[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[Parminder]

William Drake wrote:
> 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?
TA 29 reaffirms some of the principles enunciated in the DoP, which it 
then goes on to detail. Where does it say that it exhausts what could be 
called as "WSIS principles'. It is as well to read the term WSIS 
principles as the whole DoP as relevant to the issue at hand.

Section 31says 'We recognize that Internet governance, carried out 
according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a 
people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory 
Information Society'.

Is Geneva principles the same as WSIS principles or are they different. 
Para 72 1 speaks of 'embodiment of WSIS principles in IG processes', and 
then para 81, still under IG section speaks of 'commitment to the full 
implementation of the Geneva Principles'. Are they the same or different 
- and what are they.

If you take it that the part on IG in DoP is what is WSIS principles, 
which would be para 48 onwards, would not the para 49 of your dreaded 
(and I agree with you on this) 'respective roles' part also be WSIS 
principles?

I can understand that your arguments may have some logic as discussions 
went during WSIS, but it is really not clear which set may definitively 
be called as WSIS principles, and therefore it is not far-fetched at all 
to consider DoP (as applying to IG) as WSIS principles, and it is from 
there we pick up the rights angle which is our present effort to push. 
We have been able to get some traction in the MAG to get rights issue 
into IGF discussions under this label, and we simply do not want to 
backtrack ourselves, when there are enough on the other side who are 
ready to use all such logic.

So, Id suggest let the rights section stay where it is, and not only 
that, we also keep using ( and intensify our efforts) for positioning 
rights as a part of WSIS principles which we would like to see embodied 
in all IG processes - which is one of the major agenda related gains 
that civil society have achieved for IGF Sharm. If we accept that rights 
are not a part of WSIS principles we will be forfeiting our right to 
discuss rights under the main session on WSIS principles at the next 
IGF. Let us be aware of that fact.

parminder
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090715/1afca24e/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