<!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 text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<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>
</body>
</html>