[governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum

[Izumi AIZU]

We had two short meeting during the afternoon brake.

One with LMG, Brazil, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and another
one with Canada.

We conveyed our concerns to Canada, that capacity building/
developmental aspect is very important, but the Forum should
deal with much broader issues. I think she (a lady from the
Industry Canada) took it seriously and sincerely.

Australia proposed that ISOC be in charge to facilitate
or organiez the Forum and its preparatory work, US and
some others (Canada) supported that. Others like Brazil
of course pushed UN.

I don't think they can reach consensus on ISOC to be
the host.

izumi


At 12:59 05/11/14 -0500, Lee McKnight wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On this as all things I would support a multistakehilder approach ie
>even to the formation of the forum, with eg UN, ISOC and others involved
>in the orgainzational phase.
>
>Lee
>
>Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>School of Information Studies
>Syracuse University
>+1-315-443-6891office
>+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 11/14/2005 12:49 PM >>>
>carlos a. afonso ha scritto:
> > One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada
>(developed
> > country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any
>new
> > mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process
>of
> > the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it.
> >
> > Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate.
>What
> > do they want? A world Internet university?
>
>Hi, I don't think there's doubt on this in this caucus, we've all
>agreed
>that the forum must have a broad mission covering all IG issues,
>including but not limited to development, and we've said this loudly
>earlier today. Also, almost all parties (EU, Likemindedgroup, even
>Latin
>American countries I think, and I've heard Uruguay in favour of that)
>support this, it's just US/Canada/Australia insisting on the
>development-oriented forum.
>
>Also, US and Canada have now started to push the idea that there's no
>need for further involvement of the UN, it should be ISOC to organize
>this forum and manage it. I see the point that ISOC supports the IETF
>and so why shouldn't it support this thing as well, but I imagine we
>might be opposed, isn't it? After all, and even while being an ISOC
>Chapter officer, I think that this forum deserves the broad civil
>society participation typical of the UN settings, rather than the
>technical focus that characterizes ISOC (not mentioning its, well,
>growingly embarrassing vicinity to the US Government - I think that
>when
>you are a global organization and then the Bush administration picks
>you
>as their trustee for what they define a vital resource, you should pose
>
>yourself some questions).
>--
>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]
>bertola.eu.org]<-----
>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>_______________________________________________
>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

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