[governance] Stakeholder Participation in the Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri May 11 13:44:04 EDT 2012
This makes sense to me.
avri
Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>dear michael
>
>i am too busy to respond in full.... but i like the idea of looking at
>the OGP process a lot
>
>i had a good look at the declaration, and the section on 'measures'
>
>the idea this gave me is that what would be very useful for IG is a
>consultative process that will build such a declaration on EC - a
>process which is inclusive of a wide range of
>instutitions, constituencies, sectors etc.
>
>so.. like the WGIG process.. but with its specific goal being agreement
>on a 'Declaration on inclusive, multi-stakeholder international
>internet
>governance'
>
>anriette
>
>
>On 09/05/12 16:46, michael gurstein wrote:
>> In this context, I think that the IGC should be paying extremely
>> close attention to the Open Government Partnership
>> <http://www.opengovpartnership.org/> which I pointed to earlier.
>>
>> The OGP has a formal "Declaration
>>
><http://http://www.opengovpartnership.org/open-government-declaration>"
>> (i.e. normative statement--"convention" if you will) to which
>> Members need to formally commit themeselves. The Partner
>> country's membership in the Partnership is initially accepted
>> based on their adherence to the Charter and whose on-going
>> performance is equally assessed (includng by CS) against their
>> stated plan/committment concerning the implementation of the
>forward
>> looking provisions of the Charter.
>>
>> Secondly, CS has a formally defined role as a full-fledged
>"partner"
>> in the Partnership with certain designated rights and
>> responsibilities including a co-Chairmanship of the overall
>> Partnership.
>>
>> Although there are a number of elements still in the process of
>> being worked out (not the least of which is the structuring of CS
>in
>> the context of the OGP) to my mind this is a direction towards
>which
>> EC/IG should be moving, towards which CS should be pushing IG,
>and
>> which overall represents a potentially very positive post
>Atlantic
>> Charter direction for the overall evolution of CS and Global
>> Governance in the Age of the Internet.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of
>*parminder
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:41 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the
>> Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva
>>
>> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 08:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> It seems to me that the basic issues of Enhanced Cooperation
>from a CS perspective are twofold:
>>>
>> We, as a set of civil society players, have tried to present
>> concrete possibilities for both, but with no engagement from the
>> larger CS involved with IG.
>>
>>> 1. what is the normative framework within which EC should take
>place--my strong suggestion would be that it is that of transparency,
>accountability, democracy and inclusiveness (and of course there is the
>WSIS declaration etc. to support this). And that this should be
>presented as a declaration and within a framing document.
>>>
>>
>> A framework convention on the Internet was proposed, but found no
>> traction among the CS actors in IG. Yes, it needs to be informed
>by
>> the values that you mention.
>>
>>> 2. that having agreed on such a normative framework the
>question is what is the most appropriate institutional arrangement for
>achieving these within the context of Internet governance.
>>>
>>
>> UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's
>> Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global
>> Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong
>> linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF
>> proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it
>> must be spelt out.
>>
>> Still, we believe that even a CIRP kind of body should be an
>interim
>> arrangement, doing stop-gap work, but focussing on the activity
>of
>> being the nodal point for developing a suitable framework
>convention
>> on the Internet, which 'framework convention' then proposes the
>> right body for global governance of the global internet, which is
>> fully adequate and appropriate to the phenomenon, context etc.
>>
>> If someone has a different/ better roadmap, lets discuss it.
>>
>> Non engagement with and non-proposal of clear concrete road-maps
>is
>> simply an acceptance of the status quo in global Internet
>> governance, and we think that the staus quo is hugely
>problematic,
>> involves ever greater concentration of power, and is thus not
>> acceptable.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
><mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette
>Esterhuysen
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:08 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Stakeholder Participation in the
>Enhanced Cooperation Meeting in Geneva
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Bill, Adam and all
>>>
>>> The agenda is very basic. I will post it below. Parminder and I
>have both been asked to speak. APC will post our basic input here as
>soon as we have had a chance to present it to members first.
>>>
>>> Basically my idea is to shift the discussion towards the
>involvement of civil society in EC and rather than just the usual
>involvement of governments. My gut reaction to EC is that there is all
>this dispute about the involvements from States and while this is kind
>of going nowhere, there appears to be less cooperation and more
>concentration of power among large companies, rich country governments,
>and established IG 'institutions'.
>>>
>>> I hope this will complement Parminder's input which I hope will
>focus on the imbalances in governmental involvement from governments in
>the north (who tend to say they don't want control, but they already
>have it) and governments in the south (who say they want more control
>and who don't have much at global level, and who are not demonstrating,
>consistently, good use of the control they do have at national level -
>in my view).
>>>
>>> A serious discussion on what governments responsibilities are
>and of WHAT they need to be involved in would be useful in my view.
>>>
>>> And then finally, and I would appreciate IGC input on this..
>among APC staff we have had a discussion of the parameters of EC. Is EC
>just something we should be talking about at global level, or also at
>national level.
>>>
>>> I feel stongly that we need to take the discussion to EC in IG
>at national level. And this should touch on global IG issues (how
>countries engage, whether there is capacity building, consultation,
>etc. around involvement in global issues/process) as well as on
>national IG issues.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>> 11:00-
>>> 13:00
>>> Welcoming remarks by the Chair of the CSTD, Mr. Fortunato de la
>Peña ■ Address by: Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary-General of the
>International Telecommunication Union (ITU) ■ Address by: Mr. Nigel
>Hickson, Vice President for Europe, ICANN ■ Address by: Mr. Markus
>Kummer, Vice President Public Policy, Internet Society ■ Address by:
>Mr. Jimson Olufuye, Vice-Chairman, Africa Region, World Information
>Technology and Services Alliance ■ Address by: Mr. Parminder Singh,
>Executive Director, IT for Change ■ Address by: Ms. Marilyn Cade, CEO,
>mCADE LLC ■ Address by: Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director,
>Association for Progressive Communications
>>> 15:00-
>>> 18:00
>>> General discussion
>>>
>>> On 08/05/12 09:06, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could you give a pointer to the agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, William Drake
><william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Just wondering if we want to do anything about this? The
>draft
>>>> program has a couple of IGCers as speakers but no clarity
>on rules
>>>> of engagement for other attendees…?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you know, there will be an enhanced cooperation
>consultation on
>>>>> 18 May in Geneva, following the IGF consultations and MAG
>>>>> meeting.
>http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1
><http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1>
>>>>>
>>>>>
><http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1>
><http://archive.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=6227&lang=1>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be very important that all stakeholders are able
>to
>>>>> intervene and contribute freely (but strategically) during
>this
>>>>> consultation, rather than have to sit silently on the
>sidelines or
>>>>> be relegated to collective brief interventions at the end
>of each
>>>>> session. I imagine that ICC (business) and ISOC (TC) will
>be
>>>>> contacting the CSTD secretariat to make such a request.
>On behalf
>>>>> of civil society, the IGC should do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming people agree with the proposition, may I suggest
>that the
>>>>> co-coordinators take a crack at drafting a one or two
>paragraph
>>>>> letter to Mongi to this effect? Probably it would be
>better to do
>>>>> it sooner than later, as the secretariat would then need
>to pass
>>>>> the request along to governments etc…
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>> ***************************************************
>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
><mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>>>> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake
><http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake>
>>>>> <http://www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake>
>>>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
><http://www.williamdrake.org>
>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
><mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
><mailto: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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------
>anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>executive director, association for progressive communications
>www.apc.org
>po box 29755, melville 2109
>south africa
>tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list