[governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal

[Jeanette Hofmann]

3 quick  comments (I cut out the rest)


> 
> 
> and the ambiguity of the forum is what allows it to happen. 

I agree with this. Vague language is a precondition for any consensus 
right now.


> 
>>*There is no mention of where and in what form it would be  
>>constituted; we
>>have suggested that outside of but related to the UN would be  
>>preferable.
>>We certainly don't want it based in an existing institution, i.e. ITU.
> 
> 
> has some conversations on this.  following a wgig model it could be  
> just a light weight secretariat that enables, with that secretariat  
> arranging for the forum to be hosted by existing organizations; e.g.  
> undp one year, isoc another and yes even itu getting a chance.

Makes a lot of sense to me. Sounds like a feasible solution to jumpstart
the forum.
> 
> 
>>*The language about it being non-duplicative and focusing on issues  
>>not
>>otherwise being addressed adequately elsewhere could very well be  
>>deployed
>>by the US, private sector, and others to say that, inter alia, the  
>>forum
>>should not talk about any intellectual property issues because we have
>>WIPO for that, nor trade aspects because we have WTO for that, nor
>>interconnection costs or spam because we have ITU for these, nor  
>>privacy
>>and "information security" because we have the COE Cybercrime  
>>Convention
>>for these, and on and on.  But the way these bodies have "handled"  
>>these
>>issues is not that desirable.  As we all know, many of the existing  
>>bodies
>>do not allow participation, or meaningful participation, by CS; are
>>controlled by particular industry coalitions and government  
>>agencies with
>>specific and limiting missions; and accordingly produce outcomes  
>>that are
>>not in tune with public interest considerations.  Presumably, talking
>>about how those organizations function would also be off limits.  This
>>would eliminate what Avri referred to at the CPSR panel as the  
>>"gadfly"
>>function of the forum---raising issues and concerns not being raised
>>within these bodies, pushing them, calling for solutions that are in
>>keeping with WSIS principles, etc.
> 
> 
> this becomes a matter of defining the context in which something is  
> considered.  again i don't see anyone stopping a forum from talking  
> about these issues if that is what it decides to talk about.

I don't agree on this one. I find it crucial that the forum is seen as a 
body that addresses issues in a cross-cutting manner despite other 
organization's mandates and authorities. If we don't get this right from 
the beginning, a lot of time and energy will be wasted on discussing 
whether or not it is appropriate for the forum to adress certain topics.

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