[governance] Re: IGC questionnaire Q2 for review

[Ginger Paque]

Bill, Parminder, everyone...

I agree with Parminder--Bill, I do not think you should underestimate 
the importance of the topics and the value of these discussions for the 
rest of us, even if we do not intervene.

Best,
Ginger

Parminder wrote:
> Bill
>
> Firstly, your own description of WSIS principles have considerably 
> changed subsequent to my email from the just 'multi-lateral, 
> transparent, democratic and multistakeholder' to include substantive 
> aspects of '“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 see it as a 
> very very significant progress from my point of view, and would 
> request all subsequent IGC statements to take note of this. You have 
> asked me what i meant by 'self-selected'. You know that you (and IGC 
> statements) have till now only spoken of the process related 
> principles and not these substantive principles which are obviously 
> very important. Thats self-selection :).
>
> Secondly, when I say all DoP is WSIS principles it is obvious that 
> with regard to IG we will only be counting those which can be seen in 
> relation to IG. (However i do read your statements of history of 
> negotiations with interest.) When IG is directly referred to in 
> detailing these principles so much the better, but I wouldnt hesitate 
> to apply other principles in WSIS docs to IG, thats the idea of 
> prefacing such summit docs with declaration of principles. I, as 
> others from civil society did during the last MAG meeting, will push 
> for a rights-based approach to IG as part of such WSIS principles 
> taking from the relevant DoP text on rights.
>
> Thirdly, I am very sure that I am not doing a bilateral soliloquy 
> here, and am spending time on this because I consider it an important 
> discussion. I have this slight aversion to emails that end with text 
> to the effect 'please dont reply to this' :). It is just not respectful.
>
> parminder
>
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________
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