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

[Parminder]

Also to keep in mind the connected issue of what stand will IGC and IGC 
MAG members take when decisions (instructions to moderator etc) for the 
IGF session on WSIS principles are taken, with regard to a discussion on 
rights in this session. I can assure that there are already strong views 
to the contrary from some expected sections, which will be actively pushed.

parminder

Parminder wrote:
> All
>
> I have not been able to figure out at all what is lost by keeping the 
> rights part here in Q 2 , and also linking it to WSIS principles. I 
> have already pointed out to the fact there is no precise definition of 
> the term, and it is open to a range of interpretations, as seen by the 
> secretariat linking the DoP to this question, as also the discussions 
> in MAG. Why would we not choose the interpretation that most suits us 
> today, which also seems to have some official support.
>
> I have argued earlier that if we give up the linkage of rights to WSIS 
> principles we will be compromising the gains we have made about 
> inclusion of rights in WSIS agenda, whereby rights are to be discussed 
> in Sharm in the session on WSIS principles.
>
> Also if the linkage can be built, we can use the IGF mandate, para 72 
> (i) to assess embodiment of 'WSIS principles' in IG processes to 
> included assessment of 'rights' in IG processes. The thing we 
> principally want to do today.
>
> I would want to text to stay as it is, and also where it is, ie Q 2.
>
> To accommodate Bill's concern
>
> I am ready to change the sentence - 'A reading of the WSIS principles 
> shows repeated mention of rights'
>
> to ' a reading of Geneva declaration of principles shows repeated 
> mention of rights' ...
>
>
> parminder
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090717/cd864529/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