<!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 bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<style>@font-face {
font-family: "Times New Roman";
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style>Since
the call has already being made, I will continue sharing my thoughts
on the list. <br>
<br>
A few thoughts about a single centralized structure for Internet
Governance and Internet policy that was proposed in some emails. I
believe is dangerous; I'd prefer to see it split between different
regulatory and policy bodies. While there is a cost to follow
different spaces, I believe is less than having a single centralized
structure. Having a single centralize structure is likely to be a
lobbying target; particularly so if the new body has norm-setting
power - everyone who has something to gain will have the incentive
to spend time and money lobbying there to influence policy or
norm-setting in a way that suits their interests. <br>
<br>
Civil society is likely to lose out in that world; we usually don't
have equivalent time or financial resources compared to other
stakeholders, so we can't "lobby" as effectively, and we usually
don't have the ability to engage with policymakers as closely as
other stakeholders. The concern is regulatory capture - regulators
will often be influenced by those views that they hear the most (and
with a-symmetric resources, that is more likely to be industry or
govt and not civil society views). I do not believe this discussion
is about developing country framework vs developed country
frameworks (at least not from a public interest point of view).
Instead it's about the scope of the new authority and creating "a
single point of failure".<br>
<br>
I do not like the broad scope either. On the cybersecurity /
cybercrime front, we can loose that battle completely. Just see
which countries are requesting what?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm">http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm</a>
<br>
<br>
About other Internet Policy Organizations:<br>
<br>
There are several organizations dealing with Internet Policy. One
similar to the "model of the OECD" is APEC. I consider APEC a
dangerous space, at least on privacy (and may be copyright). <br>
<br>
Observer status to APEC is restrictive, and countries like China/US
might used veto powers to avoid some civil society participants to
join this meetings. Latin American countries members of APEC are:
Peru, Mexico and Chile. Since the meetings are confidential, even
if one country opposed to an observer status application, the
application is rejected. I consider APEC really dangerous and I
think is quite organization. I think, APEC is a close,
non-transparent, non inclusive organizations.<br>
<br>
There are tensions (in my opinion) between those OECD/APEC,
although they said they "cooperate" . For instance, on privacy, the
OECD is placed as a better place for privacy discussion because it
has the European countries (with strong privacy safeguards) and the
United States in the other hand. While in APEC is mostly driven by
United States and its allies (including Mexico). However, you also
have the Council of Europe (and Convention 108) which does similar
work. And in some way you see different approaches to the same issue
from different point of views.<br>
<br>
There has been a lot of critics to ITU, Council of Europe for the
close, non-transparent, non inclusive, organizations. So I will not
enter into detail there.<br>
<br>
Note: I do understand the sentiment of Parminder of the lack of a
research policy institutes in developing countries that can tackle
some internet policy issues. A place that is open transparent, and
inclusive. I do not believe that a broad-in-scope is a good idea,
nor a global one. We need regional concerted agendas. For
instance, in Latin America, may be ELAC is trying to solve this
vacuum. Valeria Betancourt, APC is the liaison for civil society in
ELAC in Latin America, and I would like to hear from here how ELAC
works, the scope of its mandate, the work they do, etc...<br>
<br>
But I fully agree with Lee (which I will quote: " So re-creating an
OECD-like public policy discussion forum is no small task and
requires a small and very smart core staff to do the work which
member countries have to pay for. I don;t see the political will or
$ for that. I do see a number of UN-related entities like UNCTAD,
ITU-D, UN-GAID, which probably think that is what they are doing but
not at least in my view with the impact of OECD." <br>
<br>
In addition, I fear any possibility of create a new or enhanced
space for discussing global cybercrime/cybersecurity issues. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm">http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<1> Accountability Project
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details%5CFileUpload265%5C2962%5CBruening_APEC_BNA_Oct-2010.pdf">http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s47Details%5CFileUpload265%5C2962%5CBruening_APEC_BNA_Oct-2010.pdf</a><br>
<2><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd">http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd</a>[347]=x-347-566294<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<span>
</span>
</body>
</html>