[governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal

[Izumi AIZU]

I mostly agree with your oveservation, Bill.

As for the intervention, we need to make a request in advance
for 3 pm plenary, and of course we are not sure how much
SubCom will discuss about these areas, but regardless,
it may be needed to request the floor just in case.

AND, we can discuss this brifely at 1:30 meeting.

Jeanette is leaving around noon, that leaves only me as
"co-cordinator", but with all the help, I think we can manage
that.

izumi

At 10:35 05/09/30 +0200, William Drake wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Some notable things about the
>Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay 'middle ground'
>proposal.
>
>1. If the USA is indeed on board with it, the USA has endorsed the
>creation of a forum.  I thought they'd hold out longer, but the EU
>oversight proposal has brought things to a head, so cards are being played
>now.
>
>2. The framing of the forum is not desirable.
>
>*There is no mention of it being multistakeholder, much less peer-level
>and open to unaffiliated individuals as participants.
>
>*There is no mention of it having a mandate to do much of what the IG
>caucus has proposed in terms of functions.
>
>*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.
>
>*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.
>
>I hope these concerns will be raised in our interventions if the
>opportunity arises.
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks
> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 9:56 AM
> > To: 'Governance Governance Caucus'
> > Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal
> >
> >
> > hi
> >
> > we had an interesting discussion last night about the new 'middle ground'
> > proposal from Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay -
> > which, if you read carefully, is very familiar - many of the key points
> > from the WGIG recommendations are there.. still has a few fuzzy bits but
> > seems to have the support of the African Group at least..
> >
> > we all had hard copy last night, but it's not online yet.. does
> > anyone have
> > a copy?




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