[governance] IGC statement-questionnaire Final edits

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder

On Jul 15, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Parminder wrote:

>> 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.

I'd say it reaffirms THE principles on IG as listed in DoP 48-50 and  
consistently referred to by all as the principles.

> 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.

Again, here we have to agree to disagree, but insofar as I've never  
heard anyone else contend that the whole DoP are the principles on IG,  
including here, I don't see how we can credibly submit a statement  
premised on this expansive claim.
>
> 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'.

I guess you read that as a statement of rights?  I don't.  To me the  
principles are the "should" provisions, and these are not stated as  
rights (though, again, one could read them from that perspective and  
try to build a case etc).
>
> Is Geneva principles the same as WSIS principles or are they  
> different.

different from principles on IG

> 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.

I believe the reference there is to the principles on IG.  Loose  
writing.  Happens in negotiations.
>
> 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?

As I noted the other day in the bit of article I quoted, 48-50 can be  
viewed as such, although 50 was really mandating WGIG.  I am thankful  
that 49 has never been referred to as "the principles on IG" anyplace  
that I can recall, it's well worth forgetting.
>
> 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.

I understand your intentions but think advocacy in the MAG about the  
Sharm program and what are the IG principles are two separate things.
>
> 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.

Understood.  But we're in total disagreement on this, alas.  I would  
have thought it sufficient to stick to a formulation that all can  
agree on,

>> "The WSIS principles on Internet governance can be viewed from a  
>> rights-based perspective.

Whereas you want to assert "A reading of the WSIS principles shows a  
clear emphasis on rights," which I and I suspect some others just  
don't see.  Since we can't resolve this bilaterally we need to hear  
from more people.  I'll go with whatever majority sentiment is, if  
there is one, we're not negotiating a nuclear arms treaty, I've said  
my piece and will not hari kari if the caucus ends up saying something  
that makes no sense to me.

Cheers,

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090715/d4ca5f4e/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