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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

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