<p class="MsoNormal">Some comments below<br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">(…)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address
this governance deficit, much remains to be done.<span style=""> </span>It is imperative that this deficit continue
to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional developments that
comply with the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent,
democratic and inclusive.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">If we want to reach compromise, “institutional developments” is a good choice, since it leaves room for different interpretations and for
the many proposals put forth on the list.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We make three further points.<span style=""> </span>First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements of
relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully
implement enhanced cooperation, and thirdly whatever new arrangements may be
put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">In order to envision what EC should look like, we
need to have in mind the whole IG ecosystem, and the IGF is an important,
vibrant part of it. Therefore, I believe the IGF has to appear in our statement
and its role needs to be considered when drafting future arrangements.</span> <span style=""><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These points will be explained in turn:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<span style=""> </span>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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in
other fora.<span style=""> </span>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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">I would
rather say that “its multi-stakeholder process can provide input to shape
decisions (…)”. This indicates that there should be coherence in the whole
system.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">When we
say “related public policy issues in other fora” and “extend to other Internet
governance organizations that do not already follow this model” I have the impression that for
IGC, EC means the closest coordination between IGF, one the one side, and ITU, etc, on the other side. Our main request is that these other
organizations follow the example of the IGF and become multistakeholder. It could be inferred that no new body needs to be created and any redesign of existing ones would need to take place. I
don´t believe this is what we meant, but maybe a slight change in
phrasing would help? Something like “Extend to other existing or to be created
Internet governance organizations"<br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder
cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.<span style=""> </span>These include:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">I agree
with Parminder that we now have an opportunity to contribute to the design of the
future of the IG regime and we cannot waste it. If we don’t have a clear
proposal, but rather vague statements, others will make the decisions for us. Maybe
we cannot reach consensus for this statement, but we should continue the discussion
to try to reach consensus on how the IG regime should look like in the future.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">The
ongoing discussion on the list would also feed our positions in the CSTD WG.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>(...)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:37 AM, McTim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder and<br>
> people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them equally. The<br>
> biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble for the old one, and<br>
> deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under numbered-paragraph 2. Let's<br>
> continue to have your comments as we try and reach some common ground.<br>
> --- begins ---<br>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process<br>
> towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many<br>
> cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and<br>
> are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para<br>
> 68).<br>
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance<br>
> deficit, much remains to be done. It is imperative that this deficit<br>
> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional<br>
> developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being<br>
> multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.<br>
<br>
</div>What does the above sentence mean? Does it mean new institutions or<br>
new developments within existing institutions?<br>
<br>
If the latter, let's say that. If the former, I would be opposed to this idea.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> We make three further points. First, enhanced cooperation should encompass<br>
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements<br>
> of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not<br>
> fully implement enhanced cooperation,<br>
<br>
</div>Can we say "many of our members believe the existing arrangements of<br>
relevant organisations...."<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
and thirdly whatever new arrangements<br>
> may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.<br>
<br>
</div>I would suggest Should/must/can instead of 'will".<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> These points will be explained in turn:<br>
><br>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned<br>
> around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet<br>
> naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle<br>
> far more broadly. It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our<br>
> cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented<br>
> and non-discriminatory Information Society.<br>
><br>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced<br>
> cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help<br>
> to shape decisions taken on Internet related public policy issues in other<br>
> fora. However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a<br>
> multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance<br>
> organisations that do not already follow this model.<br>
<br>
</div>What does this mean? What other IG institutions are not sufficiently MS?<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within<br>
> and amongst all relevant organisations. These include:<br>
><br>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps<br>
> hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph<br>
> 72(i));<br>
><br>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social<br>
> grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all<br>
> stakeholders would participate; or<br>
><br>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy<br>
> development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in<br>
> its respective role.<br>
<br>
</div>If you are going to remove the "do nothing" option, because some folk<br>
oppose it, then in fairness, I suggest you must remove the above<br>
option as some oppose that as well.<br>
<br>
Getting into options at all is a quagmire, i suggest that it might be<br>
easier to reach consensus if we don't enumerate the options at all.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
><br>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is<br>
> an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced<br>
> cooperation. Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil<br>
> society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent,<br>
> accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.<br>
<br>
</div>fine with that para.<br>
<br>
<br>
> --- ends ---<br>
<br>
--<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>FGV Direito Rio<br>
<br>Center for Technology and Society<br>Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br>