[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Nov 6 01:53:27 EDT 2010


>
> While agreeing totally with Avri about the makeup,
Yes, we can recommend something different. Maybe 9 or 15 non gov 
members. I was being conservative since, if our suggestion was to be 
accepted, this is the first time ever that any substative global 
governance  body will have non government members in a substantive 
capacity. That is entirely a new model, and we should indeed be trying 
to get a foot in somehow.  We need to slowly, and with good reasoning 
and show of practical work, build the basis of substantive 
non-governmental political representation at gobal levels. Suggesting an 
entirely 'unreasonable' number right away may not be very useful as a 
practical strategy. But I am quite open on this.

Parminder

> I also agree totally with
> Parminder and his logic in recommending that some sort of body come into
> existence. To paraphrase
>
> Tunis did suggest there was some sort of gap/vacuum in IG policies
>
> That gap does serve the interests of the powerful (wittingly or unwittingly)
> and does result in marginalisation
>
> It is an urgent imperative that new institutional developments emerge to
> address this vacuum
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>    
>> From: Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>
>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri Doria<avri at psg.com>
>> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:04:58 -0400
>> To: IGC<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
>>
>> 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
>>      
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101106/91fa6ed9/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


More information about the Governance mailing list