<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Friday 21 October 2011 05:02 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:3B9704FA-0B65-4398-B99A-3B5561468E7C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Too much to hope for?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<br>
</div>
If intergovernmental control could be taken off the table, at least
outside the ITU, that might help to make "IGF improvements" a less
divisive topic. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
One important point about the Rio recs is that it was the first time
the IBSA countries moved from the demand for 'an existing or a new UN
based agency' (as called for in Dec 2010 UNDESA consultation and July
2011 ECOSOC meeting) to calling for a 'new agency' . IBSA thus did show
the eagerness to look at new institutional options more in keeping with
the present situation than sticking to ITU. It is unfortunate that all
critics failed to take notice of this important devleopment, which I
must say is not easy to sustain unless the few devleoping countries
that are ready to stick their neck out for such new possibilities get
the right kind of support. There is every likelihood that we will slip
into the default ITU position. It is but obvious that some place has to
look into the innumerable Internet related global public policy issues
that keep cropping up. And, sorry, it cant be OECD for the developing
countries, whether the global civil society engaged in the IG arena is
sensitive to this basic democratic proposition or not.<br>
<br>
In this regard I also refer to Bill's earlier email of last Fridat
whereby the
ITU hold over taking charge of the global Internet related policy space
is getting strengthened. I also noticed in the presentation of ITU head
to the IGF that ITU has bene creeping into areas beyond hard
infrastructure or even security to content related issues, Such a
creeping acquisition will continue unless we are able to come up with
credible alternative global institutional option. <br>
<br>
I can assure you all people of best intentions that are being
completely unsympathetic to IBSA countries' effort to move things along
towards a more democratic and public interest oriented global IG regime
that it wont hold water just to tell IBSA or other developing countries
to shut up, and bear with powerful countries and global corporates
unilaterally setting the new global techno-social order. If Rio recs
has problems - and I think it has significant issues (which I will
discuss separately) - let us say so. Say this is wrong,and instead we
should
do this. Say that we are dissatisfied with existing IG regime, and this
is the manner in which we think it can be made more democratic and
participative. This is how the civil society can have an active and
strong voice and influence, and that, this is the model of global
Internet related policy development that we suggest. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>