[governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
Izumi AIZU
iza at anr.org
Thu Nov 4 01:18:00 EDT 2010
Dear list,
First, I believe we need to conclude our statement and deliver to
UN DESA/ECOSOC by Nov. 15, 10 more days, and then this
will be used at the CSTD consultation meeting on Nov 24 in
Geneva. Am I correct?
If so, I don't think we cannot wait until our "Strategy" work finalized
and then solidly incorporated in this statement realistically.
It is not feasible and also risky.
I thought that's why Jeremy made rather "neutral" and non-contentious
draft. That does not mean in our future work to stop there.
What I read from Jeremy's draft is that Civil Society wants the
multi-stakeholder framework at any kind of "enhanced cooperation"
which originally implied, or have tendency to be, inter-governmental,
but not multi-stakeholder. I think that is important and everyone here
agrees.
For that, "MS observatory process convened under the auspices of the IGF"
might be sufficient, at least for the time being.
We can also add "regional balance" and/or "developmental" aspects
to be considered in the enhanced cooperation, if I may suggest.
I mean we do not accept one side (North or South, or East or West)
dominates over the other. Rather than saying "neutral", we can offer
"balanced approach" or something like that.
Mabe we could add gender balance, special attention to minorities in
culture and language, persons with disabilities, small and remote
communities, etc
all to be taken seriously. It could be too descriptive, though, I am afraid.
In 2003 WSIS CS declaration, we said
"Technological decisions should be taken with the goal of meeting the
life-critical needs of people, not with goal of enriching companies or
enabling undemocratic control by governments. Therefore, fundamental
decisions concerning the design and use of technologies must be made
in cooperation with Civil Society, including individual end-users,
engineers, and scientists."
We can also use this to be applied to the EC principle and framework.
But again, we can make short and clear statement, as "beginning placeholder"
and elaborate as we progress our own debate towards December meeting.
my 2 cents.
izumi
2010/11/3 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> Hi All
>
> I agree with Lee that we should try to be more substantive in our enhanced
> cooperation statement.
>
> This is also related to Izumi's initiative towards renewing IGC energies
> through more purposeful and focused work, about which more in a separate
> email. We are in a political process and non-decision is itself a political
> choice. As the main global civil society organization it hardly behooves us
> to say, we really have no ideas about what kind of global IG regime we will
> like to have and move towards through the WSIS mandated enhanced cooperation
> process. In fact, since we are kind of being specifically asked, we should
> be able to come up with some relatively clear models of where to go and how.
> We need to at least try to pull together some common position on this most
> important issue. We cannot give up even without a discussion on the list.
>
> On the other hand, if we are indeed so pessimistic that any common
> progressive civil society position on the most appropriate global IG model
> and institutions (or at least a small range of possibilities) is very
> unlikely to emerge, then perhaps we just may not have the political cohesion
> to succeed in the new initiative being proposed by the co-coordinators. I am
> not being dismissive about this initiative, I am very much for it and have
> myself proposed similar things earlier, I am just posing a challenge which
> looks rather real to me.
>
> In short, what I mean is that if we are unable to have a strategy for such
> an important and urgent issue like enhanced cooperation, when 'the moment'
> stares in our face, can we realistically hope to come up with other running
> strategies for our work.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010 07:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>
> Jeremy,
>
> If I may wade in here, even if not pretending I know whether we are the moon
> or the sky:
>
> Right now we got a pretty small list with grandiose notions; with volunteer
> human capital its only resource.
>
> There's related dedicated folks clustering around a variety of 'Internet
> governance' institutions or institutions which -also - do Internet
> governance, however else they define and busy themselves. Some are the same
> people here, stretched thinner and thinner...
>
> Anyway, rather than moon and sky if it is just one world of ig,
> it's...easier.
>
> In UN-GAID context in September I advocated a 'social grid' around and
> beyond ICT4D activities...remember a few emails on list re why not have IGF
> messages received by GAID and via GAID's eNabler tools to development
> planners worldwide. That is just one possible path if a social grid is
> established which more tightly but still loosely because it is only
> virtually or voluntarily coupled one to another ig orgs.
>
> The connection to enhanced cooperation: a social grid into and across ig
> orgs in which civil society ALWAYS has a seat at the table - and oh yeah
> nation-states have a say too - but that is enhanced cooperation.
>
> In my opinion.
>
> So this may all be too much for the enhanced cooperation neutral statement,
> but point is that maybe it is time not to be too too neutral and actually
> work to define -enhanced cooperation- operationally. Starting by advocating
> the same, as part of the next 5 year agenda.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 7:22 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; JFC Morfin
> Subject: Re: [governance] Very neutral statement on enhanced cooperation
>
> On 03/11/2010, at 4:22 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
>
>
>
> As I hinted in talking of a moon in the governance sky, we need to change
> ourselves first if we do not understand what one expects from us. There is
> time to first define our area of responsibility, what civil society means,
> and the legitimacy, pertience and competence it gives us to address people's
> private, civil and public needs.
>
> Sorry if I knocked at the wrong door. My need is for addressing the real
> life impact on public issues of the technology fondamental metachange we
> have obtained (RFC 5890-5895). The important thing is not the metachange
> (it was implied in the technology) but the intergovernmental assessment of
> what real life should look like from their current perspective.
>
>
> Certainly you are not alone in suggesting that the IGC needs to get more
> practical and to better engage with broader communities. But it sounds like
> this is (valid, and important) input for the IGC working groups, rather than
> a suggestion for drafting of our statement to the upcoming enhanced
> cooperation consultation, correct?
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> CI is 50
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in
> 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer
> rights around the world.
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
* * * * *
<< Writing the Future of the History >>
www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
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