[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Nov 6 02:33:38 EDT 2010
Also just now re-read my proposal and see that I mistyped the numbers
for the proposed global Internet body
>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.
I meant 3 gov members from each of 5 regions, and not as stated. That
makes it look somewhat more balanced, but we can still increase non gov
numbers in our recommendation. Sorry for that mistake. Parminder
On Saturday 06 November 2010 11:23 AM, parminder wrote:
>> 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/20101106/11f3d4a5/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