[governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I am not necessarily comfortable with all you write below, though in  
some cases it may just be a matter or understanding.

I certainly support making a statement about the need to add msh  
wording.

i think that if we make a statement it should be a positive one that  
adds to the the proposal as opposed to tearing it apart.

quick comments on some of the points:


On 30 sep 2005, at 10.35, 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.
>

this should be added if it not there, but i think it is.  at least in  
what i read last night.

> *There is no mention of it having a mandate to do much of what the IG
> caucus has proposed in terms of functions.
>

and the ambiguity of the forum is what allows it to happen.  plus as  
you know i have always supported the mimimalist start to the forum  
with it gaining more function as it proves itself.

> *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.

has some conversations on this.  following a wgig model it could be  
just a light weight secretariat that enables, with that secretariat  
arranging for the forum to be hosted by existing organizations; e.g.  
undp one year, isoc another and yes even itu getting a chance.

>
> *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.

this becomes a matter of defining the context in which something is  
considered.  again i don't see anyone stopping a forum from talking  
about these issues if that is what it decides to talk about.

>
> I hope these concerns will be raised in our interventions if the
> opportunity arises.

i guess we have a difference of opinion here.  i would not care to  
raise most of these, but would rather focus on the addition of MSH  
and peer participation and inclusion especially a focus on  
development issues.

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