[governance] IGC Principles

Tue Sep 18 19:23:00 EDT 2012

The numerous controversies surrounding Internet Governance makes it
abundantly and inherently clear of the need for Civil Society to develop
Internet Governance Principles. In light of the same, I thought I would
pull an email from Wolfgang Kleinwachter on the same.

For continued dialogue, even with the IGC as per the email on
Brainstorming, an additional Working Group could be added to look into this
and it would be great Wolfgang if you could take the lead in developing
this and whoever wants to volunteer can indicate their interest

Sala

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:37 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Thanks Izumi for pushing this forward,
>
> Indeed, it was one of the outcomes of Nairobi that CS should start to
> draft its own set of Internet Governance principles after various groups of
> governments have tabled half a dozens "declarations" and the private sector
> has formulated its own principles.
>
> How this could be achieved? Here are some basic ideas how to move forward.
>
> 1. Where we are and what is on the table:
>
> a. there is a growing number of intergovernmental initiatives which are
> aimed to create a political (soft law) framework of guiding principles for
> Internet Governance.
>
> So far we have at the table
> * the OECD Communique (June 2011) with 15 principles (the plan is to
> enhance this document into a status of "guidelines"). The OECD has 34
> members
> * the Council of Europe Internet Governance Declaration with ten
> principles (September 2011). The CoE has 47 members
> * the G 8 Deauville Declaration with six principles (May 2011). The G 8
> has eight members.
> * the OSCE Tbilissi Declaration (October 2011). The OSCE has 53 members
> * the NATO Cybersecurity Principles (draft from May 2011). NATO has 28
> members
>
> In the UN there are two proposals under consideration by the UNGA (fall
> 2011)
> * the IBSA proposal for an intergovernmental council for Internet Policy
> (India, Brazil, South Africa)
> * the "Shanghai Group" proposal for an Internet Code of Conduct (Russia,
> China, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan)
>
> Additioanlly official policy papers and proposals are tabled by
> * the US president in his "US International Strategy for Cyberspace" (May
> 2011) and
> * the EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes in her "Internet Compact" (June 2011)
> * the UK Foreign Minister William Hague in his "London Agenda" (seven
> principles in November 2011).
>
> b. the private sector in the US has also drafted a policy paper which
> includes principles for Internet governance (October 2011). The supporters
> of the paper include inter alia, the US Council for International Business
> (USCIB), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Information Technology
> Industry Council (ITI), Google, Microsoft, GoDaddy, IBM, Oracle, Visa,
> MasterCard and others.
>
>  2. Outcome of Nairobi
>
> One of the discussions points on Nairobi was whether we should move
> towards a "constitutional moment" in the history of the Internet where all
> those initiatives will lead to something like a "Framework of Understanding
> for the Governance of the Internet" (FoU-GI), comparable with the
> "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or whether we will move towards a
> "patchwork regulation" with inter-institutional competition and individual
> "principle picking".
>
> Another point was that to get a sustainable agreement, the involvement of
> all stakeholders in the development and adoption of universally recognized
> principles is needed. However, it remained unclear how this
> multistakeholder involvement could be organigzed on the practical level.
>
> So far different intergovernmental projects have different models for
> non-govenrmental stakeholder inclusion:
> * the OECD has three advisory bodies (including CISAC, representing civil
> society). CISAC disagreed with the June Document and it remains open,
> whether the planned guidelines will included civil society concerns
> * the Council of Europe had included non-governmental representatives in
> all stages of the drafting process, however the final decision was made by
> the Ministerial Committee for an "intergovernmental declaration". The plan
> is now for 2012 to move to a "phase 2" to work on a multistakeholder basis
> to get a common understanding among governments and non-governmental
> stakeholders probably in form of a new type of document.
> * G 8, US, UK and EU pay lip service to the "multistakeholder model" or
> the "multistakeholder philosophy" but it remains unclear how to
> operationalize this "philosophy" into practical policy projects.
> * IBSA proposes the establishment of "advisory groups" for
> non-governmental stakeholders which would give advice to the new
> intergovernmental body, but the decision making power would remain in the
> hands of the 50 governments only.
> * the Shanghai proposal ignores the multistakeholder principle.
>
> 3. What to do in 2012?
>
> There will be an ongoing discussion on "Internet Governance Principles" on
> the global level, including the G8 meeting in the US, the Budapest meeting
> of the "London Agenda", the follow up of the OECD and Council of Europe
> projects and the follow up of the IBSA and Shanghai proposals.
>
> It would be very useful that the civil society comes with an own concept
> and a set of principles to contribute to this debate and to position itself
> for future institutional arrangements which could emerge from this debate.
> The IGC alone can certainly not speak on behalf of the whole civil society,
> but its history, legitimacy and reputation positions the IGC as the right
> place to start the discussion and to coordinate CS activities in this field.
>
> Here is a proposal how to move forward:
> 1. formation of a small working group with the mandate to draft a first
> text for open discussion (until February 2012)
> 2. organization of a workshop on "CS & Internet Governance Principles" in
> connection with the IGF consultations in February 2012 in Geneva
> 3. continuation of the work and production of a second draft until May 2012
> 4. organization of a second workshop in connection with the WSIS week and
> the IGF consultation in May 2012 in Geneva.
> 5. organisation of small workshops in regional IGFs (AsiaPacific, Europe,
> Africa, Latin America).
> 6. preparation of a third draft for presentation at the 7th IGF in Baku
> (September 2012).
> 7. Outreach to non-governmental and civil society organisations active in
> the field of Internet.
> 8. Drafts of the document should be send also to the G 8 meeting, the
> Budapest meeting and the 67th UN General Assembly (October 2012).
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120919/0c430c75/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t