<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I think you are wrong Parminder. I will need to map all your answers
and reply to you properly.<br>
<br>
On 11/11/10 6:41 AM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CDC009F.6090600@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
<font face="sans-serif">Marilia<br>
<br>
It may be useful to note that the same people here who are
opposing any
new institutional developments under the EC rubric, are the ones
who
oppose any kind of movement towards IGF being able to give any
kinds of
recommendations. <br>
<br>
So they are not confused at all between different parts of our
proposal
(EC/ IGF) at all. They are either generally against public
policy
regimes globally, or are content with those that include only
developed
countries (OECD) and leave out developing countries.<br>
<br>
I dont think in any other global civil society group such kind
of open
discrimination could have been countenanced. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Thursday 11 November 2010 07:58 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinCacxbq7GJ31yXhaqOBWxe3qENM+FFqWJD5b5D@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Dear Avri,<br>
<br style="">
<br style="">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">You said
that<br>
<br>
"setting up a centralized institutional framework on global
level,
especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just
does not seem
appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the
sort of
thing we
escaped having happen at the ITU. I do not see why we would
start
advocating that in the IGC".<br>
<br>
In my opinion:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">- T<b>he IG
regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation</b>
on
substantive matters
(access, privacy, etc). The <b>IGF is the only forum where
substantive
issues are
discussed, but the way it is structured (which is a
feature, not a bug,
and
should not be changed) makes it impossible for the IGF to
perform this
role.</b> There
is noise and there is not a “membership”, which generates
problems with
legitimacy.
But the IGF needs to be considered when we talk about EC
because <b>the
substantive
inputs to draft policy and regulation need to come from
the IGF</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">- <b>We do not
necessarely need to create new centralized structures to
draft policy</b>.
We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the
MAG (functioning under UN). If the election of its members
was made
more transparent, then its role
could be changed, so it could receive input from the IGF and
have
competence to
perform the task of proposing policy and regulation. MAG
could also
have an
important role with coordinating with other organizations to
perform
its tasks.<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Leaving out the
details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members, etc), <b>do
you
think the above is something you could agree with?</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">I get the
feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree
because we
are mixing
up different “parts” of our proposal, that is why I proposed
to map the
positions that have been put forth on the list, so we can
have a
clearer idea
of which are exactly our agreements and disagreements.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Marília</span></p>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri
Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@psg.com">avri@psg.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">Hi,<br>
<br>
I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the
COE should
not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the
regions think
it is necessary. The OECD setup is a new thing and I would
personally
like to know more before we use it as an example for other
activities.<br>
<br>
But setting up a centralized institutional framework on
global level,
especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just
does not seem
appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the
sort of
thing we escaped having happen at the ITU. I do not see why
we would
start advocating that in the IGC.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
a.<br>
</font>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:<br>
<br>
> Baudouin<br>
><br>
> All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU -
are fine.<br>
><br>
> My question however is specific<br>
><br>
> What is the problem with the IGC asking for a
global institutional
framework for developing Internet related public
policies that includes
all countries, and their stakeholders, of a similar kind
that that
OECD/ CoE already has?<br>
><br>
> This question is especially to seen in the context
of the fact
that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and
engaged with the
mentioned OECD framework.<br>
><br>
> Why is the need of participation of developing
countries, with
their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or
important. That is
the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related
proposal.<br>
><br>
> Parminder<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin
SCHOMBE wrote:<br>
>> Parminder concretely in the context of
strengthening
cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be
wise for formal
exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from
other continents
to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.<br>
>> I think this is also part of the delicate task
of civil
society entities. I also understand that such an
approach requires
costs that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal
partner, especially
for developing countries.<br>
>> The process is still long, but if we have land
in 2015 with
force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct
any mistakes
along the way from Tunis 2005.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN<br>
>> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE
CULTUREL (CAFEC)<br>
>> ACADEMIE DES TIC<br>
>> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC<br>
>> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE<br>
>> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)<br>
>><br>
>> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914<br>
>> email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:b.schombe@gmail.com">b.schombe@gmail.com</a><br>
>> blog: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://akimambo.unblog.fr" target="_blank">http://akimambo.unblog.fr</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 2010/11/11 parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Hi All<br>
>><br>
>> I am still not able to understand how so many
of those who are
against any new institutional framework for evolving
global IG related
public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all
countries and
stakeholders, have enthusiastically supported a similar
framework
among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's Committee For
Information,
Computer and Communication Policy, which has a very
active portfolio
for helping develop Internet policies, esp those with
trans-border
ramification. Many CS members in the IGC have actively
organized
themselves to associate with the work of this OECD's
institutional
framework.<br>
>><br>
>> Why should such a framework not exist at a
global level? And I
do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder
enough. My
proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to
OECD's) that
will help develop globally applicable Internet related
public policies,
which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is
about, that is much
more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one<br>
>><br>
>> I request a specific response for those who
have supported the
OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this
includes most here on
the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional
developments at
the global level , how do they justify this opposition
now, for a
similar global institutional framework.<br>
>><br>
>> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC
members here have
gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored
body, which can
be no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to
unserstand
thier stanc eeven more.<br>
>><br>
>> Should we depend on OECD to make global
Internet policies.
That is what is being said in this support for a OECD
framework but
opposition to a similar global framework one, for
addressing the urgent
need for global Interent related public policies. .<br>
>><br>
>> For this reason I cannot support the present
draft statement.
But if someone can give me some justification clarifying
the above
paradox, I am very much willing to listen.<br>
>><br>
>> Parminder<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>
____________________________________________________________<br>
>> You received this message as a subscriber on
the list:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
>><br>
>> Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
>><br>
>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div>
</div>
</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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
</body>
</html>