[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[William Drake]

Hi

Various...

On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
> A reading of the WSIS principles shows repeated mention of rights.  
> Yet the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a  
> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of  
> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.

I don't mean to belabor the point but I just don't understand the  
claim we'd be making.  DoP 48 and TA 29 say

29.  We reaffirm the principles enunciated in the Geneva phase of the  
WSIS, in December 2003, that the Internet has evolved into a global  
facility available to the public and its governance should constitute  
a core issue of the Information Society agenda. The international  
management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and  
democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private  
sector, civil society and international Organisations. It 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.

Where are the repeated mentions of rights that the governments who  
agreed these words would recognize?

If people really want to wed the rights agenda just to the IG  
principles, fine, but there is a difference between advocating  
something and insisting that it is already there when other parties  
that negotiated the words will not recognize this as their intent.   
How does this help the caucus' credibility?  Moreover, the next  
sentence needs cleaning up too, it was lifting from a statement  
complaining about rights not being central to a particular meeting's  
agenda.  And it's not obvious what "the IGF has side-tracked efforts"  
could mean (the MAG has sidetracked?), that a majority (of what?) has  
favored a rights perspective, or that promoting a rights perspective  
is a central obligation of the IGF (unless we're going to read what we  
want into the mandate paragraphs as well).

I'd suggest something like,

"The WSIS principles on Internet governance can be viewed from a  
rights-based perspective.  Unfortunately, proposals to make such a  
perspective central to the IGF's deliberations have been rejected."

On this

On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>>>> In this connection, IGF is still to achieve any clear success in  
>>>> the area
>>>> of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different
>>>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet'
>>>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental
>>>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their  
>>>> purview' (72
>>>> c).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd be a little softer - perhaps rather than "still to achieve any  
>>> clear
>>> success" we could use "may need to extend its efforts in" or  
>>> something
>>> similaR
>>>
>> It is  a matter of fact.
>
> Facts is one issue to take into account, the context of evaluation  
> is another. No doubt, there will be no lack of harsh reviews. While  
> I fully agree that we have to mention the areas where the IGF hasn't  
> done enough and needs to do more. Yet, we are all aware that this is  
> not a matter of laziness or lack of care but often due to a lack of  
> consensus among the MAG.
I support Ian's 2 softening suggestions.

I personally don't see "still to achieve" as being all that negative.   
However, I remain uncomfortable throughout with language that makes  
the IGF sound like a centrally managed organization that has  
intentionality and chooses to ignore this or that.  I'd rather we said  
something like,

"Due to a regrettable lack of consensus among participants, the IGF  
has not achieved...."

Finally, on recommendations,

On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Important point, thank you for bringing this up, Ian.
> As a compromise, could we perhaps qualify the statement by saying  
> that "some of the caucus members are of the belief that in the long  
> term..."?

I don't think advocates of recs mean long-term.  How about we replace

>> the IGC contends that the IGF as a whole will suffer in the
>> long term it does not prove its value to the international community
>> by adopting mechanisms for the production of non-binding statements
>> on Internet public policy issues.

With

"Tunis Agenda 72g mandates the IGF to make recommendations 'where  
appropriate.'  IGF stakeholders have been divided as to whether the  
requirement of appropriateness ever has been or could be met.  IGC  
members also have been divided on these matters, with some strongly  
favoring and others just as strongly opposing the adoption of  
recommendations.  Since significant disagreements on this matter have  
colored perceptions of and participation in the IGF, the IGC believes  
it is necessary to have an open, inclusive, and probing  
multistakeholder dialogue on whether adopting recommendations ever  
could be appropriate and on the possible implications of such  
negotiations for the IGF's unique character."

Or something like that...trying to reflect that we're divided but it'd  
be good to get this issue out into the sunlight and clarify the  
reasoning of the respective parties, rather than having it buried in  
back channels.  Let the proponents of each view make their case in an  
open manner, respond to counter-views, etc.  Consensus would be highly  
unlikely (especially since IGF has no decision making procedures, or  
members for that matter) but the process might be constructive if  
handled right, and might help undermine the China/ITU argument that  
since IGF doesn't do recs it's useless.

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