<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] GNI</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Jeremy,<BR>
<BR>
Permit me to follow on from your message with a note on the workshop you are helping organize.<BR>
<BR>
We will be addressing the IGF recommendation issue and others in the 'Role and Mandate of IGF' workshop Dec. 6th, 9am.<BR>
<BR>
A time to address our phobias, and perhaps move beyond them.<BR>
<BR>
Lee<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Jeremy Malcolm [<A HREF="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org</A>]<BR>
Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 12:33 AM<BR>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath<BR>
Subject: Re: [governance] GNI<BR>
<BR>
On 25/11/2008, at 1:44 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> This is a "classical" voluntary CSR mechanism and also seems to be <BR>
> (viewed<BR>
> as) a self-regulatory alternative to the more law-based approach of <BR>
> having<BR>
> a Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA) or something similar.<BR>
><BR>
> EDRi decided not to become involved in GNI, for similar reasons as<BR>
> Reporters without borders had to not endorse it, see below. As far <BR>
> as I've<BR>
> heard, even some of the GNI members like EFF still have reservations.<BR>
<BR>
The other problem that I have with GNI is that because it (quite <BR>
deliberately) excludes governments (save for a UN observer), it limits <BR>
its potential to become widely authoritative, at least in the short <BR>
term.<BR>
<BR>
Much the same problem beset every previous effort at a non-<BR>
governmental Internet policy forum (such as ISOC's Internet Societal <BR>
Task Force). God knows, if we didn't have to suffer the presence of <BR>
governments in the IGF, why would we? ;-)<BR>
<BR>
In principle a better approach for GNI would have been to work within <BR>
the framework of the IGF - though the quite obvious reason why they <BR>
didn't is that the IGF is in no manner ready to host this kind of <BR>
initiative, because of its phobia of making recommendations.<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
JEREMY MALCOLM<BR>
Project Coordinator<BR>
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL-KL OFFICE<BR>
for Asia Pacific and the Middle East <BR>
<BR>
Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global <BR>
campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in <BR>
115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer <BR>
movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more <BR>
information, visit www.consumersinternational.org.<BR>
<BR>
____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR>
<BR>
For all list information and functions, see:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>