[governance] Re: IGC Statement -Questionnaire as of July 15

[William Drake]

Hi Ginger

On Jul 16, 2009, at 12:31 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> 1)
> Q1: **[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). ]**
>
> Could we say: (I think this is somewhat stronger than Ian's: IGF  
> "may need to extend its efforts in")

Fine by me

Ok
>
> 2)
> Q2 the issue of rights, particularly:
> **[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.]**
>
> Note that the at question 2, the questionnaire itself http://igf.wgig.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=FormalConsult032009) 
>  has a link to the WSIS declaration of principles http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

I'm sorry but this means nothing.  We can't reinterpret the whole  
history of negotiations and tell governments you think you agreed to x  
but actually you agreed to y because Chengetai or whomever put a link  
to the whole doc rather than correct section, which isn't possible in  
this case.
>
> On that page, the word "rights" appears 8 times in the first 5  
> articles of Section A, and 10 times in section A's 18 articles. I  
> agree with Parminder that we leave it in. How can we solve thihs?

By recognizing that these are references to the UDHR etc at the front  
of a text about the info society generally, not a statement that  
multilingual domain names, net stability, transparency or anything  
else are recognized by the parties as rights.  Which again is not to  
say that one couldn't view and advocate those points from a rights  
perspective.  The ONLY "right" that is specifically mentioned/agreed  
in the WSIS principles on IG is in 49, which says states have the  
(apparently exclusive) right to make public policy.
>
> 4) Shiva's contribution on funding, where I perceive several options--
> (Q6 also)
> A) that we use this shortened version:
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to  
> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be  
> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster  
> greater diversity of participation including enhancing the linkage  
> of IG activities with the broader range of civil society concerns

Agree

> in for example the areas of poverty alleviation, the environment and  
> gender.

FWIW the caucus has previously made statements about the need for the  
IGF to focus on IG per se rather than ICT4D and questioning unclear  
links to environmental policy.

Best,

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