
> 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.

I'm a bit confused by the process we are following here.  This text  
was dropped in the June discussion after some of us pointed out that  
it fundamentally misunderstands the definition of IG, all the politics  
surrounding it, and the role and positions of the IGC on the matter.   
Other parties to the WGIG, WSIS and IGF would rightfully think we've  
gone a bit nuts if we turn around and now oppose something of which we  
were the principal and most consistent advocates.  Hence, if the  
process we're following is that previously discarded texts must be re- 
opposed, I oppose inclusion of this material.

My previous response on this included below for reference.

Thanks,

Bill


On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:45 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:15 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence  
>> of response on the list as lack of time or interest for a  
>> particular issue.
>
> And also lack of support, which a number of people expressed re:  
> this statement.  There were also expressions of interest in using  
> the next month to generate something more substantial and useful.
>>
>> 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."
>
> Perhaps a bit of memory would be helpful here. The definition was  
> drafted by IGC members in WGIG and advocated by us for months there  
> and beyond in WSIS.  Its adoption helped put aside some very  
> confused, debilitating, and self-serving battles among governments,  
> 'interested' IGOs (guess which), business, tech community etc and  
> helped the WSIS move on to a nominally successful conclusion  
> including establishing, IGF based on this understanding of IG.  It  
> would therefore be a bit odd for us to call for abandoning one of  
> our more definable contributions to the process.  This is especially  
> so since the above language reflects a misunderstanding of the  
> definition.  The definition does not in any way say that IG is  
> necessarily negotiated among governments, the private sector and  
> civil society.  IG can be imposed by particular actors, it can  
> emerge from within a single stakeholder group, it could in principle  
> even be spontaneously emergent rather than negotiated (custom),  
> etc.  And the definition already reflects an understanding that IG  
> can be developed and applied by any actors, so if that is the  
> concern it has already been met.  One can read the WGIG report and  
> the WGIG background report for elaboration on these points, or the  
> related scholarly and policy literatures.  Finally, as has been  
> discussed here before, one should not get hung up on the "respective  
> roles" clause in the definition, this was just a purely political  
> sop to a few insistent government reps in WGIG (particularly Saudi  
> Arabia and Iran) that wanted it understood that governments are  
> always and everyone supreme and singularly responsible for public  
> policy, which is empirically, obviously untrue (see, e.g., ICANN).   
> The clause has been of no practical significance to subsequent  
> discussions or processes and is generally understood for what it is,  
> a non sequitur artifact of doing conceptual work in a UN context.

____________________________________________________________
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