<!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">
<br>
<br>
On Monday 04 June 2012 09:56 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder</blockquote>
Snip<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch"
type="cite"><br>
<div>So to summarize:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. We are in agreement that oversight should refer to just the
USG/NTIA functions.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>2. We are in agreement that, as per your recent statement, it
is preferable that oversight and broader GPP be addressed in different
institutional contexts rather than folded into one body, right?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. That is the main proposition we have been trying to advance. It is
there in the joint CS statement and it was very clearly articulated in
my presentation at CSTD (which the US's chief delegate was good enough
to partly paraphrase to the assembly).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A couple questions follow. Let me try on my Parminder
interrogator hat :-)</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Very happy to respond. BTW, I really do think that as CS actors in a
political space, claiming some kind of representativity of broader
social groups, we need to be able boldly ask such clear questions
(which you call as interrogation), and be
always obligated to respond to them (something I often dont see happen
here). We are not at an evening cocktail party;
a political space like this one is more akin to say, town halls or
parliaments, where such cross-questioning and seeking clear responses
is the normal order. Yes, it may lead occasionally to some commotion,
but we can live with it. But we can shed our political responsibility. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. Do you therefore agree that the G77 & China proposals of
new UN bodies that would do both together are ill-considered? Yes or
no? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Are you speaking of the corresponding WGIG models? Then, yes. I dont
think a body that is supposed to, for instance, facilitate treaties,
conventions etc, or discuss Internet intermediary principles, is best
suited to undertake the direct oversight function. The nature of
actors,
interplay between different kinds of actors, the basic natures of
functions involved, all are very different, and thus we should have
different
institutional approaches to the CIR oversight and broader GPP issues.<br>
<br>
At the same time, the kind of bodies that are proposed, with some
improvements
in their participation models, are very much required for the broader
GPP functions, minus oversight function (aka OECD's CCICP functions).<br>
<br>
I asked whether it is WGIG models you refer to because since WGIG I
havent
heard of any 'new body' proposals from China et al. They seem to be
focussing on ITU, and a core group, which can be said to have more
authoritarian aspirations, has developed some degree of aversion to
'new body' proposals. This I think is because of three reasons. One
legitimate and two not so. The legitimate reason is of pragmatism - new
bodies are difficult to form and a dialogue focussed on them may merely
serve to take away from the more plausible possibility - which is going
down the ITU route. The illegitimate reason is that for some of them,
there is that 'problematic' distinct possibility that any new body
created in the current context will certainly be much more MS than they
may be comfortable with, and secondly, is liable to also raise Internet
related human rights issues that they may be desirous of suppressing
even more than they seek democratic global governance of the Internet.
It may be important, in this context, to note that one of the seven
functions envisaged
for CIRP proposed by India is promotion and protection of human rights.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. Do you therefore agree that the IBSA and Indian proposals
of a body to "integrate and <b>oversee</b> the bodies responsible for
technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global
standards setting" along with performing a wide array of GPP functions
are similarly ill-considered, and that these may contribute to the
lexical confusion? Yes or no? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, to that they are inadequately considered vis a vis the oversight
role.
No, to being ill-considered, if the prefix ill- begins to suggest bad
intentionality,
which I dont think there was in this case. <br>
<br>
Rio proposal was put together in a very short inter-gov meeting
following the Rio seminar on global Internet governance. The main focus
was on the 'new body' part which most people fail to notice was a very
significant going-forward from earlier IBSA statements which says, new
or existing body (read, ITU). (The absence of good reception of Rio
proposal in some, powerful, quarters, has simply led some of the
involved actors to go back to
'existing body or ITU' position.). India's CIRP proposal was also
similarly developed in a very short time. It seems to have pulled
together
some language from the WGIG model and took an improved version of
OECD's CCICP stakeholder participation model to put forward a proposal
which was always meant to be a dialogue starter. The oversight part is
there as a CIRP function because internationalising CIR oversight is an
important demand of all developing (in fact all non US) countries.
Accordingly, a
CIRP proposal could not be made without that part. There perhaps wasnt
time enough to configure the oversight role in its performative
details, whereby some of the issues we are now discussing may have come
up. From what I have seen from their attitude, I am sure India
would be open to suggestions that the oversight functions could be
taken out of CIRP to a more appropriate international structure. <br>
<br>
Also agree that such in-adequately considered
proposals can cause lexical confusions. Civil society should especially
be ready for and active in such conceptual clarifications, esp when
they have important bearing on practical issues.<br>
<br>
However, lexical confusions are so common in IG space - like using new,
confusing, terms like AoC for what is basically a bipartite agreement
(more of it in another email), trying to claim that 'enhanced
cooperation' which has a clear global public policy related
institutional definition in TA, pertains to more people meeting more
cordially in more conferences, remaining unclear whether MSism relates
similarly to all levels of policy process, and similarly to all kinds
of policy processes (for instance separately for CIR oversight and
broader GPP issues), or it relates differently, and if so how, which
clarifications alone can contribute to real MS models that are
needed.... I agree, we should actively contribute to lexical and
conceptual clarities before we can seek substantive convergences. <br>
<br>
I am delighted that we are making some progress here. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we agree on 1 & 2, I don't see how we could disagree on 3
& 4, but maybe I'm missing something.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Either way, let's build on the areas of agreement. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div>
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><br>
</div>
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><br>
</div>
<div text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>