[governance] Caucus Position on Oversight?

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Bill,

I tend to agree with you that it is hard to get concensus both from the gov
side and CS side on actual models, text, etc. for oversight. As one delegate
said to me, unless we have a clear answer on strucure and process that is
clearly better than status quo, the status quo may still look better than no
clear alternative. 

So I think recycling the text from WGIG may not be so bad (as you quoted
below), provided we also offer it some more teeth as you suggested- i.e.
some clear guidance on mandate of this group, timeline of working, and how
to work with other stakeholders (as peers). In other words, focus to get
them to agree on the concepts "multistakeholder" etc, and then agree to work
out the details post Tunis to ensure these concepts are translated into
action within a certain timeframe and a certain method to get these endorsed
post Tunis.

Meanwhile, I do think that the same approach could be taken for all other
related issues or the "forum" mentioned in WGIG. In fact this group or
"forum" should also be linked to SubCom B discussions on "followup and
implementation" architecture. These issues are also facing some deadlock,
plus since we are looking at ICT in a long term basis, we need a "forum" for
further discussions on the broader issues of ICT. Again, how this "forum"
should look like also requires more discussion, so the call for another
committee, again with clear mandate and timeline. So we focus on getting
them to agree on having such "forum" or "new form of cooperation" as per the
Chair's paper, but make sure there is a clear mechanism to make sure they
understand how to create it and discuss how to translate multistakeholder
into action (e.g. taking it out of organs such as UN where multistakeholder
is hard to implement as seen during the WSIS Prepcom processes). 

If we stick to something along these lines we may get concensus from more CS
and maybe even gov (keeping in mind that those who want status quo I know
will see this as buying more time to delay any changes- but this may be
better than closing the issue altogether if deadlock happens).

I don't think we have all the answers on actual structures and procedures,
especially to work on within this one week over emails and physical
meetings. So you are right that we are unlikely to get concensus with CS on
any solutions we come up now. At max, as you suggested we may then get
statements with endorsements from whoever endorses it. 

Laina

  

-----Original Message-----

Civil Society believes that it is clear that oversight is a significant
issue that needs further discussion. To this end, we would support the
establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group (under auspices of the
Chair of Sub-Committee A) to explore approaches mutually acceptable to all
stakeholders in the lead up to the WSIS summit. We also indicate our
willingness to work with all stakeholders, and as a caucus, towards
evolution and acceptance of an effective and transparent global public
policy and oversight processes."

The first paragraph is not a terrifically sharp position as is, and what
will be proposed may well be a new model in some respects, rather than one
of the WGIG models. In this case, we could not just recycle the above and
expect that to suffice, and anyway there'd be a need to go into greater
detail than "we do/don't like it." The second paragraph is now irrelevant in
the near-term, since we are not to be allowed to participate in the
development of any oversight options.
..........
.......

So I think we are in a real bind here.  To have any ability to react, we'd
need a) some text for people to respond to, like yesterday, and b) some way
of working toward agreement on it or its revision, very quickly.  And with
regard to the latter, I suspect we wouldn't get there with everyone on
board.

Another option, were we to have text, or texts, would be to do what Milton
did with respect to his .xxx statement.  Rather than trying to have a
unified caucus position, we could do a sign-on (or sign ons, if we want to
advance alternatives).  This would have the real virtue of avoiding the
whole who speaks for whom dynamic, it'd be clear and uncontestable in whose
name any statement(s) would be issued.  Of course, we'd need for someone to
put up the web page for sign ons etc....

Thoughts?

Bill

*******************************************************
William J. Drake  wdrake at ictsd.ch
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org
Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade
   and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org
   Geneva, Switzerland
http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the
nose.---Nietzsche
*******************************************************



_______________________________________________
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