[governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal

[karen banks]

hi bill

>If the opportunity arises, I would like to see us speak to both by simply
>reaffirming what the caucus has already agreed on:

>1. The forum should have a mandate to focus on the functions we have
>listed, not just ICT4D;
>2. The forum should be able to address any and all multidimensional
>issues, and not have its scope artificially limited at the outset by
>marking off huge chunks of terrain that are "being handled elsewhere."
>
>This language is being read out now on the PrepCom floor as the possible
>basis of consensus.

i was just thinking that myself as i was putting together a compilation of 
our own texts - and personally, i think the proposals are much stronger 
than any government proposals on the table.

i guess we have two things going on, a strategy which is focussing on 
supporting and/or critiqueing government positions - getting the forum off 
the ground being the priority - but, we mustn't underplay our own work..

how we navigate between the two could be the subject of the caucus meeting..

i'm going to make sure avri has copies of the language we have submitted on 
paras 62 (forum function, political oversight) for the press conference also..

>The intention of the restrictive formulation is very clear, I can't
>understand how anyone could miss it.  The US and business want to restrict
>the forum's focus as narrowly as possible and ensure that the brilliant
>work being done in other bodies not be reconsidered from an independent IG
>standpoint.  NTIA told me the other day the don't want interconnection
>costs in the forum, they prefer to keep it in the ITU, where bone-headed
>PTOs have proposed accounting and settlements type solutions to which they
>can easily and rightfully say no.  Similarly, they will say that anything
>with an IPR dimension is off the table.  We experienced this dynamic in
>WGIG, where Vittorio's efforts to discuss IPR were nixed.  And my efforts
>to push trade dimensions. And so on.  I can already hear Dick Beaird at
>the first Forum meeting saying the agreed language on the forum says no
>duplication so we can't talk about this, we can't talk about that.

i agree with you bill..  this is indeed what we fought for (and lost 
somewhat) in the WGIG.. and, these are critical pillarws i think of the 
'develpment' agenda we tried to push.. as, if not more important than 
'capacity' building

>The WGIG report said the forum should be a place where anyone can bring up
>any issue.  I think that's the right formulation at this stage, and that
>its thrust was entailed in our previously agreed language.  So I hope we
>don't just roll with efforts to emasculate the forum before it starts.

yes..

we need to discuss

karen

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