<!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="#333333">
<font face="sans-serif">Wolfgang,<br>
<br>
I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me humbly
submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with IT for
Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a fact that
was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA statement. These
overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new institutional
structure, listing of global network neutrality and A2K as key global
IG issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter. <br>
<br>
Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken when you say "...</font>the
objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can
"enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both
among themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement
represents the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to
be.<br>
<br>
Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is very
clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet and thus
must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are obviously
ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly that of IBSA in
the below regard, I must quote some passages from the IBSA statement to
show how clearly have you mis-read it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote> " Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be
discussed among UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of
view due to the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to
systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is
thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform under
the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a platform would
also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a multi-stakeholder
forum for discussing, sharing experiences and networking on Internet
governance."<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>" The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and
established will allow the international community to accomplish the
developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...."<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation....<br>
<br>
<blockquote> "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from
all international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend
on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced Cooperation
mechanism within an existing international organization or recommend
establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced Cooperation, along
with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process."<br>
</blockquote>
Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as<br>
<br>
<font face="sans-serif">"...</font>to create an
enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication,
coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other
stakeholders. "<br>
<br>
However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is
all what they really meant.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A076FC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder:
IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'.
Wolfgang:
If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover". And this is an important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that we recogn
ize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>