[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[McTim]

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 6:44 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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).

My answer is no.

>
> 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.

There is certainly a vacuum, as in there is no Global body with
authority to deal with all IG issues in an authoritative manner.

This is a feature NOT a bug!!


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

I agree with Avri.

>
> 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,

It seems to have served innovation quite well, built economies and
eco-sytems.  Look at your own backyard to find the

 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.


If by democratic, you mean (one person one vote) "representative
democracy" then I say again this is a FEATURE, not a bug!

I refer you again to "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"

http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/barlow_0296.declaration

"We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I
address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty
itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are
building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to
impose on us. You have no moral
right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have
true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you.
You do not know us, nor do  you know our world. Cyberspace does not
lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though
it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of
nature and it grows itself through our collective actions."


>
> Globally, Internet is today being shaped by dominant forces in a manner that
> is often opposite of what can be called progressive.

Evidence please.


Only democratic global
> political institutions can remedy this situation.

See above Declaration:

"You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use
this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these
problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are
wrongs, we will
identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own
Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the
conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different."

>
> If we have no position on this, my opinion is that our position is
> regressive.

or status quoist, which IMHO is progressive.

 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.

We can however say that we support a mostly non-governmental IG
system, whereby gov'ts are welcome to come to our table(s).  We do
ourselves a disservice by asking them for a seat at a table we want
them to make.


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.

This is what we get when we align ourselves (exclusively) as a group
with intergovernmental processes.

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.


I reject the above for the reasons Avri stated.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
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