<div dir="ltr">Anriette,<div><br></div><div>Good point, I agree with you that final decision with be General Assembly?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 October 2011 21:48, Anriette Esterhuysen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">As we have seen from the OECD which has a similar mechanism for<br>
non-governmental stakeholder participation, ultimately the power remains<br>
with powerful. These are sometimes governments, sometimes commercial<br>
interest groups. Often government positions are assumed, particularly in<br>
the case of the US, based on lobbying from such interest groups in DC.<br>
<br>
Just giving other stakeholder groups the opportunity to give inputs is<br>
not enough and will not ensure effective multi-stakeholder<br>
participation. Good that there is a proposal to have a working group to<br>
discuss this.. but the overall structure and decision-flow proposed ends<br>
up with the GA and it is therefore by definition not multi-stakeholder.<br>
<br>
This might be OK for some of the decisions clustered in the rough scope<br>
of work for this committee.. but not for most of the work it appears to<br>
want to take on.<br>
<br>
I agree with Jeremy that the status quo is not working, but I don't see<br>
this committee being as open to civil society influence as you seem to<br>
think it might be. Similar modalities in the OECD is not achieving that<br>
degree of influence for civil society, and I don't see that this will<br>
either.<br>
<br>
Perhaps, with a much, much narrower and more focused scope of work such<br>
a committee could constitute an improvement on current<br>
'intergovernmental' processes in the UN and the GAC.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 30/10/11 09:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
> On 10/30/2011 03:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
>> People in civil society, such as Jeremy, who rightly see some of the<br>
>> hypocrisy underlying defenses of the status quo but who fail to see<br>
>> the far more serious threat of destroying the more open, organically<br>
>> Developed Internet Institutions (ODII) by sovereignty-based<br>
>> intergovernmental hierarchies are deeply out of touch with political<br>
>> reality on a global basis, or are letting their anger get the better<br>
>> of them and losing perspective completely. We do not have to choose<br>
>> between the status quo and the UN (an earlier, kruftier status quo).<br>
>> Everyone needs to write that on the chalkboard 50 times.<br>
><br>
> In fact my attitude to this proposal is informed very strongly by<br>
> political reality. You might recall that the IGC's original response to<br>
> WGIG's IGF proposal was that the the IGF should be situated outside of<br>
> the United Nations, too. If it had been, would it even still exist<br>
> now? Yet the IGF is not the earlier, kruftier version of the UN that<br>
> the IGC perhaps feared when advocating that it be situated outside the UN.<br>
><br>
> For the last few years I have taken heat for my idea that the IGF, if it<br>
> is to be able to make recommendations as its mandate requires, should<br>
> before allow governments (and the other stakeholder groups too) a power<br>
> of veto over those recommendations before they are issued. That<br>
> position, and my response to the CIRP proposal,* are influenced strongly<br>
> by the same political realities.<br>
><br>
> I am not one of those social democrats of whom you speak, who believe<br>
> that intergovernmental organisations represent the will of the people<br>
> (in fact, I don't even know any such social democrats). But I do accept<br>
> that "enhanced cooperation" was never going to be just the IGF on<br>
> steroids: it was always going to be government-led. As such, situating<br>
> it in the UN is not preferable, merely inevitable.<br>
><br>
> The UN is, doubtless, as corrupt as the United States Congress or the<br>
> Chinese Community Party. But to its credit, it does play such<br>
> plutocracies and dictatorships against each other, resulting in the<br>
> curbing of their worst excesses. Consider for example, how much worse<br>
> the WIPO Copyright Treaties or ACTA would have been, if the United<br>
> States, EU and Japan had been able to draft these on their own.<br>
><br>
> So even if the CIRP was purely intergovernmental, we might still expect<br>
> that its policies may be "somewhat less bad than the status quo". But<br>
> because of its multi-stakeholder character, we can hope for much more:<br>
> that civil society will finally have a and positive real impact on<br>
> policies such as those that are being developed right now, outside of<br>
> any transnational multi-stakeholder framework, that are destroying the<br>
> Internet as we know it.<br>
><br>
> * <a href="http://jere.my/l/1t" target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/1t</a><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
> Project Coordinator*<br>
> Consumers International<br>
> 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,<br>
> Malaysia<br>
> Tel: <a href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599" value="+60377261599">+60 3 7726 1599</a><br>
><br>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups<br>
> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent<br>
> and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member<br>
> organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international<br>
> movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.<br>
> <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a> <<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/</a>><br>
> Twitter @Consumers_Int <<a href="http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<br>
> <<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality</a>>. Don't<br>
> print this email unless necessary.<br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
------------------------------------------------------<br>
anriette esterhuysen <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>
executive director, association for progressive communications<br>
<a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br>
po box 29755, melville 2109<br>
south africa<br>
tel/fax <a href="tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692" value="+27117261692">+27 11 726 1692</a><br>
____________________________________________________________<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>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Asif Kabani<br>Email: <a href="mailto:kabani.asif@gmail.com" target="_blank">kabani.asif@gmail.com</a><br><br><br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
</div></div>