[governance] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE

Fri Sep 30 05:39:19 EDT 2005

Is the original Canada proposal still on the table or is it superceded
by the Western countries text?

On 9/30/05, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:
> As I said already on the plenary list in response to Parminder, I don't
> think we should overrate the missing parts of the Canadian forum
> proposal. My impression was that their proposal is less thought through
> that it seems. We should definitely address the important parts that are
> missing, but we should do it in a friendly manner taking into account
> that they support a multistakeholder approach and are probably quite
> open to our suggestions re the forum's scope and function.
> jeanette
>
> William Drake wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Parminder is right.  Upon inspection, it is entirely an ICT4D proposal,
> > building on programs and approaches Canada/IDRC have supported
> > previously---generally useful but not at all what WGIG or CS previously
> > had in mind.  All capacity building for developing countries, seemingly to
> > fit in to the topography of existing IG mechanisms, not dialogue,
> > analysis, trend monitoring, soft law making as necessary with an eye
> > toward improving them.  Capacity building is of course critically
> > important, but the other functions are needed.  The caucus statement is
> > much better that the Canadian, which makes no mention of the functions and
> > foci we specified, listed below.
> >
> > If we get the chance to take the floor today, I hope the caucus will
> > reiterate support for its own position and diplomatically note the
> > comparative limitations of the Canadian one, which many parties do seem to
> > be flocking toward, perhaps because it is the most detailed language from
> > a government.  They should read CS language too...
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > --------
> > IG Caucus List of Forum Functions
> >
> >
> > a.    inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for
> > peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a
> > Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.
> >
> > b.    comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an
> > eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform
> > individual and collective institutional improvements
> >
> > c.    assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all
> > Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency,
> > accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance,"
> > such as the WSIS principles;
> >
> > d.    identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture,
> > i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within
> > the ambit of any existing body;
> >
> > e.    identification of potential tensions between separately developed
> > mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among
> > them;
> >
> > f.    promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives,
> > where possible;
> >
> > g.    pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work
> > of other bodies;
> >
> > h.    provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization,
> > identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful
> > developing country participation and capacity building
> >
> > i.    promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet
> > governance processes;
> >
> > j.    release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents
> > on the various Internet governance issues.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> >>Behalf Of Parminder
> >>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:06 PM
> >>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> >>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its
> >>COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi All,
> >>
> >>I am sorry to use the the already crowded plenary list to state
> >>these views on
> >>matters in front of sub-committee A , but I am not subscribed on
> >>the IG CS
> >>list and I really wanted to share this with all.
> >>
> >>I found a lot of enthusiasm in CS content and themes meeting on
> >>the Canadian
> >>proposal on the forum. Most of the support came because canadian proposal
> >>seems strong on the MSP priciple. That's great, but we need the
> >>'substance'
> >>too - perhaps that may be more important.
> >>
> >>And if we look at the canadian proposal on the forum from 'substance'
> >>or 'content;' angle, it is abysmal (excuse my use of strong language).
> >>
> >>It completely transforms the very purpose and agenda of the
> >>'forum' as was
> >>nicely laid out by WGIG reports points 43 to 47  - it was
> >>supposed to be a
> >>global IG policy deliberation space. But the canada proposal
> >>makes it into a
> >>capacity building body for developing countires etc- badly
> >>reeking of WIPO's
> >>technical assistence programs which suppose that 'they' know
> >>everything and
> >>the those with poor capacities (read, developing counteries)need to
> >>be 'taught' what the right frameworks and concepts are.
> >>
> >>The canadian proposal (cut-pasted at the end of the email) opens in this
> >>fashion --
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to
> >>>>>enhancing the
> >>
> >>capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing
> >>countries, to
> >>participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet
> >>governance.  >>>
> >>
> >>Were we looking for a forum for this purpose, I thought we wanted it for
> >>policy deliberation, advise, taking new issues (see WGIG report,
> >>pt.s 43 to
> >>47).... Capacity building is only one of the functions of the
> >>forum, and it
> >>comes way down on the list.......
> >>
> >>Why is there an attempt to cut out such needed global policy
> >>spaces by subtly
> >>substituting them with 'capacity building' bodies. And why should
> >>the CS be in
> >>a hurry to accept that - do we have such aversion to global public policy
> >>deliberations and policy development.
> >>
> >>This is a very status quo-ist view..... Things are fine as they
> >>are..... And
> >>lets obfuscate and confuse substantial policy issues, since developing
> >>countires in any case have poor capacities, and are liable to miss the
> >>subterfuge.
> >>
> >>CS need not be enthused about it just because MSP principle is
> >>promised - MSP
> >>for what.......
> >>
> >>I thought CS always wanted a forum as proposed by WGIG - the
> >>canadian proposal
> >>is NOT about the same 'forum'. And if anyone has some doubt, see
> >>the fact that
> >>canada has even proposed to move the 'forum' section to the part 4 of the
> >>working document. This section deals with development aspects of
> >>Internet. So
> >>the forum is now about building capapcity of developing countires
> >>- on issues
> >>already decided and firmly established..... It is about
> >>development (building
> >>capacities of developing countires to adopt to dominant paradigms)and not
> >>about the the 'way forward' (which would put the 'forum' in part
> >>5 on the 'way
> >>forward'). Pl see canadian proposal below...
> >>
> >>In stating the above, I don't mean dis-respect for any one's
> >>views. This is
> >>how I see the whole thing..... I may not have followed the IG
> >>debate well, And
> >>I will be glad to be corrected on the issues I have put here......
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>
> >>Parminder
> >>_____________________________________________
> >>
> >>Canada's proposal
> >>
> >>Proposed Terms of Reference for Forum on Internet Governance To
> >>be inserted
> >>either in section 4 (Development), or section 5 (The Way Forward)
> >>
> >>================
> >>NEW PARAGRAPH (# to be determined)
> >>
> >>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to
> >>enhancing the
> >>capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing
> >>countries, to
> >>participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet
> >>governance.  Recognizing the rapid development of technology and
> >>institutions,
> >>we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to
> >>determine the
> >>need for its continuation.  Further, we propose that it be
> >>constituted as a
> >>neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process chiefly to
> >>facilitate the
> >>exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues
> >>that are not
> >>otherwise being adequately addressed.
> >>The forum mechanism should be viewed as a continuation of
> >>the "multistakeholder" approach of the WSIS, building on the
> >>valuable lessons
> >>learned in the WSIS and WGIG processes, in particular I the open WGIG
> >>consultations.
> >>
> >>We call upon all stakeholders to engage in and fully support this
> >>important
> >>new mechanism.  The forum mechanism should be established in a
> >>timely fashion
> >>to:
> >>.      Strengthen and enhance stakeholders' engagement in existing
> >>and future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly for those from
> >>developing countries;
> >>.      Develop capacity to participate in discussions and decisions
> >>on pertinent topics under consideration in relevant institutions;
> >>.      Encourage the full involvement and participation of all
> >>stakeholders and experts engaged in Internet governance to
> >>benefit from their
> >>expertise, including those of the academic and scientific communities, to
> >>facilitate coordination and collaboration, and to avoid duplication;
> >>.      Make full use of the tools of the information society to
> >>conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for
> >>conferences and
> >>face-to-face meetings; and
> >>.      Establish ongoing electronic forums on pertinent topics and,
> >>when appropriate, create a permanent on-line record for future
> >>use in capacity
> >>development activities, and to continue to add value over time.
> >>
> >>
> >>-
> >>
> >>Parminder
> >>
> >>www.ITforChange.net
> >>IT for Change
> >>Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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