Is this an disagreement <b>with the structure</b> (IGF producing input for policy, MAG with role on policy drafting) or <b>with the issues</b> that would be tackled? I used the issues as examples. Could you clarify the exact point of disagreement and the reason?<br>
Marilia<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</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 bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I definitely disagree. I have strong critics about the unintended
consequence of moving forward that proposal, specially within the
privacy/cybercrime arena. <br><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
On 11/11/10 6:28 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Avri,<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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 lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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 lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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 lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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 lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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 lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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 href="mailto:avri@psg.com" target="_blank">avri@psg.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;">
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><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 href="mailto:b.schombe@gmail.com" target="_blank">b.schombe@gmail.com</a><br>
>> blog: <a href="http://akimambo.unblog.fr" target="_blank">http://akimambo.unblog.fr</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 2010/11/11 parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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><br>
>><br>
>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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></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>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><pre cols="72"><font color="#888888">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
</font><div class="im"><a href="mailto:katitza@eff.org" target="_blank">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org" target="_blank">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</div></pre>
</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>