<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org" target="_blank">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div>On 11/10/2011, at 1:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Following on my own informal discussions at the IGF with<br>representation from the Brazilian Government and noting the<br>
willingness of the Brazilians, at least, to discuss, compromise and<br>collaborate, I am in support of Marilia's and Parminder's position as<br>well as their rationale re: the proposed IGC Response/Statement ...<br>
</div></blockquote></div><div><br></div></div><div>Then, I don't think we will be able to finish a substantively useful statement in time for the IBSA Summit but could only restate the more high-level ideas from our enhanced cooperation statement, since our collective view has not been much refined since then. That is OK, because it is better to be thoughtful than on time, but if anyone does not wish us to miss the opportunity to contribute ahead of the IBSA Summit then please help to discuss:</div>
<div><br></div><div>How to respond to each of these assertions?</div><div><ul><li>There
is an institutional gap in managing global Internet processes and
developing policies for Internet at a global level which needs to be
addressed.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><font color="#000099">Organisations already exist to create policies etc. eg. Governments, Regulators but if in "institutional gap" and global internet processes you mean IANA/ICANN etc, then they should specify what specific institutional gaps?</font> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><ul><li>This requires a new body (outside of the IGF, ITU, OECD, etc.) to
coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies
pertaining to the Internet.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><font color="#000099">Unfortunately, the world does not work that way. This assertion effectively requires stakeholders to give up their interests and render it towards this global body. This is how "social contracts" work and is this feasible. They can be coerced and forced to give it up through governments across the globe but how does that place Internet Governance, what you will see then is the shift to Government as opposed to Governance.</font> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><ul><li>If a new body is created, it should be located within the UN system.</li>
</ul></div></div></blockquote><div><font color="#000099">Some say that they want a new body but the UN has hundreds of pressing crises that it is dealing with that involves the prioritisation of resources and I don't foresee them creating an Institution within the UN but rather pushing it to an existing institution that is already dealing with it and the most plausible choice seems to be the ITU. </font> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><ul><li>If a new body is created, it should develop and establish international
public policies on cross-cutting Internet-related global issues.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><font color="#000099">Why create a new body when you already have bodies doing this and you can lobby to improve policies within and processes?</font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><ul><li>If a new body is created, it should oversee the bodies responsible for
technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global
standards setting.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><font color="#000099">Why create a new body when you already have bodies doing this and you can lobby to improve policies within and processes?. The ITU creates and sets ITU-T standards through its working groups etc and IETF has a democratisation process in the creation and setting of standards which is workable. What are the implications of having a one stop shop. There is a saying that the only efficient government is a dictatorship and we are in danger of creating a global dictatorship and authoritarian regime .</font> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><ul><li>If a new body is created, it should address developmental issues related to the Internet.</li>
</ul></div></div></blockquote><div><font color="#000099">Countries should take responsibility for their development. The IGF is simply a forum in which countries should be able to share processes etc for the development whether it is in the area of e commerce, ICT strategies, content filtering, capacity development etc. There are institutions that already exist that address developmental issues, we should just promote access to these processes such as meaningful participation in global policy processes not create a new body.</font> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><ul><li>If a new body is created, it should undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary.</li>
</ul></div></div></blockquote><div><font color="#3333ff">My comments above. This infers the creation of a multilateral treaty by Governments at the expense of marginalising the voices of private sector and civil society which will include arbitration and dispute resolution. </font> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><ul><li>If a new body is created, it should be responsible for crisis management</li>
</ul></div></div></blockquote><div><font color="#3333ff">Firstly since when was it agreed that the body should be responsible for crisis management. </font></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>If a new body is not formed within the UN system, how else should global
public policies for the Internet be set, in cases that fall outside the
competence of any global body?</div><div><ul><div><li>No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are.</li></div></ul></div>
</div></blockquote><div><font color="#3333ff">The Budapest Convention is an example of global norm setting. It does not attempt to create any institution to look after matters of cyber security as governments have control and authority in their jurisdictions. You have a variety of stakeholders such as CERTS, CSIRTs, ISPs, Interpol, etc but no single institution can claim that it is the sole authority for global policy processes in relation to cyber security.</font> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><ul><div><li>Institutional
improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy options which
policy makers (including at the national level) can use.</li></div><div><li>Institutional
change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network of policy
makers that would consult with all stakeholders.</li></div></ul><div><br></div></div><div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>-- <br><p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><span style="color:black">Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>Project Coordinator</span></b><br><span style="font-size:9pt;color:black">Consumers International</span><br>
<span style="font-size:9pt;color:gray">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" value="+60377261599" target="_blank">+60 3 7726 1599</a></span></p>
</div><p><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(31, 73, 125)">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="font-size:9pt;color:navy"><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="font-size:8pt;color:rgb(153, 153, 153)">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></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: <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a></div>
<div> </div><div><br></div><br>