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

[Ginger Paque]

Bill, Garth, Michael and all....

Good to see some discussion. Thanks. While I do think it is valid to 
re-submit a text for consideration, right now we are on a very tight 
schedule, and I do not think we have time to resolve this discussion 
before our July 15 deadline..

I suggest that we continue the discussion on this point, but that we 
remove it from the questionnaire for now.

Is that acceptable?

Best, Ginger

Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Without arguing the merits of the case for including this under #7 (I think
> without a huge amount of preparatory explanation this will come at the
> reader as being from way in the outfield), it should be noted that Garth is
> not "opposing" the definition from the original document but rather
> suggesting an update on it based on evolving (technology and other)
> circumstances... something, that in my opinion is quite legitimate either
> here or elsewhere and particularly in a field evolving as rapidly as ours.
>
> (I was giving my fifth annual version of an Introduction to Community
> Informatics course last week here in Toronto and I realized that the minor
> throw away sub-section that I had included in my first syllabus on "virtual
> community networking" should now probably be taught in a course all on its
> own on the more widely recognized "social networking"!)
>
> Whatever the institutional biases of folks in their IR towers, the language
> and substance of governance (Internet and otherwise) is evolving, perhaps
> not at Internet speed (too many institutional barriers) but certainly at
> dog's life speed.
>
> MBG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:02 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> Subject: Re: [governance] Q7 "civil society" role in defending fundamentals
>
>
> 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
>
>
>   
____________________________________________________________
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