[governance] Re: IGF Review Statement for Consensus

[Ginger Paque]

Hi all--Bill and Jeanette (and Garth)...

Thank you very much for your messages. I suggest that we drop this 
statement (current IGF Review thread) entirely (collective sigh of 
relief). If someone wants to propose an IGF Review statement, it might 
be better to start over completely. Later I will look for the proper 
venue to address the issue of inclusion of lesser heard voices--maybe a 
workshop? If anyone has any suggestions, please email me off-list. 
Thanks for your patience.

Best, Ginger

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi Ginger, after reading the statement once again, I notice that that 
> I still have issues with a central part of the statement:
>
> 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.
>
> Who do we have in mind when we criticize that "many... have not been 
> engaged in the process"? I assume it is not the secretariat we expect 
> to engage more groups in the process? If not the secretariat, who 
> else? In my view, it is also our own responsibility to integrate 
> affected groups and unless we become more specific in terms of faults, 
> groups and the issues we have in mind, I don't see the point of this 
> statement.
>
> jeanette
>
> Ginger Paque wrote:
>> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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