[governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Forum/oversight:

[Jacqueline Morris]

Hi Bill
You left out Barbados - they also lept to support the proposal. I know
we're small in the CAribbean, but in such an exhaustive list, the
omission is noticeable. BTW - Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago have
been very supportive of the CS position.
Jacqueline

On 9/30/05, William Drake <wdrake at cpsr.org> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:wdrake at ictsd.ch]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:18 PM
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle
> Ground proposal
>
>
> Parminder,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> > Behalf Of Parminder
>
> > thanks Bill, this is good. this business of 'addressing issues
> > not addressed
> > by others' is a dangerous business. i agree that WIPO, WTO should have
> > credible counter-points in the info society. thats where the potential of
> > growth and progress lies.....
>
> We had a clear example of this sort of agenda restricting and forum shopping
> this morning.  In SubCom A's discussion of the interconnection cost section,
> Bangladesh proposed language saying that the Tier 1 providers should
> negotiate special and differential lowered rates for the least developed
> countries "in accordance with multilateral trade rules."  Venezuela,
> Colombia, India, Iran, South Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Haiti, Uruguay,
> Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba lept to support the proposal.   But the US
> replied no, interconnection falls outside the WTO arrangements (this is
> based purely on catering to US corporate interests in evading any legally
> binding obligation to provide "cost-oriented rates at any technically
> feasible point in the network" to developing countries, rather than any
> logical reading of the WTO rules---I had a protracted battle with ICC and
> the EC on this in WGIG), and the EU of course said they weren't sure and
> would have to consult.
>
> In other words, the US is saying that the issue of interconnection should
> only be dealt with in ITU, where PTOs have proposed an archaic accounting
> and settlement approach which they find easy to reject, and not in the WTO,
> where they could well lose a dispute resolution case on the matter.  And
> similarly, as I noted, they have told me privately they do NOT want
> interconnection discussed in the forum.  So the deal is, keep sensitive
> issues like interconnection locked within the boxes of existing,
> non-multistakeholder bodies where they can be controlled, and then pick the
> box that is most suitable to precluding serious challenges.  The same game
> can be played with WIPO, COE, OECD, UNICTRAL, Hague Convention, ICANN, you
> name it.  By the time we get done taking issues off the table because
> someone somewhere else is also talking about them in some manner, it's
> difficult to see what would be left for the forum to do, other than capacity
> building, per Canada.
>
> The WGIG report recommended that the forum be a place that is "open to all
> stakeholders from all countries; any stakeholder could bring up any Internet
> governance issue."  The IG Caucus reply to the report didn't embrace any
> deviation from this approach, and I hope that CS will remain clear on the
> point.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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