<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<blockquote cite="mid:C8FB2BCE.13351%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">While agreeing totally with Avri about the makeup, </pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, we can recommend something different. Maybe 9 or 15 non gov
members. I was being conservative since, if our suggestion was to be
accepted, this is the first time ever that any substative global
governance body will have non government members in a substantive
capacity. That is entirely a new model, and we should indeed be trying
to get a foot in somehow. We need to slowly, and with good reasoning
and show of practical work, build the basis of substantive
non-governmental political representation at gobal levels. Suggesting
an entirely 'unreasonable' number right away may not be very useful as
a practical strategy. But I am quite open on this.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:C8FB2BCE.13351%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I also agree totally with
Parminder and his logic in recommending that some sort of body come into
existence. To paraphrase
Tunis did suggest there was some sort of gap/vacuum in IG policies
That gap does serve the interests of the powerful (wittingly or unwittingly)
and does result in marginalisation
It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to
address this vacuum
Ian
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: Avri Doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@psg.com"><avri@psg.com></a>
Reply-To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><governance@lists.cpsr.org></a>, Avri Doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@psg.com"><avri@psg.com></a>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:04:58 -0400
To: IGC <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><governance@lists.cpsr.org></a>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Hi,
I think this proposal is horribly government centric and hope that it is does
not become the consensus of the IGC.
A civil society caucus should not become a government serving body. To
voluntarily surrender full control of Internet governance to governments,
except for a token 'other' presence strikes me as unthinkable.
a.
On 5 Nov 2010, at 23:44, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi All
The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for developing
public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda makes that
distinction clear).
Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG policies or
not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such a vacuum.
What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer.
And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, what
is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and whose
interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most sociological/
political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) political
structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the marginalised.
Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that
is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only democratic global
political institutions can remedy this situation.
If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is
regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the excluded.
And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.
If we have to take our cues from global CS outside IG arena, then perhaps CS
organisations concerned with globalisation issues come closest. Information
Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the global CS's prescription to
address the ill and excesses of globalisation is mostly better and more
democratic global governance institutions (see for instance writings of
Joseph Stiglitz). This is mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'.
And now when the IG related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new
more democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent or
say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of the
present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this nature does
come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree with such a
statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as a default
statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is being said. I am,
and my organisation is, unable to be associated with what is being said in
this manner.
What we will like to be said is something as follows.
There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and such
a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded most. It is
an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to address
this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner. It will be worthwhile to
consider a global or world Internet organisation or council, with adequate
and equitable representation to governments from all regions as well as
non-governmental representatives of people and interests that cannot
adequately be represented merely through inter-governmental systems,
especially in the new emerging trans-global reality. Such non-governmental
participation is also necessary to give equitable representation to
marginalised groups, like disability and indigenous groups, who find strength
through global organization, and whose interests need a more direct
representation at global policy forum. Such an institutional mechanism will
be the best way to deepen democracy at global level, and ensure a really
democratic global Internet regime.
We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ Global
Internet Council/ Organization has five governmental members each from each
region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The ways to select these
non-governmental members may be arrived at through consultation with all
involved groups. However the process should be open and bottom up.
This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate for
all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not restricted
to, oversight of CIR management.
This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG
matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing specialized
agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and nationally
through different means/mechanisms of such global policy making/ adopting.
It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements
on Internet-related public policies.
This Body should also help set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global
coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues that
require coordination on an ongoing basis.
This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute resolution
mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.
The relationship between this Body and technical and operational Internet
institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, should be
formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. In this regard,
US government should cede all controls/ supervision of ICANN and IANA and
such related functions to this body.
(A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the WGIG
report)
The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. There
is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed here if we
put our creative and political energies on the task. However abstaining, or
giving rather vague comments, when asked about our specific preferences for a
global IG order is not, in my opinion, something the IGC can afford to do. It
may only do so at the risk of compromising its political legitimacy as the
leading progressive global civil society organization.
Parminder
On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the
claim it is neutral.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be
neutral as between civil society and governments. I just meant that in
drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because
of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.
There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I
incorporated).
Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version
incorporating all new comments. Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less
neutral/bland - also longer :-(. All paragraphs but the last have changes,
but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2. I can also send a marked-up
version if there is demand for it.
--- begins ---
The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present
its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international
public policy issues relating to the Internet. We do not have any detailed
prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take
this opportunity to make three simple points.
First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related
public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant
organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully
implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new
arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part
in them.
These points will be explained in turn:
1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned
around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet
naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle
far more broadly. It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our
cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented
and non-discriminatory Information Society.
2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help
to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy
issues in other fora. However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation
will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet
governance organisations that do not already follow this model.
There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
and amongst all relevant organisations. These may include:
* making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance
their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on
their progress;
* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
72(i));
* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social
grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
stakeholders would participate; or
* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in
its respective role.
3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is
an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced
cooperation. Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil
society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,
accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>