[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[parminder]

Dear Jeremy and All

To make progress on a EC statement, it is my impression that we separate 
important areas and implications of EC and discuss and comment on them 
separately.

  About one separation I have already commented. The EC process proper 
and the broader processes of preparing conditions for it. These two 
consist of different processes and different roles for different actors. 
Our comments can deal with this issue accordingly in two parts.

The second seperation, I see becoming key to taking an EC discussion 
forward is between IG arena relating to CIR management and that relating 
to other more substantive and socio-political areas like IP, cyber 
security, content realted issues, socio-political issues about Internet 
architecture, social networking, other key global digital applications 
etc. Let me just for sake of distinction call these as 'substantive 
areas' ( Am happy to use another name if anyone has a problem with this one)

I see that I keep advancing opinions and options about global Internet 
public policies vis a vis 'substantive area' , evne making it clear that 
i am not referring to CIR management area, and I keep getting 'nay' 
responses about CIR management area, with alternative options being 
suggested that clearly seem to only refer to CIR area (this is why I 
asked how substantive policies can be ever developed through these 
models and i dont think I got the response.)

Since, as per Tunis Agenda, we have reaffirmed that EC goes beyond CIR 
area, it will be a great service to overall discussion around EC if we 
give our EC related comments separately about the two IG areas - CIRs or 
technical management, and substantive issues related.  I dont see why 
anyone should have any objection against these simple process 
simplifying suggestion.

Regarding CIR or technical management area:

In fact, TA seems to suggest that it does not want to substantively 
disturb the actual technical management processes. and I agree. I am 
ready to evne endorse a sentence or two affirming our position in this 
regard - that the existing decentralized and multistakeholder processes 
of CIR management  should be continued etc. In my view this should 
satisfy all those who have repeatedly rooted for this model in the 
discussions of the last few days.

The only controversial issue here is of US versus a more global body as 
supervisory node over the ICANN plus system. I think it has been the 
civil society position for a long time that US's supervisory role in 
this regard is not acceptable to the international community. I think we 
have also expressed the position that ICANN oversight be 
internationalised. I am fine that we say that all the present authority 
of the US gov (and no more) be immidiately shifted to a global body with 
multistakeholder representation. I dont see how we as a global CS body 
have an objection to this. But happy to hear comments.

Regarding substantive issues

We should condemn making of Internet global public policy among conclave 
of a few powerful nations, when it is evident that the outcomes of these 
policies will have global ramifications. Also the fact that most global 
digital corporations that today provide services that are increasingly 
essential to our social lives are subject to regulatory powers of a few 
powerful countries.  To address both these anomalies, and in the context 
of the vacuum in global policy making (in these substantive, non CIR 
areas), and the fact that as Internet becomes more and more central to 
our social systems the need for global public policies will keep 
increasing, a global IG council or organization with representation from 
across the globe and from all stakeholders  ..... Hereafter we can add 
the nature, role and composition regarding details for this Body as per 
my earlier proposal, and comments of others....

While it makes sense that this Body also does CIR related functions/ 
role that is at present done by the US gov (and no more in relation to 
CIR management), since otherwise the separate CIR supervisory body will 
have little to do day-today, just to keep the two debates separate 
(since now I am convinced that mixing them is the main reaosn we are not 
able to make progress) I am fine if the global CIR supervisory body is a 
seperate one from the above referred IG Council or organization.

I request, if possible, for members to give their comments separately 
for CIR area and other substantive areas to this proposal for IGC 
comments for EC consultations.

Parminder






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/ae966680/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