Actually I propose that the IGC does not rely on Nupef's submissions soley. It is critical that the global civil society has a view on the issue as we could be later blamed for not speaking out when we had the opportunity to do so. These are some thoughts:<div>
<br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Noting that reference to the IBSA Multistakeholder meeting
on Global Internet Governance was restricted to public and private sector
within India and Brazil and civil society in Brazil although there has been
some notable contentions by Nupef [insert hyperlink to Nupef’s publicised
statement].</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Acknowledging the advice given to the Internet Governance
Caucus (IGC) by one of the organisers of the IBSA meeting.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Noting that the spirit of Global Internet Governance demands
that any discussions affecting the evolution of internet governance discussions
should involve the global internet community through the global internet
governance forums that are convened annually;</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and
take a vote on the issue – although we should be prepared for the results]</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My personal views on the matter are that the greatest
strength of the Internet Governance Forum is that it is transparent, democratic
and multi-stakeholder and to create an institution to manage global internet
processes to develop processes for internet at global level needs to be
urgently addressed could threaten vulnerable groups. In WGIG 2005 Report V. A.
36 recommended the “creation of new space for dialogue for all stakeholders on
an equal footing on all Internet governance related issues”.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Acknowledging that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded
that there is merit in improving institutional coordination as well as
coordination among all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and national
levels, the IGC believes that this does not justify the creation of an
institution. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">The United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat (“Secretariat”)
already exists and if the stakeholders within the IBSA feel that coordination
can be improved then it should communicate to the Secretariat what it feels
could be strengthened. In my view to bypass the Secretariat and lobby within
the United Nations General Assembly is to act in bad faith of the machinery
that is already available to us as members of the Internet Universe.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In UN meetings, only governments are given votes and in some
instances there are forced governments which are not elected etc. In having a
forum like the current IGF model people can have freedom of expression. The use
of “multilateral” goes against the grain of the core definition of Internet
Governance that was developed<span> </span>in the
WGIG 2005 report that the then UN Secretary General commissioned which was
subsequently endorsed by member states of the UN.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The WGIG 2005 Report further reinforced the inclusiveness
approach and to shift the spotlight on a single spectrum, albeit powerful
spectrum, is to forever alter the “inclusiveness” approach. Did the Tunis
Agenda mention “multilateral”?<span> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span>In fact
Part IV of the WGIG 2005 Report talks about developing a common understanding
of the roles of government, private sector and civil society. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The use of fragmentation of the internet, disjointed policy
making needs to be substantiated by solid empirical evidence and research so
that in a transparent nature, the members of the internet universe can decide
whether and how improvements should be made. For instance, I see it as the
responsibility of people from within the regions that they are respectively
from to empower and enlighten their people to participate in policy processes.
If they are denied the opportunity to participate and participate meaningful,
then we have a serious problem but until then, we should seek to support the
multi-stakeholder model.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If for some reason, the developing world feels that they are
not given the opportunity to have their say, then they should speak up and move
into positions where they can contribute and speak up for their communities. <span> </span>We need to encourage catalysts within regions
to work closely with the United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat Remote
Participation team and Network Operator Groups (NOGs), Internet Service
Providers (ISPs), and other stakeholders within the region to ensure cohesive
participation for all. This should be an enhancement of process which is
something that the Coordinators can lobby and push for in a strategic coherent
manner. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Sala</p><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:09 PM, McTim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Adam Peake <<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>> wrote:<br>
> It's worth stying something, endorse Nupef and go further: emphasize our<br>
> disappointment that the recommendation is misleadingly represented as the<br>
> outcome of an multi-stakeholder meeting. That the IGC strongly disagrees<br>
> with the creation of a new body, and strongly disagrees with the six points<br>
> about such a body. Suggest that the creation of an IBSA IG development<br>
> observatory based on such misleading interpretations would be ill advised.<br>
<br>
</div>+1<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other 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>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div><br></div><div>Tweeter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div><div>Cell: +679 998 2851</div>
<div> </div><div><br></div><br>
</div>