[governance] Comments on Food for Thought paper (oversight)

[Ian Peter]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:39 PM
> To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> Cc: Caucus; WSIS at trout.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Food for Thought paper (oversight)
> 
> Hi, Ian,
> 
> good start!
> My comments on your comments...
> 
And my comments on your comments on my comments ;-)
> 
> > My Comments on Chair's Food for Thought Paper
> >
> > Oversight
> > 68.	OVERSIGHT
> > The Food for Thought paper calls for examination of an oversight model
> at the
> > end of a transitionary period.
> 
> Actually, the food for thought document calls in para 68 for the
> examination of the establishment of an "Internet-Governmental Council
> for global public policy...".
> 
> Coverage is for the following issues
> > ·	Internet related public policy issues
> > ·	Oversight of IP addressing tlds etc etc.
> > ·	Co-ordination and dialogue.
> > ·	Government run with involvement of private sector and civil society.
> >
> > Perhaps what we could agree to say about that is we agree that the
> > matter should
> > be examined at the end of a transitionary period and a decision made
> then
> 
> 
> I would prefer if we object to this model right away. I don't see any
> benefit in postponing this discussion.
> 

Happy to object to the model. But I think the bit where any prospective
model gets "examined" rather  than adopted on the spot has merit.



> (and
> > therefore not now) - after all stakeholders are more fully acquainted
> with the
> > facts and issues (see forum below which might accompish this).
> >
> > We could also suggest that the principle of multistakeholder involvement
> in
> > policy making should apply to this proposed governance structure .
> 
> I don't think that there would be a majority in the caucus for such a
> far reaching oversight model. A multi-stakeholder composition wouldn't
> resolve the fundamental concerns about such an approach.
> >
> >
> > FORUM
> >
> > 69.
> >
> > The Chairs Forum proposal is for a forum for dialogue, not decision
> making. We
> > may want to welcome this. Other items we might particularly welcome here
> are
> > ·	facilitation of discourse between different bodies dealing with
> different
> > cross cutting areas
> > ·	making full use of academic, scientific and technical communities
> > ·	issues that don?t fall within the scope of existing bodies
> #
> I find this sentence above, particularely section b and f, slightly
> contradictory. How can the forum faciliate discourse between bodies
> dealing with cross cutting areas but not address issues that fall in the
> scope of existing bodies? I think our language on the forum is less
> ambivilent here.

Yep, but I am commenting on Chair's paper. I don't think the language used
excludes addressing issues that fall within the scope of existing bodies -
rather, I think it is careful to include issues not being addressed
elsewhere 
> >
> >
> >
> > 70.
> > The Chairs proposal for a forum is that it be multilateral, democratic
> and
> > transparent. We would probably prefer multistakeholder here. We could
> welcome
> > (in addition to transparency)
> > ·	Build on the existing structures of Internet Governance, with
> special
> > emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in
> this
> > process -- governments, business entities, civil society and
> > inter-governmental
> > organisations -- each of them in their field of competence, and their
> > participation on an equal footing (how this equates with use of word
> > multilateral we could question)
> 
> I have issues not only with multilateral but also with "each of them in
> their field of competence". If we look at the agreed upon text re civil
> society, we get an idea about the role or field of competence designed
> for us.
> 
> Unless people disagree with our statements on the forum function, I
> think we should use our language as the base for our comments.

Happy with that
> 
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/137 - Release Date: 16/10/2005
 


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