SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[wcurrie at apc.org]

Hi Jeremy

I think you outline a useful sequence of steps. I'm at a civil society intervention in the reform of global public policy organisaed by the ford foundation (milton is also here) which is looking at three global campaigns - international finance institutions which is regarded as mature, international taxation, which is regarded as a teenager and internet governance which is regarded as very young. So baby steps are clearly required. One suggestion from the meeting is that we should look at the example of the intergovernmental panel of climate change (IPCC) as a way of building the power of the IGF to build its capacity to make recommendations based on research and evidence.. Perhaps en route to an tabling an internet framework convention we should look at the IGFsupporting a multi-stakeholder panel on internet governance with a number of working groups examining the issues identified by WGIG, both narrow and broad forms of internet governance.

Willie
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld  

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:19:13 
To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,David Goldstein <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: SV: AW: AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

David Goldstein wrote:
>> In fact WGIG anticipated that as well as making recommendations to other 
>> organisations, the IGF “may also invite — or recommend that the United 
>> Nations invites — member states to discuss a certain issue in an 
>> official capacity, or via a vote in the United Nations General 
>> Assembly.”  Likewise, there is no reason why a workshop or Dynamic 
>> Coalition of the IGF could not write a first draft of the Framework 
>> Convention and submit it to the plenary body for consideration, in other 
>> fora no doubt, by states.
> 
> I'd consider this a failure or fault of IGF. Relying on states to be able to best represent people with disabilities would be very hit and miss. Bodies advocating the rights of people with disabilities, either international or national, would be far better, even if the state were to consult with a relevant NGO.

Well I agree, but we have to take baby steps here.  Ideally, and perhaps 
eventually, the output of the IGF could take the force of an independent 
body of transnational law, something like the lex mercatoria, that would 
exist parallel to (and yet not be trumped by) the existing international 
system.  But how we get there from here is to first develop 
recommendations in a multi-stakeholder process that nobody can 
reasonably dissent from, and for those to gain normative force through 
adoption into the international system's existing governance 
institutions.  Eventually that last step could become redundant, and for 
the IGF to make a recommendation could then be enough.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance