<!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">Adam<br>
<br>
IT for Change's statement for the open consultation on enhanced
cooperation is at </font><span style="visibility: visible;" id="search"><span
class="f"><cite>unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043239.pdf
. <i> </i></cite></span></span><br>
<br>
Our view is clearly and in detail presented in the statement. In the
context of the para 8 of IBSA statement we asked for a CSTD WG ' on
similar lines as the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements', At the
time of writing this statement it was almost universally understood
that the CSTD WG on IGF will be multistakeholder, and that is what the
IGC, and IT for Change had also called for. <br>
<br>
My email to which you responded clearly mentions the areas where we had
overlap with IBSA statement - asking for new institutional developments
in global Internet policy space (which is the position of many in the
IGC and formed a part of IGC statement to the open consultation on
enhanced cooperation; listing issues like network neutrality and A2K as
among those requiring global attention; and calling for constituting a
CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation. <br>
<br>
So, no, we did not and do not support a purely inter-gov WG on this
issue. <br>
<br>
Now that the matter you raised has been taken care of, I would like to
hear what all you found as 'anathema to civil society, everything we've
worked for' in the IBSA statement. And whether you also noticed that
for the first time a gov statement to the UN raised issues like NN and
A2K, and in fact mentions human rights among these issues. <br>
<br>
Now, since you rightly find purely inter-gov structures anathema to CS
values or whatever, do you know that CoE and OECD have Internet policy
making platforms which are purely inter-gov and have other stakeholders
only at an arms lenght advisory role - a structure much worse than even
the recently constituted WG on IGF... Never heard you and many others
so scornful of developing countries accused of exclusions in forming
the WGIGF criticise these devleoped countries. On the contrary many of
these people enthusiastically participate in it.<br>
<br>
Since you had insisted (rightly)that I answer your direct questions
about my support or not to IBSA position, can you also please directly
answer my queries.<br>
<br>
Not only other stakeholders are excluded, other country govs are
excluded, though when the policy frameworks are final, these countries
are invited to sign on. I saw such a scenario at the OECD ministrial
in Seoul, (Brazil rightly refused to sign on. Some other developing
countries regrettably did). Have you found such exclusions anathema to
CS. If you have, I never heard you mention that. <br>
<br>
Do you find it anathema to CS that technical community and private
sector called for discontinuation of 'IG for development' plenary
session at the IGF, and you just need to wait to see what happens when
a session on NN is suggested. <br>
<br>
See Janna's email forwarding what Sir Tim Berner-Lee thinks are the
real IG issues. Not supporting these issues, and not doing very active
work on these, is what I think is anathema to CS. When the inventor of
web can clearly point out what NN is, and sees it as something which
can and needs to be enforced, why do so many of us like to keep
believing it may not be so. <br>
<br>
When I raise the issue of how US gov has such power vis a vis all the
major digital companies which together constitute most of the Internet
, you would like to dismiss it as my long standing confusion between
infrastructure and content issues. The fact that such huge
concentration of Internet related power in one government doesnt bother
many who are so much bothered with even a framework making role passing
to the UN which is certainly much more representative than the UN gov
is what I - and i can speak of most in developing countries - consider
anathema to civil society. <br>
<br>
So, you may consider it wrong to have a purely inter-gov WG (and I
agree) but I am surprised and pained that this is all that you read of
as value in the IBSA statement. This position in my view is very narrow
and biased, and covering such narrow politics with statements like
'anathema to civil society, everything we've worked for' is something
that does no longer pass muster. So I will request your comments on all
other parts of the IBSA statement as well. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Adam Peake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:p06240827c961f8b46ae4@%5B192.168.1.160%5D"
type="cite">Parminder,
<br>
<br>
Wondered if you had any comment on this email.
<br>
<br>
I've just read the IBSA statement again and find it anathema to civil
society, everything we've worked for. Just wondering what parts you
support, specifically. And particularly if you supported paragraph 8
of the statement.
<br>
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
<br>
Adam
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900
<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
From: Adam Peake <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp"><ajp@glocom.ac.jp></a>
<br>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
<br>
Reply-To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org,Adam">governance@lists.cpsr.org,Adam</a> Peake <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp"><ajp@glocom.ac.jp></a>
<br>
X-Loop: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
X-Sequence: 219
<br>
Sender: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
X-no-archive: yes
<br>
List-Id: <governance.lists.cpsr.org>
<br>
List-Archive: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance></a>
<br>
List-Help: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=help"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=help></a>
<br>
List-Owner: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org></a>
<br>
List-Post: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a>
<br>
List-Subscribe:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance></a>
<br>
List-Unsubscribe:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance"><mailto:sympa@lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance></a>
<br>
<br>
Parminder,
<br>
<br>
Thanks for clarifying what you meant about architecture of the
Internet. As I said, the Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to
do with the Internet in and of itself, you keep confusing issues of
content and infrastructure. Can't help you, it's been going on for
years, so let's just forget it.
<br>
<br>
About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for Change had no part in
drafting or encouraging paragraph 8 of the statement:
<br>
<br>
"8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of establishing such a
platform, the IBSA countries reiterate the need to ensure that the
present consultations result in a clear roadmap for operationalizing
Enhanced Cooperation. In this context, we would like to propose that
an inter-governmental working group be established under the UN
Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the focal
point in the UN system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS. The
Working Group should be mandated to prepare a report on the possible
institutional design and roadmap for enhanced cooperation in
consultation with all stakeholders, and asked to submit its report to
the UN General Assembly in 2011. 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>
<br>
It would be ironic given that the IGC's nominating committee
recommended you as a member of the *multistakeholder* working group
rather than the inter-governmental process the IBSA statement
suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, did you support or accept para 8
of the IBSA statement?
<br>
<br>
I read the IBSA statement as extremely detrimental to the Internet
(broadly) and the interests of civil society and other non-governmental
stakeholders. Given the list of policy issues in the paragraph that
precedes it, para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't know what there is
to like about a proposal that only favors narrow government interests.
<br>
<br>
Adam
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 "...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>
" 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>
<br>
" 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>
Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation....
<br>
<br>
"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>
<br>
Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as
<br>
<br>
"...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:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Parminder:
<br>
<br>
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'.
<br>
<br>
Wolfgang:
<br>
<br>
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
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>