<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="sans-serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
Let me join the party too :) . A lot of things that need response on
the IBSA's Rio meeting and the what happened at the IGF vis a vis it,
and now the Tshwane declaration, but let me just join in where we are
at present in the discussion. <br>
</font><br>
On Friday 21 October 2011 01:59 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Snip
<pre wrap="">
I'm glad to hear this. Since you talk with the government a lot you have a better vantage point from which to read what's behind the words. Others have to go on what the words say, and they are not crystal clear on the main point. If the notion of a new UN body that would integrate and centralize and oversee and thereby solve all problems has been abandoned, it'd be nice to hear that said in plain language that doesn't require readers to engage in hermeneutics, semiotics, deconstructionism, or related. Then all the folks who've been concerned about this can de-clench and we can start to have a probing and useful dialogue about better ways forward.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
My clear impression is that there is no desire among IBSA countries to
'integrate and centralise' (this later term is Bill's invention)
technical functions of the Internet though the term 'integrate' did
unfortunately (and inadvertently) get used in the Rio recs. The people
in governments I met seem to agree that they did not mean the way it
got read, and meant something closer to 'coordinate'. At the very basic
level, what the IBSA governments seem to be asking for is to shift the
current oversight functions from the US gov to a more democratic body.
This has been a consistent position of developing countries for a long
time, and the Tunis Agenda also recognises this as a clear problem.
And yes, there are concerns about how legitimate public policy
concerns may actually be communicated to many bodies with significant
Internet related technical functions. I saw many countries other than
IBSA very vocally state such concerns at the IGF, for instance those
from the EU. I saw complete openness among the IBSA reps I spoke to on
looking at different possible options of how to address these concerns,
and look at different possible models to channel public policy concerns
into the work of technical bodies. However, first of all, they see the
need for a globally democratic platform where these concerns can be
discussed and articulated clearly, which they want the proposed 'new
body' to, inter alia, be doing. <br>
<br>
So, while we are criticising the proposal from other, often imagined,
angles, it may be useful to clearly address these known concerns of
developing countries. People (or countires) mostly would hear you more
if they see you take on board and show willingness to discuss their
'main' concerns as well. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
BTW, do you know if we can assume then that there will not be a proposal going to the UNGA?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I am not sure IBSA will make any such proposal, though I hope that they
and others do come up with some clear proposals when the Gen Assembly
specifically takes up the issue of 'enhanced cooperation' this year. It
will be rather strange for developing countries to have fought hard six
years ago for that 'place holder' of 'enhanced cooperation' in Tunis
agenda for new globally democratic institutional developments in the IG
arena , and having regularly asked for progress on this issues since,
to say, when the GA actually formally takes the issue up, that we never
knew what we were talking about. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Snip
<pre wrap="">
As you know, there have been quite a lot of intergovernmental meetings of late that have issued declarations endorsing MS approaches to IG. If the GAC, COE, OECD, et al can say it loud and clear, why can't IBSA? Yes we know the Brazilian govt is friendly to MS, but we don't know if IBSA now in fact sees open global MS processes as the way to proceed on the issues with which it is concerned. If yes, fabulous, they should say it and we will all tip our hats accordingly.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, multistakeholderism should have been there. Incidentally, it was
there in the Rio recommendations (and no one tipped their hats :) ).
Maybe IBSA countries simply got too disappointed :)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Why should anyone be neutral? Your compas are opposed to bad ideas irrespective of where they come from, what's wrong with that? </pre>
</blockquote>
Alas, if it only were so! For instance, to use my pet refrain now a
days, if OECD's inter-governmental internet policy making processes
were subject to same criticism, nay ridicule and disdain, to which the
barest mention of a triggering proposal from IBSA gets. Just because
they wanted to invite all the 'evil minded' developing country
governments too to the party of global Internet related policy making.
Before we dont become neutral, maybe we have to become a little neutral
so that we first puts thing on the same starting line or near about.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
It's not obvious how this is relevant, but bad ideas from Northern governments, including those that may have issued their passports, have been routinely criticized by said compas since we launched this list in 2003. In fact, these get probably 85% of the air time!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:999A64B5-B15D-49A2-9A9B-1322BA103DE3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Cheers,
Bill
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 10/19/2011 04:05 PM, William Drake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Anriette
We just had this conversation bilaterally, but sure let's open it up...
On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Bill
I think your response is a bit hasty. There are serious gaps.. e.g. the
lack of emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation pointed out by
Sivasubramanian, but overall I think the section on IG shows very
clearly that the IBSA government representatives took reactions at the
IGF to their proposal very seriously.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
As with many diplomatic texts, one can read it a number of ways. I guess you read the absence of specific reference to a new UN organization to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible" etc. as reflecting a shift. I read the larger thrust of the text and its references to prior pronouncements etc and don't come away confident there's an agreed shift, at least not yet. But either way, if you're right they took reactions at the IGF to their proposal very seriously, why not say that? Why not help strengthen the IGF's position by underscoring its value and the importance of global multistakeholder dialogue on this and related matters? That's what I referred to, the no comment on the IGF dialogue, …
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
This is a very different text to what had been proposed,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Do you mean the by the Rio recs, or something else?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and clearly
indicates that there will be further discussion on the September
meeting's recommendations, which is what civil society organisations
from the three countries requested.
Multi-stakeholder participation in the observatory is not mentioned, but
it is also not excluded. My assumption is that this was an oversight,
rather than a deliberate attempt to make it 'intergovernmental'.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
We are always being told, or telling ourselves, that the lack of mention of multistakeholder participation in these things is an oversight. Given all the heated discussions on the matter, I find that increasingly difficult to swallow. The lack of specific reference to a UN body is revealing, but the lack of specific reference to multistakeholderism is just a case of whoops, sorry, we forgot…?
The thrust still feels pretty intergovernmental, as in "The Leaders...emphasized its potential to enhance IBSA’s profile as a key global player."
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, I think that the absence of multi-stakeholder participation as
a principle is very disappointing. It should have been mentioned upfront
in the section on global governance reform. There are other references
to participation from stakeholders.. but that is not enough.
Human rights text is fairly good, as is the IP text.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Need to still read the whole document carefully.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit">http://www.pravasitoday.com/read-tshwane-declaration-at-5th-ibsa-summit</a>
Cheers,
Bill
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 19/10/11 18:24, William Drake wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Oct 19, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The leaders took note of the recommendations of the IBSA Workshop on
Global Internet Governance convened in Rio de Janeiro on 1-2 September
2011 and resolved to jointly undertake necessary follow-up action.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The leaders took no note of the global community's reactions to those
recommendations during the Internet Governance Forum convened in Nairobi
on 27-30 September 2011 and resolved to pretend it didn't happen.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">55. The Leaders emphasized Internet Governance as a key strategic area
that requires close collaboration and concrete action. In this
context, it recommended the establishment of an IBSA Internet
Governance and Development Observatory that should be tasked to
monitor developments on global Internet Governance and provide regular
updates and analyses from the perspective of developing countries.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The leaders agreed that their initiative is really about IBSA rather
than about the Internet, so global multistakeholder participation in the
Observatory is not needed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
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>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
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>
</body>
</html>