[governance] Re: Round II

[Fouad Bajwa]

Hi Izumi, were you able to gather any reactions or responses to the
statement you made? So far it seems that there is sort of an argument
going on between developing country and EU govts that is not taking
things anywhere. My country's comments would be obvious since many
ministers in the cabinet were sacked two days ago including the guy
that sat in the CSTD so we have a totally uninformed participant
possibly from the Geneva office trying to play know it all.

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> This is close to what I stated on behalf of IGC, as draft I was
> reading mostly but, last portion has been modifiedon the fly as the
> time gets
> longer...
>
> 1.
> Why it should be MSH
> My name is Izumi Aizu, I am from Tokyo, am a newly elected
> co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus that
> has been engaged in WSIS and IGF very actively. I have been involved
> with Internet governance since around 1996. I was the local host of
> Singapore’s IFWP back in 1998, after attending first one in Washington
> DC and the second meeting in Geneva that summer, that essentially led
> the creation of ICANN. I participated all the PrepComs of the WSIS I
> and WSIS II.
>
> In the beginning, Civil Society and business were not allowed to enter
> the room where governments were negotiating. Gradually, we were given
> five minutes slot per day for two-week long negotiation. Then some
> government representatives started to realize that maybe it’s good
> idea to listen to these experts on the IP address and Domain names
> systems that government friends have very little clue of the very
> subject they are talking about.
> We were given more time, more weight, towards the Tunis Agenda, and then IGF.
> There is short history of Multistakeholder, with invisible efforts of
> many people inside and outside the governments and UN system.
>
> Why multistakeholder so important?
> The Tunis Declaration made it very clear that Internet Governance
> should be dealt with the full involvement of all stakeholders – and
> created IGF, The Forum for Dialogue, not a decision making mechanism.
> ECOSOC resolutions also clearly support this multistakeholder
> principle.
>
> So making Working Group on the improvement of IGF by giving advantage
> to only one stakeholder group over other stakeholder groups is clearly
> a violation of the principle that more than 180 head of states agreed
> in 2005 and all the resolutions that follow. Civil Society IGC fully
> appreciate and support the balanced participation of all stakeholder
> proposed by UK and Portugal and other governments and UNESCO.
>
> Now, more specifically
> - This Working Group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened
> by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice
>
> The consultations in IGF Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group
> composed like the WGIG, which is written in the Chair’s summary:
>  “that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive sprit and
> principles of the IGF should continue to guide the composition,
> modalities and working methods of the CSTD WG.”
> “Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it
> was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number
> of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society
> and the private sector.
> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the
> model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
> Therefore, the consultations today should be, first and foremost,
> about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it
> multi-stakeholder.
>
> Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the
> approach regarding Internet Governance. Reverting to a purely
> intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the
> difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in
> May.
>
> 2
> Why we should keep MSH and how to improve it?
> It is because of the nature of the Internet. This may sound obvious to
> many of you here, but I also notice some new players now under the new
> environment with CSTD community here in Geneva. So let me explain a
> little more.
>
> Internet being the very new, innovative transnational or global shared
> network of networks, is different from the traditional state-based,
> inter-national, and hierarchically managed and inter-connected,
> telecommunication networks.
>
> The shared, distributed network of networks requires management or
> governance in that manner. And that’s why and how IGF is designed and
> implemented.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t