<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=361592117-10102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>+
1</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=361592117-10102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=361592117-10102011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>M</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
governance@lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Marilia Maciel<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 10, 2011 8:41
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Jeremy Malcolm<BR><B>Cc:</B>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Formal IGC
response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Dear
Jeremy and all,<BR><BR>I would like to make some observations on the idea of
making a poll.<BR><BR>- Usually, voting comes right after a time of
discussion, like elections come after a campaign. This gives the range of
ideas an opportunity to be heard and debated and it makes the options (and the
arguments behind them) fresh in the memories of voters. As far as I remember,
the last in depth discussion about EC took place about a year ago (under the
thread named second draft statement on enhanced cooperation). It does not look
like a good procedure to call a vote on those options now, without a new round
of dicussions on the list.<BR><BR>- Taking the risk to be misinterpreted, I
need to express that I find that, the way it is proposed, this approach will
probably lead to unintended results, mainly because:<BR><BR>a) The political
timing. After the reaction to the proposal advanced by China and Russia, the
mood is very much "let´s not change anything". I know I will make a bad
comparison, but it reminds me of initiatives that call on a referendum to
forbid abortion right after a baby has been abandoned or killed. Timing means
much in politics and one may wonder why we would be pushing for an internal
poll now, so many months after our substative discussion. <BR><BR>b) The
political use that can be made about this poll, if it is conducted the way it
has been proposed. The governments themselves (without mentioning CS) have all
said that IBSA document needs improvement. Even people that could support the
general idea in some paragraphs will not support it the way it is. But the
external interpretations about CS statement will certainly not take these
nuances and the draft nature of the doc into account. CS statement will be
very exploitable and I think we should avoid being politically used by other
groups.<BR><BR>c) using IBSA´s draft document as a way to find our position on
EC is a political decision with implications. We are not doing the same with
more concrete documents on the same matter, that are still pretty much
under-discussed, such as the ones from the US and the Commission. Politically,
this means that all attention will continue to be on IBSA, while these other
proposals continue to move forward, more or less unhindered.<BR><BR>Lastly, I
believe many of our members are still in "post-IGF rest" and the activity on
the list has diminished. I think it is not a good moment to call on a poll on
such an important issue, that needs dicussion. <BR><BR>My proposal
would be to hang on to the idea of the poll (which is a good one after all),
but to conduct it in 1 or 2 months, raising the discussion on the list first,
and doing that based on IGC´s previous statement, and not on a concrete
proposal by any country/group.<BR><BR>Of course, that does not mean that we
should not make critics/suggestions to IBSA doc, to be sent to the
summit.<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR>Marília<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">
<DIV>
<DIV class=im>
<DIV>On 10/10/2011, at 10:00 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">I just would like to reinforce that, as Jeremy
mentioned, IGC has produced a statememt about enhanced cooperation. I
could find it online here: <A
href="http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043237.pdf"
target=_blank>http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043237.pdf</A>
and I take the opportunity to ask Jeremy to "pull" all our previous
statements to the current website, as they are one of the most important
elements of our institutional memory.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>It's also on our Statements page (<A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/statements"
target=_blank>http://www.igcaucus.org/statements</A>) at <A
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43"
target=_blank>http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43</A>.</DIV>
<DIV class=im><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">On that statement IGC pointed out four general
options about EC. The discussion to reach this 4 options was a very rich
one, and I believe that any position from IGC about the institutional
aspect of EC should build on that 4 options, not start from
scratch.<BR><BR>I also take the opportunity to ask for more clarification
about the suggestion for the poll, as I did not understand what would be
the topics covered.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>As it stands in draft, I have pulled out each of the substantive
paragraphs of the IBSA summary and asked for the respondent to state how
strongly they agree/disagree, and then I have asked "If there is no new
body, then what else do you suggest" and given the following options (which
draw on, but don't replicate, those from our EC submission), plus an "Other"
option for respondents to enter their own suggestion:</DIV>
<DIV>
<OL>
<LI>No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered
by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are.
<LI>Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy
options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use.
<LI>Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary
network of policy makers that would consult with all
stakeholders.</LI></OL></DIV>
<DIV>More options are welcome...</DIV>
<DIV class=im><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">
<DIV>-- <BR>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><B><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Dr Jeremy
Malcolm<BR>Project Coordinator</SPAN></B><BR><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Consumers International</SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="COLOR: gray; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and
the Middle East<BR>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<BR>Tel: <A href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599"
target=_blank value="+60377261599">+60 3 7726 1599</A></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Consumers
International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working
together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative
global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115
countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect
and empower consumers everywhere.</SPAN><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><BR><U><A
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/"
target=_blank>www.consumersinternational.org</A></U><BR><U><A
href="http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int" target=_blank>Twitter
@ConsumersInt</A></U><BR></SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="COLOR: rgb(153,153,153); FONT-SIZE: 8pt">Read our <A
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target=_blank>email confidentiality notice</A>. Don't print this email
unless
necessary.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></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>