[governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder

On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Parminder wrote:

> William Drake wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ginger,
>>
>> The secretariat's questionnaire and the Tunis mandate refer  
>> specifically to the WSIS principles on Internet governance, not the  
>> entire Geneva Declaration of Principles on information societies  
>> generally.
> Not quite true Bill. The secretariat questionnaire hyperlinked '  
> WSIS principles' to the Geneva Declaration. To make it further  
> clearer the current program sheet makes it clear that WSIS  
> principles include DoP (Geneva declaration of principles)  
> principles. To quote the paper
> "This session builds on the WSIS Principles, as contained in the  
> Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda for the  
> Information Society"

That the questionnaire links to the Geneva Declaration is not  
surprising since that's the first official document in which the  
principles are agreed (unless you want to count earlier version in the  
regional declarations etc).  That doesn't mean that the WSIS  
principles on IG are now understood to mean the entire DOP (covering  
e.g. e-education, e-health, etc etc etc).  Indeed, the second bit you  
quote, "as contained in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the  
Tunis Agenda," demonstrates the point.  The entire Geneva DOP is not  
contained in the TA.  The WSIS principles on IG are, and they are  
enunciated in a limited number of paragraphs.
>
>
> I have consistently opposed in the IGC a narrow self-determined  
> construction of the meaning of 'WSIS principles' as mentioned in  
> para 72 of TA to the four process issues - multilateral,  
> transparent, democratic and multistakeholder -   that you mention.

I don't know what self-determined means, it's been pretty clear for  
years what everyone's been talking about, as the transcripts of the  
consultations etc would demonstrate.  But I would agree with you that  
people have often been selective in invoking the principles, depending  
on their objectives and the particular matters under discussion.   As  
I've written elsewhere (piece in Wolfgang's power of ideas book),

Paragraph 48 establishes guiding principles on the conduct of  
governance processes, namely that, they “should be multilateral,  
transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments,  
the private sector, civil society and international organizations.”  
The latter point is amplified by Paragraph 49’s statement that  
Internet governance, “should involve all stakeholders and relevant  
intergovernmental and international organizations.” Going further,  
Paragraph 50 holds that Internet governance issues “should be  
addressed in a coordinated manner.” While this point is raised as a  
preface to the call for the UN Secretary General to convene a Working  
Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) to study the issues, the need for  
coordination was invoked often enough in the course of the WSIS  
process to suggest that it stands as a generalizable principle as  
well. Taken together, these prescriptions constitute what could be  
called the procedural component of what came to be known as the “WSIS  
Principles on Internet governance.” In addition, Paragraphs 48-50 set  
out a substantive component, i.e. that Internet governance “should  
ensure an equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for  
all and ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking  
into account multilingualism.”

I think it's clear that the agreed principles on IG include both  
procedural and substantive components, and the latter pertain directly  
to the notion that IG should promote development.  I'd guess you'd  
agree with that.  But this is very different from saying that the rest  
of the DOP that is not on IG can be characterized as the WSIS  
principles on IG.

> The present state of discourse in MAG/ IGF validates this position  
> that WSIS principles basically means all of 'DoP plus' which  
> includes the four principles that you mention.

The MAG doesn't have a mandate to redefine or reinterpret  
international agreements or rewrite the entire history of the WSIG/IGF  
discussions.  It has a mandate to program a conference, and in trying  
to figure out where to place discussions on programs in order to  
satisfy stakeholders has frequently taken some liberties with concepts  
etc. Moreover, the discourse you refer to is of course contested, with  
the Chinese saying one thing, others saying other things, etc.  So if  
some parties are actually contending that the principles on IG include  
every DOP provision on every issue concerning the global information  
society, rather than just the ones on IG, then with all due respect  
this is pretty far from dispositive.  Utterances made in program  
committee meetings for international conferences are not authoritative.

> In fact the compromise on the rights debate in the MAG was that  
> rights will now get discussed under 'WSIS principles' section in IGF  
> - 4. I consider it as a major step forward from a narrow 'process- 
> oriented principles' approach that a a few in civil society  want to  
> exclusively take to a broad ' substantive principles' approach that  
> was the real intent of TA and other WSIS documents.

Both the procedural and substantive components can be viewed from a  
rights perspective, although that would require a certain level of  
conceptual precision.  The text I was responding to was different in  
scope.

So...if you are suggesting that a caucus statement on the principles  
should go beyond the procedural component (which was the focus of the  
prior statement I referenced) and cover the substantive, we can  
readily agree.  If you're saying that every last bit of the DOP is  
actually about IG and/or that this is true because some people said so  
in a MAG meeting, let's just agree to disagree rather than subjecting  
the list to one of our patented bilateral soliloquies :-)

Cheers,

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/9c6f8cd0/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