[governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus

[Ginger Paque]

Garth, thank you for repeating your statement. I interpret silence of 
response on the list as lack of time or interest for a particular issue. 
If there are thoughts, comments or opinions, I think we need to read them.

If I understand correctly, Garth proposes that we add text so that the 
current statement now reads as follows below. I think that this would 
need re-working to be more coherent as a whole, and tied to the IGF 
Review process, so please do post your suggestions.

Garth, do you think your point of "moving beyond" the definition of 
Internet Governance could fit into one of the panels or sessions? It 
seems to be a specific topic that could be addressed. Can we make a 
concrete request to the Secretariat on how to address this?  We need to 
hear other thoughts to clarify if this is a viewpoint that is held by 
most of those in the IGC.  Thanks. Ginger

The proposed draft:

The UN WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) has been 
actively engaged with the UN Internet Governance Forum, the outcome of 
the UN WSIS global negotiation, from its beginning and commends the UN 
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on its implementation of the principle 
of multistakeholderism from 2006 until the present. The IGC is firmly of 
the view that the IGF should continue, and congratulates the Secretariat 
for its work to date.

The IGC believes that the IGF has raised the awareness of both narrow 
and broad Internet Governance issues among those stakeholders involved 
in the GF process, by providing workshops and dialogues based on the 
multistakeholder principle. We feel however, that from the perspective 
of civil society, this principle has not yet been fully implemented 
since many of those with an active, even a crucial interest in the 
health and deployment of the Internet have for a variety of reasons not 
been engaged in this process. The IGC is concerned about the lack of 
participation by a broader base of possible stakeholders and the 
inclusion of the issues that they might be concerned to see addressed.

We are also seriously concerned about the new proposal to create an 
exclusively intergovernmental forum driven by decisions instead of 
discussion, particularly given the success of the multistakeholder 
organization thus far.

Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
near-unanimous response that it should continue, we believe that the 
review should focus on addressing the issue of more inclusive 
participation.

[We would also like to emphasize] The need to continue discussion that 
evolves and deepens understanding of basic assumptions concerning 
Internet Governance, particularly the “Internet model” of Internet 
Governance.

Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration 
and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe that 
the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition of 
Internet governance to something more open.  Rather than a matter 
negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society, “in 
their respective roles,”  if roles and identities are agreed to be 
self-determined then the definition must become: "The development and 
application by ANYONE of shared principles, norms, rules, 
decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and 
use of the Internet."




Garth Graham wrote:
> On 8-Jun-09, at 7:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>>>> I ask that those who would like to include other points please post 
>>>> text for discussion and inclusion.
>
> I'm repeating myself, (and I do know I should let the silence of 
> response on this list speak for itself), but I had already contributed 
> another point about the essential content of dialogue on June 5th as 
> follows:
>
>> The need to continue discussion that evolves and deepens 
>> understanding of basic assumptions concerning Internet Governance, 
>> particularly the “Internet model” of Internet Governance.
>>
>> Given the value of the Internet in sustaining connection, integration 
>> and interdependencies in the conduct of human affairs, we believe 
>> that the discussion must eventually move beyond the WGIG definition 
>> of Internet governance to something more open.  Rather than a matter 
>> negotiated among governments, the private sector and civil society, 
>> “in their respective roles,”  if roles and identities are agreed to 
>> be self-determined then the definition must become: "The development 
>> and application by ANYONE of shared principles, norms, rules, 
>> decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution 
>> and use of the Internet."
>
> That's my way of flagging that civil society "in it's role" has a 
> responsibility to advocate for the Internet's basic assumptions and 
> principles as a fundamentally different view of the nature of 
> governance.  Else what's a civil society for?  We must not let others 
> define our role.  The Internet is "open" because the rules about 
> changing its rules are open.  One reason, perhaps the main reason, why 
> IGF must continue to exist and to evolve is because the implications 
> of those issues of "narrow and broad Internet Governance" for 
> governance are only beginning to be understood by governments.  
> Capacity of governments to use the Internet for development will be 
> improved by a deeper understanding of what the Internet's existence 
> signifies. And, if some governments serve notice of their intention to 
> draw a hard line in attempting to contain those implications, then 
> responsible global citizenship requires a clear statement of 
> intentions to speak to what will be lost.
>
> GG
____________________________________________________________
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