[governance] CSTD
AHM Bazlur Rahman
ceo at bnnrc.net
Mon May 24 03:26:50 EDT 2010
Dear Ms. Anriette,
Greetings from Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
Thank you very much for your nice and practical thought regarding IGF
process.
"As civil society we need to refine our strategies" according to your
emphasis as a civil society organization we need to take some
activities country level also.
I fully support your position.
With best regards,
Bazlu
________________________
AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
&
Head – Community Radio Academy
House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207
Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh
Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105
E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net
www.bnnrc.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] CSTD
Dear all
Having been at the CSTD and having sat through all the negotiation
sessions till late Friday afternoon (before the resolution was
finalised) I am convinced that those governments who want internet
governance to be located within an intergovermental space only use IGF
reform as means bargaining with those in favour of IGF continuation.
They are not really all that interested in IGF reform (with the
exception of India and Brazil and Egypt who do take the IGF seriously
and also IGF reform).
What the majority of IGF critics want is simply an intergovernmental
forum. Depending on their positions they would be open to having some
input from other stakeholders in a 'balanced' way which means it has to
be managed and controlled. In the case of civil society there will need
to be some form of civil society representation.
As Parminder pointed out the lack of substantial progress on enhanced
cooperation is being used to diminish the IGF.
However, I think that to believe that IGF reform will satisfy those
governments most vocal about enhanced cooperation is dangerous.
They want intergovernmental control in a forum where the US government
does not play a dominant role, directly or indirectly.
Some, like South Africa, are very explicit that they want the ITU to be
the home of internet public policy decision-making.
They are likely to be much more unhappy with an IGF that has
decision-making authority driven by multi-stakeholder processes than an
IGF that only facilitates dialogue.
As civil society we need to refine our strategies. I believe we have to
both take enhanced cooperation seriously, AND, fight hard for the IGF to
continue as a forum with a loose relationship to the UN.
We cannot afford to pretend that enhanced cooperation will sort itself
out. (EC in the sense that the developing country governments define it,
which I think means: "cooperative intergovernmental process with all
governments having one vote as in the UN system and with controlled
participation from other stakeholder groups".) As for the balance
between public policy and 'technical' policy.. they seem to agree that
there is a difference, and they are more interested in the public
policy.. but of course where public ends and technical start is not
always clear.
And, we cannot afford to NOT fight hard for the IGF to continue as it is
the only space where we can have open dialogue and I remain convinced
that this is extremely important.
The differences in position among governments on internet public policy
are so vast that an intergovernmental policy space is likely to spend
much of its time in deadlock. Civil society's agenda in such a space
(assuming there will be some way for us to be in this space in a
'balanced' way) is likely to be set by governments and the contestation
between them.
Is this ALL really what we want?
There is obviously more to say than this, and I have always been in
favour of the IGF sending stronger messages to other institutions and to
governments. I also believe we should try and see IG from the
perspective of those governments outside North America and the EU. They
have legitimate concerns.
As civil society our primary responsibility should be to ensure that
internet public policy spaces, both decision-making and dialogue spaces,
remain open to our participation and that human rights and
rights-oriented social, cultural and economic development concerns
becomes a stronger driver in these spaces.
Anriette
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 00:31 +0530, parminder wrote:
>
>
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > P:
> > Why did it not come out stronger or more directly in favor of using the
> > IGF for the development of GAPPs? (globally applicable public policy
> > principles)
> > --MM
> >
> For one, because I have tried often and long in this space to get
> civil society to rally around some possibilities of the IGF
> structuring itself to be able to do some such thing. But this has
> largely been unsuccessful.
>
> It does surprise me often that many who keep asking for
> multi-stakeholder systems to have strong policy role, instead of
> intergov models, at the same time do not support IGF making any
> progress towards making recommends, which is the least that would be
> implied for it to take up the role you mention above. (I have tried my
> best for it, and still do. We supported a CSTD working group with
> likely multistakeholder involvement to suggest specific improvements
> in the IGF which hopefully should be in the direction of making it
> more purposeful.)
>
> Almost the last straw was the move earlier this year towards perhaps
> even doing away with the MAG, which is the only structures part of the
> IGF whereby it can move in the directions I, and presumably you, would
> like it to.
>
> We continue to believe that IGF should have a very strong role in
> development of globally applicable public policy principles.
>
> Also, our statement had a basic advocacy focus towards seeking some
> movement on EC, and we did not want to dilute it, especailly when many
> others were strongly using the ruse of the IGF to resist any such
> movement. Our statement was coupled with a lot of lobbying with
> developing country govs and others. I think we would see an open
> consultation meeting on EC to be called by the Secretary General
> before the end of the year.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> > ________________________________________
> > From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:34 AM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] CSTD
> >
> > Enclosed is a statement made by IT for Change to the UN Commission on
> > Science and Technology for Development, on the first day of its 5 day
> > sitting. More on this later. parminder
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> plain text document attachment (message-footer.txt)
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anriette esterhuysen - executive director
association for progressive communications
p o box 29755 melville - south africa 2109
anriette at apc.org - tel/fax + 27 11 726 1692
http://www.apc.org
APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org
Thank you for helping make APC what it is today!
¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy!
Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui!
____________________________________________________________
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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list