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

[Ginger Paque]

Bill and all,

Q2 the issue of rights, particularly the section:
**[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.]**

Is it acceptable to say the following, and also apply Bill's suggestion 
to move this section to Q7?

The IGC considers rights and principles to be inherently linked to the 
Internet Governance agenda. 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.

(this continues as below, and would be moved to Q7 with the above)

The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
openness and universal access. This framework must continue to emphasize 
the importance of access to knowledge and development in Internet 
governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals to access 
the content and applications of their choice. This is in keeping with 
current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and relevant aspects of
the often confusing network neutrality discussions.

The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of 
the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. 
Further, it allows for open examination of the principles that should 
govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.

gp


William Drake wrote:
>
>
> 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