[governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position

[Jacqueline Morris]

Hi
Just to make clear, this is NOT the official Gender Caucus position.
That is still being determined, and this is also not the consensus
postion within the Gender Caucus, and was not a consensus position
when submitted by IT for Change in response to the WGIG report in
July.
Jacqueline A. Morris
Gender Caucus Steerign Committee
On 11/7/05, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ralf:
>
>
>
> I agree there are no easy answer here. And the notion of legitimacy that you
> offer - of representation and of deliberation are fine, except that the
> legitimacy of 'deliberation' can extend to the many functions that CS
> normally performs but not to actual decisions on public policy which affect
> the lives of people in many ways. However the 'deliberation' function has
> many ways of exercising 'soft power' or power by influence on public policy.
> And we all know of the many ways there are of doing that. And we need to
> find ways to use this soft power more efficiently.
>
>
>
> But we cannot see legitimacy of 'deliberation' replacing that of
> 'representation' though necessarily there should be a good and effective
> interface between two.
>
>
>
> I also believe that we need not remain tethered to the past - and the
> context and the opportunity of an emerging IS should be used to evolve more
> fair and equitable forms of governance. So your suggestion of proposing IG
> systems that are "mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the
> multi-stakeholder approach of WGIG" is quite useful. Indeed, IG forum with a
> good interface with political oversight function as well as with technical
> and resource allocation function is a good start.
>
>
>
> But we can make this progression only if
>
>
>
> 1.    we proceed from known 'representation' based governance systems and
> improve systems of its accountability to its constituents – and of course
> the CS has a big role here.
>
> 2.    the CS appreciates the political nature of issues involved, and works
> with that sensitivity
>
>
>
> As for how ICANN works at present, please see papers by IG project on how it
> has blatantly served US government's public policy interests and that of the
> corporate world, and see recent paper by Hans Klein on how ICANN was often
> captured by private corporates. We have seen how ineffective its processes
> of selection of its members is – even in terms of representation of what it
> calls the 'internet community' And as I keep repeating that ICANN's
> conception of who all are to be considered the stakeholders in IG (Internet
> user community) is not at all acceptable – every single person in the world
> is a stakeholder here. Everyone is impacted by Internet today – directly or
> indirectly, in the present or potentially.
>
>
>
> And all these issues are not small issues that we disregard them  in making
> our position for future IG regime -  putting faith in some reformed ICANN
> which is expected to emerge - and keep rooting for ICANN to hold all IG
> related public policy functions – which are going to become more and more
> important as IS develops.
>
>
>
> And to your question – what exactly I am suggesting, I have following to
> say…….
>
>
>
> I am only suggesting what the above referred (IG project, and Hans Klein)
> academic papers suggest. To establish the rule of law – to begin a process
> of framework convention / treaty to develop the institutional framework for
> IG. And have a very great input of CS into this process, so that we could
> try and get some new age governance system which are representative but also
> open in all other means. It wont be easy, but I will like to see the context
> of new institutional systems for IG to be  a path-breaker for governance
> systems in other areas like trade, IPR, etc.
>
>
>
> As for ICANN it can stay on as it is (more reformed the better) for resource
> allocation and technical functions within the needed political oversight.
>
>
>
> My organization, IT for Change, has submitted this position on behalf of the
> Gender Caucus to WSIS process in response to the WGIG report. And a similar
> position is now being debated inside GC and is already endorsed by IT for
> Change and FEMNET of Africa and submitted to some governments. The parts on
> oversight are on the following lines.
>
>
>
>
>
> ·         Internet is a global resource and an infrastructure to be shared
> and owned equally by all. The US must give up its pre-eminent position in IG
> oversight. This role must be taken up by an inter-governmental body.
>
> ·         ·       Since the nature and challenges of IG are of an entirely
> new kind, this oversight body should be a new body created for this purpose.
> This IG public policy and oversight body must be anchored in the UN.
>
> ·         ·       This oversight body should have strong interface and
> processes of interaction with the 'forum' – which will act as an advisory
> body for it.
>
> ·         ·       There should be no interference in the day to day
> functioning of the IG, managed by bodies doing the technical management.
>
> ·         ·       The oversight interventions will not be ad-hoc and will be
> based on clearly laid out principles and rules, with complete transparency
> and accountability.
>
> ·         ·       To evolve such principles and rules of developing public
> policy and making oversight interventions, a treaty/ convention process must
> be mandated. The forum should have an important role in this process.
>
> ·         ·       Freedom of expression, privacy, and such basic human
> rights should form a part of the framework for making IG public policy and
> oversight.
>
> ·         ·       Commercial issues implicated in the use of Internet have
> to be balanced with issues of securing social justice and equality, on the
> principle that Internet is first of all a shared resource that belongs to
> everyone equitably, and which should serve the greatest public interest.
>
> ·         ·       A proper process of transition from the present structure
> that preserves the important and necessary elements of the present IG regime
> should be put in place.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>  From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of
> Ralf Bendrath
>  Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:32 PM
>  To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
>  Subject: Re: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position
>
>
>
> Parminder wrote:
>
>
>
> > The position that is being proposed is that the public
>
> > policy functions now with the US government be taken from it, and then
>
> > ICANN becomes the global public policy making body for all functions of
>
> > IG without any external political oversight.
>
> Good point, and thanks for pushing this debate, Parminder.
>
>
>
> (...)
>
> > There seems to be some romanticism in some parts of the CS that real
>
> > global governance decisions should actually be taken by bodies where
>
> > civil society representatives sit as voting members.
>
> It is not romanticism, it is the the way ICANN currently works.
>
> Governments in the GAC are only advising. (Leaving aside the oversight of
>
> the USG, but we want to get rid of that one anyway.)
>
>
>
> > This is absurd.
>
> Don't be too harsh here, see below.
>
>
>
> > CS has to have greater and greater interfaces with global (and national)
>
> > governance systems in a way that it can advise, input proposals, extract
>
> > accountablity etc, but to think that we should actually take up decision
>
> > making responsibilities is politically naïve, and raises questions about
>
> > our legitimacy.
>
> This is exactly the 1 Million Euro question: What is legitimate?
>
> - The UN system, where the Chinese government representing 1.5 billion
>
> people has as many votes as Iceland with 300,000?
>
> - The UN system, where many governments are not representing anyone,
>
> because they never got properly elected?
>
> - A private system, where in the end, the board can do as it likes?
>
> - A multistakeholder system, where nobody knows who can be held
>
> accountable in the end?
>
> - A direct global election system, as ICANN tried in 2000?
>
> - what else?
>
>
>
> There are basically two notions of legitimacy here. One is based on
>
> representation (more or less the intergovernmental model), and here we can
>
> not win, of course. The other one is based on deliberation, where the open
>
> exchange of arguments counts, and this is where we do much better than any
>
> government. So what is absurd and what not is depending on the perspective.
>
>
>
> As Bertrand, Wolfgang and others have pointed out many times, WSIS and
>
> especially the IG issue offer a great chance to come up with a new global
>
> governance model that goes beyond the system of nation-states. I of course
>
> have no answer here, but I think at least oversight should be done in a
>
> mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the
>
> multistakeholder approach of WGIG. I know this is not enough, but it gives
>
> a general idea.
>
>
>
> A question in return: What exactly are you suggesting? (Maybe I've missed
>
> it if you have answered this already)
>
>
>
> Best, Ralf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> governance mailing list
>
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance