[governance] THIRD DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[McTim]

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> It will be impossible to simultaneously satisfy people like Parminder and
> people like McTim, so here is my attempt at dissatisfying them equally.  The
> biggest changes are the substitution of a new preamble for the old one, and
> deletion of the "do nothing" bullet point under numbered-paragraph 2.  Let's
> continue to have your comments as we try and reach some common ground.
> --- begins ---
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (CS-IGC) regards the process
> towards enhanced cooperation as a vital step towards addressing the "many
> cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
> are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda para
> 68).
> Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
> deficit, much remains to be done.  It is imperative that this deficit
> continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that comply with the WSIS process criteria of being
> multilateral, transparent, democratic and inclusive.

What does the above sentence mean?  Does it mean new institutions or
new developments within existing institutions?

If the latter, let's say that.  If the former, I would be opposed to this idea.


> We make three further points.  First, enhanced cooperation should encompass
> all Internet-related public policy issues; second, the existing arrangements
> of relevant organisations (including the Internet Governance Forum) do not
> fully implement enhanced cooperation,

Can we say "many of our members believe the existing arrangements of
relevant organisations...."


and thirdly whatever new arrangements
> may be put in place, civil society will play an integral part in them.

I would suggest Should/must/can instead of 'will".

>
> 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 decisions 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.

What does this mean?  What other IG institutions are not sufficiently MS?

>
> There are various options for enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation within
> and amongst all relevant organisations.  These include:
>
> * 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.

If you are going to remove the "do nothing" option, because some folk
oppose it, then in fairness, I suggest you must remove the above
option as some oppose that as well.

Getting into options at all is a quagmire, i suggest that it might be
easier to reach consensus if we don't enumerate the options at all.

>
> 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.

fine with that para.


> --- ends ---

-- 
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