<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Sunday 13 May 2012 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:692cedad-801f-4625-93c0-762a3b0e3201@email.android.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Not that you asked anyone other than Wolfgang, but
I propose we fix the existing multistakeholder Internet governance organizations and leave the UN out of it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I am not sure you mean only technical/ CIR governance part of IG or
also the larger public policies side, the kind of work that OECD's
CICCP and CoE does. As for the technical/ CIR gov part of IG the joint
CS statement that we circulated proposes not disturbing the distributed
governance system, though improvements are needed which you seem to
agree with. Only the US gov role in that system is not acceptable and
that should be moved from there. <br>
<br>
I dont think it would do to ignore the other side of IG, that I dont
see you address. CoE writes cyber security policies and export it to
other countries, OECD writes principles for Internet-policy making and
now seeks other countries to accept it, same with ACTA, CoE writes
search engine guidelines, social networking guidelines, and by default
they will inflate to become global guidlelines or rules. I find this
side of IG even more important that the tech/CIR side. It is this other
side of global Internet policy making that is significantly shaping the
Internet as people of the world experience it, and people want to be
able to participate equally in the policy making process.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:692cedad-801f-4625-93c0-762a3b0e3201@email.android.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
As for those the regional inter-governmental organizations and the national governments, I propose people from those countries and regions work with them to prevent them from doing anything further that harms civil society.
I, for one, do not endorse your CIRP+ proposal and hope that the IGC does not presume to endorse it as an 'organzation'
avri
avri
parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wolfgang,
I have many things to say about your arguments, but about that perhaps
we can go on endlessly. But let me be pragmatic and precise.
Do you agree that
(1) there are many pressing global public policy issues, the kind of
which OECD and CoE is so actively dealing with at present
(2) it is not globally democratic that OECD and CoE as clubs of a few
rich countries do all this (default) global policy making.
If you do not agree to the above, lets just first discuss this. If you
do, lets move to the next step
Vide (2) above, developing countries, their governments as well as
people, are obviously not happy with the situation. The May 18th
meeting
is about this specific problem. And you will also recognise the
dangerous directions that our joint statement argues the Internet may
be
moving towards, and the need to address this problem.
Since you seem to have some model in mind, inspired by WGIG or
whatever,
why dont you present a clear proposal of what global institutional
mechanism should address the global public policy issues that are today
addressed by OECD/CoE. Please tell us clearly what would be the
structure of this new mechanism, what functions will it perform, and
how, what would be its outcomes and how will they be implemented. How
would it address the public policy imperatives in all IG areas that
need
global attention.... What would be its relationship with the current
technical/ CIR governance system. People are looking for real solutions
to real issues, and the May18 meeting is about that. I would request
you
to be as clear and precise about your model as possible...
Otherwise, just criticising every model for change that is proposed is
simply voting for the status quo.
parminder
On Sunday 13 May 2012 02:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder:
WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">independent standing or decision making capacity.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Wolfgang:
Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG, to
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG -
to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended in
EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to take
the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body
which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG was
that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and
drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you propose
is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th
century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Parminder:
CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special
barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like WGIG
report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted to
to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with
CIRP/ GA.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Wolfgang:
That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model"
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental
stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS& PS bureaus) on a
lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", the
intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the advise
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">>from the CS bureau was sidelined. We made 86 recommendations during
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by
the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we
discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4
recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the
intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and "arrogance"
and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option of
a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of
the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS
process (a lot of CS wanted to got to Plan B and to protest and march
through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the
Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of the
City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer, Pierre
Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They
argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their
documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can not
give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated only
by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to
participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in exchange
for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The
compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A governmental
declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I
recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in the
light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society WSIS
declaration.
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf">http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf</a>).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was
still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an adult.
And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward, not
backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with the
mistakes of the past.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there is
long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road, but
still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly
inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a
new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes
advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil
society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the
mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new, you
have to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Wolfgang
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>