<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS-CT]
Backgroun</title></head><body>
<div>As a matter of context, here is a definition of "Civil
Society" as expressed by the CS Bureau in a 30 January 2003
proposal:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+2" color="#000000">******<br>
There is no unanimously accepted definition of the term "Civil
Society". In the context of the United Nations and that of
the Bretton Woods institutions, this notion covers the entities of the
third sector (distinct from the State and form the private sector)
that are engaged in non-profit activities. In the WSIS, we take
as basis the definition given by the UN Joint Inspection
Unit:</font><br>
<font face="Times" size="+2" color="#000000"></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+2" color="#000000"><i>"A
'Civil Society' is the result of different components of populations
and communities, and refers to the sphere in which citizens and social
initiatives organise themselves around objectives, constituencies and
thematic interests. They act collectively through their organisations
known as Civil Society Organisations which include movements,
entities, institutions autonomous from the State which in principle,
are non-profit-making, act locally, nationally and internationally, in
defence and promotion of social, economic and cultural interests and
for mutual benefit. They intermediate between their
constituencies/members, with the State as well as with United Nations
bodies. They do this through lobbying and/or provision of services.
Though belonging to the non-State actor category, they are different
from the private sector and NGO as they may not be registered, may
replace the public sector, are not always structured and often their
members are not officially recognized".</i></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+2"
color="#000000"><i>*******</i></font></div>
<div>Further, from John Keane's book titled Civil Society, civil
society is defined as:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font face="Times" size="+2"
color="#000000">"Nongovernmental institutions that tend to be
non-violent, self-organizing, self-reflexive, and permanently in
tension with each other and with the state institutions that 'frame',
constrict and enable their activities.</font>"</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Rik, I respect you and the passion with which you express your
views; however, my sense is that you are adopting a definition of
"civil society" that is too aligned with the idea of the
"civil"--that is, one which suggests that being
non-contentious is a good thing. The WSIS CS group has always been
fragmented and divisive, but it served strategic purposes to appear as
though there is a consensus. What we are experiencing now--what
appears to be increasing fragmentation and divisiveness--is a matter
of some of us finally coming out of the closet to tell others that we
can't abide by a set of principles that we do not share. So, let the
debate unfold and then we will be acting as that entity called
"civil society."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Please allow me to briefly offer my own view on the parameters of
the current debate, although I admittedly do not have expertise in
internet governance, and especially ICANN:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>1. YJ has the right to express her opinion any time and anywhere
that she wishes to do so. The fact that she was out of the room when
the decision was made is beside the point. Lots of us were out of the
room because we weren't in Geneva and/or weren't a member of the
C&T group at this prepcom. I assume that it is not being suggested
that the presence of individuals and groups especially and necessarily
legitimizes their decisions. If that's the case, then we are an
unrepresentative CS indeed.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>2. I, personally, am pleased that YJ's views were circulated on
the Plenary list; otherwise, they would have remained buried. By the
way, YJ's comments seem to have been forwarded by another party to the
CS plenary list, so perhaps it is unfair to accuse her of
"[expressing her] views on the caucus list instead of getting
everybody else involved," as Jeanette Hofmann put it. Why not get
everyone else involved? Isn't this part of the "open and
transparent" process?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>3. "Hijacking" is a loaded and not especially civil
term. Perhaps it would be uncivil for me to suggest that the WSIS
process has been hijacked by those who have the least (or no) aversion
to the corporatization of development. But at least this would be
consistent with the notion of a civil society that debates a broad
range of issues as opposed to narrowing the possibilities for
responsive discourse and action.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Lisa</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I find it difficult to respond to these
accusations since I cannot even sure that you mean me, YJ, as you
don't mention names but prefer to speak rather abstractly about
opinion leaders.<br>
<br>
I certainly don't have what you call "inside connections with
ICANN", and I defenitely never said or believed that
"control of the<br>
Internet by US government will guarantee stable and reliable
connections<br>
but it would be "awful" if such control is attempted by<br>
"intergovernmental body".<br>
<br>
If I read your email correctly, you blame the caucus for defining<br>
Internet Governance rather broadly and thus not paying enough
attention<br>
to ICANN matters. As far as I am concerned, this is indeed true.<br>
<br>
However, the reason why I wouldn't want to focus solely on ICANN is
not,<br>
as you suggest, because I want to protect ICANN but rather because I
have<br>
learned a lot thanks to WSIS. I very much believe what I said today
at<br>
the plenary: "The WGIG should ground its work within a human
rights and<br>
development framework. The rights to freedom of expression and
privacy<br>
are of special importance in this context as is the need for a
greater<br>
emphasis on the principles of openness and transparency."<br>
<br>
The fact that I support a broader understanding of Internet
Governance<br>
than I used to doesn't mean that I have a hidden agenda. Also, the<br>
IG caucus is open and diverse enough to accommodate a broad variety
of<br>
opinions, including yours. I would even say that it is the diversity
of<br>
the IG caucus that accounts for its rather general statements,
which<br>
lack the specific issues and strong opinions you are asking for.<br>
<br>
I would very much prefer if you expressed you views on the<br>
caucus list instead of getting everybody else involved, if you
addressed<br>
people directly instead of talking about opinion leaders, and if
you<br>
gave proof when you make far-reaching reproaches such as that you
have<br>
been treated differently than other members.<br>
<br>
jeanette<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>As I said clearly in my previous message,
I cannot endorse the current<br>
Internet Governance caucus as a legitimate civil society forum to
address<br>
issues associated with Internet Governance properly. If necessary,<br>
"intent to create new caucus" will be submitted to contents
and theme G.<br>
<br>
This caucus has placed too much emphasis on tensions between civil<br>
society and governments more specifically governments from the
South<br>
and civil society in general.<br>
<br>
Somehow opinion leaders of this caucus strongly believe control of
the<br>
Internet by US government will guarantee stable and reliable
connections<br>
but it would be "awful" if such control is attempted by
"intergovernmental<br>
body".<br>
<br>
WSIS CS is willing to pick up human rights issues of Tunisian
gov't<br>
practice but have no guts to talk about collection of finger prints
and<br>
eye inspection whenever people from other countries enter the USA.<br>
<br>
Where are human rights activists who address this issue at WSIS?<br>
How can CS at WSIS be so sensitive to human rights issues of South<br>
Gov't and numb to that of governments from the North?<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Just to clarify, this statement was not
delivered as "civil society's"<br>
position on Internet Governance, which would be difficult to
support.<br>
It represented the position reached within the Content and Themes<br>
meeting, which had wide participation of several caucuses and
working<br>
groups. It was presented as the statement of the IG caucus,
after wide<br>
consultation of several caucuses, and the endorsement of the
content<br>
and themes group. Which I think is a great achievement in an<br>
increasingly fragmented and divisive civil society
population.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
I don't think I have to explain again why on this matter. A
like-minded<br>
group consistently rejected incorporating different positions.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The decision to accept the IG caucus
statement was taken while YJ was<br>
out of the room. When she entered the room, she sought to reverse
the<br>
decision even though we were moving on to another point in the
agenda.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
That was intended to raise awareness of real face of Internet
Governance<br>
caucus in the CS. I am gald we can start this discussion and can get
CS<br>
at WSIS have chances to have broader perspective on this issue. I
wonder</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>how many CS in that room who applaused on
such a statement knew the<br>
statement they just endorsed would expedite "Colonization"
in cyber space.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In my own view, in light of the word
"civil," we should try as much as<br>
possible to respect decisions of groups to which we have not been<br>
present for. To try and reverse a decision that was taken after
wide<br>
consultation and with general agreement after it has been taken
can<br>
only be called hijacking.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
Please, do things in civil manner. I have unfortunately experienced
so<br>
many "uncivil" behaviors from so many actors through this
whole<br>
Internet Governance debate since 1999.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I have respect for YJ's expertise and her
passion for her views. But I<br>
can not accept her disregard for our processes because her own
views<br>
were not taken up by the caucus and content and themes.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
Sometimes I wonder where my passion comes from... I think my
passion<br>
is originated a number of memories of uncivil incidents perpetrated
by<br>
those who still dominate Internet governance caucus.<br>
<br>
I think I have been in this debate. But in many occasions I was
treated<br>
as "second-citizens" or opinion leaders at this caucus
pretended I don't<br>
even exist.<br>
<br>
I can describe things more specifically as you just did in the public
list<br>
but<br>
I will reserve such description of my previous uncivil experiences
at<br>
WSIS or even back in ICANN period with some of opinion leaders<br>
of this caucus in a civil manner.<br>
<br>
Whenever I had such uncivil experiences with opinon leaders of
this<br>
caucus in many occasions I always wonder how could this happen in<br>
civil society.<br>
<br>
Where is gender caucus? Where is human rights caucus? Can emphasis<br>
on human rights and gender be applied to certain races who have
blue<br>
or green eyes but not for me?<br>
<br>
As a woman from a marginalized world in Internet governance debate<br>
since 1999, I sincerely seek your understanding that I am also a
human<br>
being who have limited patience on uncivil behaviors.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
YJ<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Respectfully,<br>
<br>
Rik Panganiban<br>
<br>
On Feb 24, 2005, at 9:09 AM, YJ Park wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Dear all,<br>
<br>
I decided not to participate in this distorted Internet Governance<br>
forum<br>
in early 2004. While I attend PrepCom II of the second phase, I
felt<br>
obligation to make intervention to bring another voice to this
forum.<br>
<br>
As I addressed my concerns at "Contents and Themes Group"
meeting<br>
yesterday, the position presented by WSIS CS Internet Governance<br>
caucus should have not been adopted as WSIS CS position.<br>
<br>
I am speaking here as co-founder of WSIS CS Internet Governance<br>
causcus back in Feb 2003 and also as someone who does come from<br>
Neither USA Nor Europe Nor Japan.<br>
<br>
This caucus has historically been dominated by actors from USA,<br>
Europe and Japan especially those who have "INSIDE"
connections<br>
with the current Internet Governance body, ICANN.<br>
<br>
These actors has made their best efforts to distract this caucus
to<br>
focus<br>
on some other issues like WIPO, WTO, other internatonal
organizations<br>
and even changed the caucus name into Global ICT Governance.<br>
<br>
When 2003 Summit declaration decideed to handle Internet
Governance,<br>
the group dominated then Global ICT Governance caucus finally<br>
unwillingly started to deal with ICANN in a minimalist manner and<br>
changed its name again back to Internet Governance caucus in order
to<br>
support ICANN as much as possible.<br>
<br>
Not surprisingly I have seen comments made by members of opinion<br>
leaders of this caucus publicly stated "CONSENSUS" of this
caucus<br>
is to side with ICANN even though they are not happy with the
current<br>
ICANN.<br>
<br>
Internet Governance has historically referred to Internet address<br>
management and therefore governments have been focusing on<br>
ICANN at World Summit on Information Society. Interestingly,<br>
WSIS CS has been reluctant to make direct comments on ICANN.<br>
<br>
The following statement presented by Internet Governance caucus<br>
shows exactly where the current Internet Governance caucus stands<br>
regarding ICANN issues<br>
<br>
That statement generally promoted the following principles and<br>
it never specifically touched ICANN even though many people<br>
publicly expressed their concerns in ICANN in the list.<br>
<br>
1. Multi-stakeholder</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>2. Human Rights (freedom of expression
and privacy)<br>
3. Civil Society participation in the WSIS process<br>
4. This paragraph seems to describe the ICANN in principle.<br>
<br>
ICANN in principle calims it includes decisions by individual
users,<br>
it consists of a series of private agreements including its MoU US<br>
Department of Commerce. ICANN also claims it respects national<br>
policies, and it is indeed an international and transnational body
in<br>
appearance at least it could succeed in reaching out Europe.<br>
<br>
5. General issues in Internet Governance.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Unilateral control of the root zone file
and its effects for the name<br>
space</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The crucial role of technical standards
in the preservation of an<br>
interoperable global Internet</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Two issues associated with ICANN were listed at Internet
Governance<br>
caucus statement but interestingly those who drafted made not
comments<br>
on whether the curent system is acceptable or not.<br>
<br>
Instead, they asked WGIG to evaluate these two.<br>
<br>
This argument has been around since 1999. So far "technical
stability"<br>
logic always has won over "diversified technical management
system".<br>
Those who drafted this statement must have already known this.<br>
<br>
Those who listened to today's plenary on Internet Governance would<br>
understand this whole debate at World Summit on Information
Society<br>
is "control" issue. "WHO CONTROLS the
INTERNET?"<br>
<br>
Since ICANN was set up back in 1998, the control has been
exercised<br>
by "ONE Government" and that raises concerns from most parts
of the<br>
world. Some governments at today's plenary were willing to take risk
to<br>
stand up against the US government more diplomatically despite<br>
potential<br>
accusation of axis of evils. Some governments think they can endure
the<br>
current system as long as they have agreeable dialogue with US
Gov't.<br>
<br>
If WSIS Civil Society is willing to contribute to this debate as<br>
substantial<br>
equal partners to other stakeholders as it has been advocating, CS<br>
should<br>
also have made comments on why CS has serious concerns in the
current<br>
Root-server zone file management system, global ccTLD governance<br>
mechanism, and creation of multilingual top level domain names and
asks<br>
for more internationalized oversight function of Internet address<br>
management.<br>
<br>
I could not see any of these issues cleary in the following
statement<br>
and<br>
therefore I "objected" to this statement as Civil Society
position.<br>
This<br>
position could have been recorded as a small group of clique who
have<br>
some vested interests in this process. But it was unacceptable to<br>
recognize<br>
this as civil society position.<br>
<br>
Sorry for long-length post to explain why I objected to this
statement<br>
at yesterday's CS Content and Themes Group.<br>
<br>
I hope to see WSIS CS is engaged with this debate down this road<br>
as substantial stakeholders instead of being those who promote
ICANN<br>
that expedites global standards among like-minded groups without
enough<br>
consultation from those who don't belong to the like-minded group.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
YJ<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hi, everyone, this is the final version
of the IG caucus' statement<br>
that<br>
will be presented at tomorrow's plenary meeting. Other caucuses
have<br>
contributed significantly. Details can be found in the document<br>
itself.<br>
<br>
I hope we have managed to reach an acceptable compromise between
at<br>
times conflicting criteria like length,<br>
inclusiveness and all-embracing political awareness....<br>
Adina, an rtf version for translation and printout is attached.<br>
<br>
<br>
Statement by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus,<br>
the Gender, Human Rights, Privacy and Media Caucuses<br>
on behalf of the Civil Society Content and Themes Group,<br>
23 February 2005, Geneva<br>
<br>
<br>
1. We commend the Secretary General of the United Nations on the<br>
establishment of the Working Group on Internet Governance.<br>
<br>
We express our support for the WGIG's multi stakeholder approach,
and<br>
wish to stress that there is a fundamental difference between<br>
multilateral and multi stakeholder processes, and that the Summit<br>
documents were explicit in calling for the balanced participation
of<br>
all<br>
stakeholders. Legitimate and successful Internet Governance can
only<br>
be<br>
achieved if all concerned or affected groups have an opportunity
to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>influence the outcome. Gender balanced
representation in all aspects<br>
of<br>
Internet Governance is vital for the process and its outcomes to
have<br>
legitimacy.<br>
<br>
We believe the WGIG is becoming a working model for
multi-stakeholder<br>
collaboration, with all sectors providing expertise and
contributions.<br>
The governments that agreed to this new global practice should now<br>
take<br>
positive steps to ensure its full implementation.<br>
<br>
As a first step, conformity with this evolving norm should be<br>
carefully<br>
assessed with respect to existing arrangements at
intergovernmental<br>
level, like the ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, other organizations such as
OECD<br>
and<br>
WTO, private sector arrangements like ICANN and the IETF, and to<br>
emerging mechanisms.<br>
<br>
2. The WGIG should ground its work within a human rights and<br>
development<br>
framework. The rights to freedom of expression and privacy are of<br>
special importance in this context as is the need for a greater<br>
emphasis<br>
on the principles of openness and transparency.<br>
<br>
The caucus believes that two outcomes of the WGIG that will add<br>
significant value are:<br>
<br>
1. An understanding of how governance mechanisms can further these<br>
basic<br>
rights and principles,<br>
2. An elaboration of the concept of democratic internet governance<br>
which<br>
fosters the goals of creativity, innovation and cultural and<br>
linguistic<br>
diversity<br>
<br>
3. The extent of participation from those who do not yet have
access<br>
to<br>
the Internet is still far from sufficient. This is especially true
for<br>
civil society actors. The stakeholders present during this WSIS<br>
process<br>
have been, in the main, economically privileged and predominately<br>
male.<br>
We would like the WGIG to make appropriate recommendations to
ensure<br>
the<br>
effective participation of ALL people from all regions of the
world.<br>
For<br>
governance mechanisms to be all-inclusive and transparent, even
women<br>
and men who are not yet connected by any communication
technologies<br>
should be represented and heard.<br>
<br>
4. All stakeholders should recognize the diversity of processes
and<br>
mechanisms involved in Internet governance, including:<br>
* decisions by individual users<br>
* private agreements<br>
* national policies, and,<br>
* international and transnational bodies.<br>
<br>
This diversity of perspectives, opinions and values should be<br>
reflected<br>
in the final report and any further outcomes of the WGIG. While we<br>
support WGIG's efforts to establish consensus on various issues,
the<br>
report should go beyond consensual matters and find ways to
reflect<br>
diversity.<br>
<br>
5. Although Prepcom 2 is early for substantive progress on issues
and<br>
definitions, we wish to emphasize those that the WGIG must consider
in<br>
its next phase of work:<br>
<br>
* Unilateral control of the root zone file and its effects for
the<br>
name<br>
space<br>
* The crucial role of technical standards in the preservation of
an<br>
interoperable global Internet<br>
* The impact of Internet Governance on freedom of expression and<br>
privacy<br>
* The different implications of Internet Governance for women and
men<br>
* The impact of Internet Governance on consumer protection<br>
* International Intellectual property and trade rules where they<br>
intersect with Internet Governance<br>
* Access to knowledge as global commons<br>
<br>
In addition we wish the WGIG luck in coming to closure on a
coherent<br>
and<br>
meaningful definition on Internet governance.<br>
<br>
The relevance of the WGIG report lies in advancing a global<br>
understanding of these issues. Such an understanding constitutes
the<br>
basis of informed, inclusive and democratic approaches to Internet<br>
governance. We look forward to progress being made on these issues
and<br>
the opportunity to contribute further to WGIG's work.<br>
<br>
Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, negotiations must be<br>
conducted "in an open and inclusive process that ensures a
mechanism<br>
for<br>
the full and active participation of governments, the private
sector<br>
and<br>
civil society from both developing and developed countries" as
stated<br>
in<br>
the Geneva declaration of principles. The final negotiated
document<br>
MUST<br>
reflect and honour the multi-stakeholder process that produced it.<br>
<br>
---------------<br>
<br>
best regards, jeanette<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<span
></span>-- -----</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>----<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite>_______________________________________________<br>
governance mailing list<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ct mailing list<br>
Ct@wsis-cs.org<br>
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct<br>
Civil Society Plenary: http://www.wsis-cs.org/<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ct mailing list<br>
Ct@wsis-cs.org<br>
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct<br>
Civil Society Plenary: http://www.wsis-cs.org/</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
governance mailing list<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Plenary mailing list<br>
Plenary@wsis-cs.org<br>
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>