[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think this proposal is horribly government centric and hope that it is does not become the consensus of the IGC.

A civil society caucus should not become a government serving body.  To voluntarily surrender full control of Internet governance to governments, except for a token 'other' presence strikes me as unthinkable.

a.

On 5 Nov 2010, at 23:44, parminder wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>>   
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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