Fwd: [WSIS-CT] Comments on the draft CS document

[Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@ras.eu.org>]

For those who are not on the CT and plenary lists, here is a reaction  
to my comments on the governance section.
Meryem

Début du message réexpédié :

> De: "Wolfgang Kleinwächter"  <wolfgang@imv.au.dk>
> Date: Sam 12 juil 2003  10:28:42 Europe/Paris
> À: ct@wsis-cs.org, hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org, "MeryemMarzouki"  
> <marzouki@ras.eu.org>, plenary@wsis-cs.org
> Objet: Rép : [WSIS-CT] Comments on the draft CS document
>
> Hi Meryem,
>
> I (wolfgang) am the main responsible person for the final language of  
> the governance paragraph. I tried to bring all discussed positions on  
> a extrem complex issue into some simple key points. This  
> simplification opens unfortunately the door for misinterpretation. The  
> points you have raised are not in contradiction with the proposed  
> language and I see no basic problem, to harmonize the two approaches.  
> (see my comments below)
>
> First of all, the second paragraph of this section (on the definition
>> of a "Global Internet Governance") is completely contradictory with  
>> the
>> whole CS vision reflected not only in this draft document, but also in
>> all the CS document endorsed by a wide number of organizations since
>> the beginning of the WSIS process. As it is, this paragraph means that
>> the undersigned organizations are in favor of establishing special
>> rules for a "cyberspace" (what the hell could this be?!), different
>> from the common rule of law.
>
> The proposed paragraph does NOT say that the rules should be different  
> from "common rule of law". In contrary, it says that CS should be in  
> favour of "the common rules of law" for the cyberspace. And even more,  
> in cases, where new or revised or enlarged rules are needed  
> (eCommerce, IPR, InfoSec/Privacy etc.), citizens should be involved  
> directly in the policy development and the rule making.
>
> This is in particular contradictory with
>> the priorities set by the Human Rights caucus. What is proposed in  
>> this
>> paragraph is to establish and/or follow special rules and regulation  
>> in
>> the "cyberspace".
>> This is unacceptable because this would open the door to non  
>> democratic
>> process, or open it more than it is already, "thanks to" entities like
>> ITU, ICANN, WTO, WIPO, etc.
>
> This is a misinterpretation. The proposed language is in favour of  
> "multi-stakeholder" approach, that is the inclusion of civil society  
> (as one main stakeholder) into global communication negotiations. With  
> other words, the proposed paragraph critisizes ITU, WTO, WIPO and also  
> ICANN, because these are organisations, where NGOs and CSOs and ALMs  
> play so far only a limited or no role. It invites WTO etc. to open the  
> doors for CS groups and to offer them a seat on the negotiation table.
>
>
>> "Content regulation, free speech, access, privacy, information
>> security, data protection, e-commerce, intellectual property rights,
>> information infrastructure development etc." should by no mean be
>> governed in such thing as a "global internet governance" framework  
>> but,
>> on the contrary, should be dealt with, taking into account the
>> peculiarities of such issues, in the framework of national and
>> international common rule of law and specially in reference to UN
>> International Covenant on both civil and political rights and  
>> economic,
>> social and cultural rights.
>
> Here I fully agree. This is a "friendly amendment" and I would fully  
> endorse the references both to the Universal Declaration on Human  
> Rights (1948) and the two covenants (1966).
>
>> Therefore, I'm asking for the complete withdrawal of this paragraph
>> from the "Global governance" section.
>>
>> Secondly, I have never seen - and certainly not on the governance
>> working group list - any consensus to affirm that "global governance  
>> in
>> information societies should be based on a multistakeholder bottom-up
>> policy development process (buPDP)" [first paragraph of this section],
>> specially since this "global governance" goes far beyond the sole  
>> issue
>> of Internet names, numbers and protocols. Moreover, what does "(buPDP)
>> should be open in particular to stakeholders most closely concerned by
>> a certain policy" mean? Is it a call for global governance (not only
>> Internet governance) made by groups of lobbyists promoting their
>> particular interests?
>
> Multi-stakeholder approach within the WSIS process means a "tripartite  
> approach", that is governments, civil society and private industry. I  
> would CS organisations not describe as "lobby groups", but there are  
> certainly "lobby groups" among the three stakeholders.
>
> lI thought there was, on the contrary, a CS
>> consensus on democratic, inclusive, transparent, and publicly
>> accountable process. This is not at all what is meant by this  
>> paragraph.
>
> Here I also agree with the amendments. "Democratic, transparent,  
> inclusive etc." can be easily added and does not contradict the  
> proposed text.
>
>
>
>>
>> Although I share Bill Drake's concern to deal in this document not  
>> only
>> with Internet governance but also with global governance, it is  
>> obvious
>> that, as it is written, the "global governance" section raises strong
>> objections and doesn't not even correspond to Bill's suggestion made  
>> on
>> the governance list. Since we obviously don't have the time now to
>> discuss such complex issues as global governance, it is then  
>> preferable
>> to concentrate this section only on Internet governance, and to  
>> rewrite
>> it in a way that would allow wide consensus.
>
> My understanding form the discussion was, that the reduction /  
> concentration of "Internet Governance" in the sense of "Governance of  
> Internet identifiers" (that is ICANN) would be too limited and shuld  
> be broadend. And in fact, while ICANN (fortunately) has rejected to  
> deal with public policy related aspects of Internet Governance, there  
> are at the moment only established inter-governmental organisations  
> (like the ITU) or industry groups (likle the GBDe) which claim to  
> overtake the "leading" or "central" role in policy development. The  
> propoised paragraph calls for a broader approach, that is the  
> inclusion of civil society in policy develoment and decision kaing on  
> public policy issues, which are related to the further development of  
> the Internet and its various applications.
>
>
> Here is an alternative
>> proposal for that:
>>
>> ==========
>> "Internet governance
>>
>> An information and communication society good governance must be based
>> on the values of participation, transparency, accountability and the
>> rule of law. This particularly implies the democratic management of
>> international bodies dealing with ICTs. Given the borderless
>> characteristics of ICTs, decision making bodies should ensure the
>> respect of principles of democracy and openness, as well as of  
>> legality
>> and sovereignty.
>>
>> In particular, the management of the core resources of the Internet,
>> that are the Internet protocols, standards and identifiers such as
>> domain names and IP addresses, must serve the public interest at the
>> global, national and local levels.
>>
>> To this end, the current management of Internet names and numbers
>> should specially be revised, taking into account the possibility of  
>> the
>> coexistence of multiple root servers, provided that a strict
>> international regulation be defined and enforced for their good
>> articulation and global consistency.
>
> I have my doubts whether it makes sense to call for a "revision" of  
> the current system of names and numbers management. The risk here is  
> that you will get support from "false friends" :-(
>
> Furthermore, any decision made on
>> protocols and standards should be compatible with international human
>> rights standards, and specially the rights to freedom of expression,  
>> to
>> privacy, and the principle of non discrimination. Such decisions  
>> should
>> also allow a better balanced flow of information."
>
> Here I agree again 100 pro :-)
>
> Best
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________ 
> _______
> Werden Sie kreativ! Jetzt HTML-Mails nicht nur schreiben - nein -
> GESTALTEN, bei WEB.DE FreeMail!  
> http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021141
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ct mailing list
> Ct@wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct
> Civil Society Plenary: http://www.wsis-cs.org/
> Content & Themes Documents:
> http://bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/pub/bscw.cgi/0/42953798
>