[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[parminder]

Hi All

The question here is - do we need new global IG processes - for 
developing public policies and not technical policies (Tunis Agenda 
makes that distinction clear).

Antecedent question is - is there a gap / vacuum versus global IG 
policies or not? The Tunis Agenda appears to be clear that there is such 
a vacuum.

What does the IGC think? We need to be able to give an answer.

And if we think there is a global vacuum vis a vis global IG policies, 
what is our analysis about whose interests such a vacuum serves, and 
whose interests it dis-serves most. It is my submission, and most 
sociological/ political theories also hold, that absence of (democratic) 
political structures serves the powerful most, and disserve the 
marginalised.

Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner 
that is often opposite of what can be called progressive. Only 
democratic global political institutions can remedy this situation.

If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is 
regressive. It is against the interests of the marginalised and the 
excluded. And CS is supposed to protect these interests most.

If we have to take our cues from global  CS outside IG arena, then 
perhaps CS organisations concerned with globalisation issues come 
closest. Information Society is but globalisation on steroids. And the 
global CS's prescription to address the ill and excesses of 
globalisation is mostly better and more democratic global governance 
institutions (see for instance writings of Joseph Stiglitz). This is 
mostly the primary prescription on 'what to do'. And now when the IG 
related CS is presented with a possibility of shaping new more 
democratic global governance institution, can we just remain silent  or 
say, well we are not very interested. That is what looks coming out of 
the present statement; other than saying, if indeed anything of this 
nature does come up, make sure CS is also involved. I am unable to agree 
with such a statement coming from IGC. And I also cannot agree to it as 
a default statement. In not saying what is needed to be said, much is 
being said. I am, and my organisation is, unable to be associated with 
what is being said in this manner.

What we will like to be said is something as follows.

There is a huge institutional vacuum in terms of global IG policies and 
such a vacuum hurts the interests of the marginalised and the excluded 
most. It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments 
emerge to address this vacuum, in a democratic and inclusive manner.  It 
will be worthwhile to consider a global or world Internet organisation 
or council, with adequate and equitable representation to governments 
from all regions as well as non-governmental representatives of people 
and interests that cannot adequately be represented merely through  
inter-governmental systems, especially in the new emerging trans-global 
reality. Such non-governmental participation is also necessary to give 
equitable representation to marginalised groups, like disability and 
indigenous groups, who find strength through global organization, and 
whose interests need a more direct representation at global  policy 
forum. Such an institutional mechanism will be the best way to deepen 
democracy at global level, and ensure a really democratic global 
Internet regime.

We may also try and get more specific, maybe, suggest such a World/ 
Global Internet Council/ Organization  has five governmental members 
each from each  region and 6 additional non-governmental members. The 
ways to select these non-governmental members may be arrived at through 
consultation with all involved groups. However the process should be 
open and bottom up.

This GIO or CIC (referred to as 'Body' hereafter) should have a mandate 
for all areas of global Internet public policies, including, but not 
restricted to, oversight of CIR management.

This Body should come up with policy recommendations on all global IG 
matters, especially those in which regard there is no existing 
specialized agency dealing with the issue(s) to be adopted globally and 
nationally through different means/mechanisms of such global policy 
making/ adopting.

It should also facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and 
agreements on Internet-related public policies.

This Body should also help  set up, or anchor, as appropriate, global 
coordination methods for transborder Internet Governance related issues 
that require coordination on an ongoing basis.

This Body should also develop rules and procedures for dispute 
resolution mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required.

The relationship between this Body and technical and operational 
Internet institutions, such as the reformed and internationalized ICANN, 
should be formalized. In this model, ICANN will be accountable to GIC. 
In this regard, US government should cede all controls/ supervision of 
ICANN and IANA and such related functions to this body.

(A lot of stuff here is taken from different models suggested by the 
WGIG report)


The above is merely suggestive and hastily drafted to invite comments. 
There is of course much that be improved and even substantively changed 
here if we put our creative and political energies on the task.  However 
abstaining, or giving rather vague comments, when asked about our 
specific preferences for a global IG order is not, in my opinion, 
something the IGC can afford to do. It may only do so at the risk of 
compromising its political legitimacy as the leading progressive global 
civil society organization.

Parminder



On Thursday 04 November 2010 05:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 04/11/2010, at 4:38 PM, jefsey wrote:
>
>    
>> My point was not about the proposed procedural document, but about the claim it is neutral.
>>      
> Sorry for any misunderstanding, I didn't mean that it was meant to be neutral as between civil society and governments.  I just meant that in drafting it, I limited myself to what I knew the IGC would agree on, because of the paucity of contributions we had received on the list to that time.  There was only really one suggestion, which came from Bill (and which I incorporated).
>
> Since then, there has been some more, so here is a revised version incorporating all new comments.  Don't worry, it's gradually becoming less neutral/bland - also longer :-(.  All paragraphs but the last have changes, but the biggest changes are to paragraph 2.  I can also send a marked-up version if there is demand for it.
>
> --- begins ---
>
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) is pleased to present its views on the process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues relating to the Internet.  We do not have any detailed prescription of the form which this process should take, but rather we take this opportunity to make three simple points.
>
> First is that enhanced cooperation should encompass all Internet-related public policy issues, second that the existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement this ideal of enhanced cooperation, and finally that whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.
>
> These points will be explained in turn:
>
> 1. Although much of the discussion of enhanced cooperation at WSIS turned around the narrow issue of internationalising the oversight of Internet naming and numbering functions, the Tunis Agenda expresses this principle far more broadly.  It also reminds us that the ultimate objective of our cooperation is to advance a people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society.
>
> 2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced cooperation process, in that ideally its multi-stakeholder process can help to shape the decisions that are taken on Internet related public policy issues in other fora.  However the full realisation of enhanced cooperation will require a multi-stakeholder process to extend to other Internet governance organisations that do not already follow this model.
>
> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant organisations.  These may include:
>
> * making no institutional changes but encouraging organisations to enhance their own cooperation with other stakeholders and to report to the CSTD on their progress;
>
> * establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph 72(i));
>
> * utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or "social grid", linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all stakeholders would participate; or
>
> * establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy development, with space for the participation of each stakeholder group in its respective role.
>
> 3. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda makes very clear that civil society is an integral participant in the development of any process towards enhanced cooperation.  Therefore the IGC, in our capacity as members of civil society, looks forward to contributing constructively in transparent, accountable and democratic multi-stakeholder consultations towards this end.
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/a32779f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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