AW: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Brazil summit

[parminder]

On Sunday 24 November 2013 06:29 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Parminder:
> To the extent that we can all agree that there are indeed many issues that are not being dealt by current mechanisms, that is a good start for  doing the real work of thinking about the needed mechanisms.
>
> Wolfgang:
> Can you specify which issue is NOT dealt by the IGF? And if all issues can be raised within the framework of the IGF, why not to make the IGF stronger?

IGF cannot decide on issues, and unless it is your position that nothing 
in global IG needs any kind of decisions (is it your position?), IGF of 
course needs to be complemented by a decision making body. Wolfgang, you 
co-authored the Council of Europe (CoE) report 
<http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-CI/MC-S-CI%20Interim%20Report.pdf> 
on cross border Internet. Do you think that numerous internet public 
policy issues you mention there need no decision making. If so, why did 
you not recommend in your report that CoE should should forgo inter- 
governmental means to develop public policies, and allow EuroDIG, the 
European IGF, to do it?

In fact the report says, "States have rights and responsibilities for 
developing and implementing international Internet-related public 
policy...". To the credit of its authors, it also says' "“International 
Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements 
should ensure full and equal participation of all countries.”

That should seal it in terms of the issue under discussion - the need 
for mechanisms at the global level for international Internet-related 
public policies, and the nature of such mechanisms.

In fact the CoE report recommended that an *inter-governmental body* 
develops

1, General principles on Internet governance
2. Recommendations for international cooperation on management of 
critical internet resources (i would take this as pertaining to the 
'oversight' issue)

The report further goes on to recommend to an inter-gov body of the CoE 
"to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments 
designed to preserve or reinforce the protection of crossborder flow 
of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality".

I see almost all my assertions regarding 'enhanced cooperation' mandate 
from Tunis conform to the report you co-authored for CoE..

Then, why are views different when we speak of the global stage? This is 
also as much about a cross-border Internet.

> You were a proponent of better outpput in the UNCSTD IGF Improgeent WG!

Yes, very much so. And you know what was the response of most others in 
the room to the 'India proposal'  for giving recommendatory powers to 
the IGF, and making it and its MAG more functional  ...... Those who 
most resisted that proposal are now most active to empower IGF to take 
up the enhanced cooperation role - that merits some explanation....

> What is your comment to Jeremy´s and my proposal for an (IGF) Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council (MIPOC) as an addition to the MAG (which is just a program committteee)?

My comment is as follows: the day we admit business reps (on an equal 
basis) into actual public policy making decisions, it would mark the end 
of democracy ..... And there is enough passion for democracy left in the 
world that such a thing would never be allowed... For some time people 
may be able to push such an anti-democratic proposal behind the smoke 
screen of multistakeholderism but when it begins to become serious, 
people would find out what it really is about and just never accept 
it... Even the CoE wont accept it, as per the above mentioned report.

parminder
>
> w
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131125/4d4faef9/attachment.htm>