[governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Imran Ahmed Shah
ias_pk at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 9 02:43:46 EST 2010
Dear Jeremy and All IGC Members
I would also like to comment and include some review notes on the FOURTH DRAFT
statement on Enhanced Cooperation (EC). See bellow.
________________________________
--- 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).
IAS: Agreed.
>Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
>deficit, much remains to be done. …
IAS: Not only Intergovernmental mandate, but also other mandates are not
addressed adequately as per para 72. So, it is proposed to rephrase this line as
follows:
… Despite an intergovernmental mandate from WSIS to address this governance
deficit, much other mandates 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.
IAS: Agreed.
>We make three further points. First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all
>Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the
>existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the
>Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and
>thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play
>an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.
>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
>to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require
>attention and resolution at the global level. 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.
IAS: Although the term of “Public Policy” which is also referred in Para
72(a), comprises a wide range of meaning for implementation but in this
practical world, I strongly recommend that we should point out to segregate the
scope of Public Policies into at least two half.
a). Global and Regional Policies.
b). National & Local Policies.
UN-IGF and CS-IGC and many other international organizations had been discussing
Global and Regional Policies (on each forum), related to key elements of
Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
stability and development of the Internet. But there is deficit attention toward
the discussion, consultation and dialogues for local and national policies
development, which may benefit to the ultimate end-user of the Internet. In
other words, the scope of the discussion of Internet Governance is much wider
and has to be narrow down to focus the local issues especially related to the
developing countries (as repeatedly mentioned in Para 72).
Now, if the question arises that how to address the Local & National Issues
related to Internet Governance adequately, we may follow the pattern which is
being adopted to discuss the global issues.
>2. The IGF in its present form is a very important part of the enhanced
>cooperation process, in that its multi-stakeholder process can provide input 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 all other Internet governance
>organisations, whether new or established.
>If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing
>multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
>organisations (which may be complementary). These include:
IAS: I agree with this statement, because the scope of the IGF
Multi-stakeholder framework is limited to the numbers of MAG, which should be
expanded to incorporate the representation of all the Institutions & Civil
Societies, governmental & non-governmental and must include the Local & Regional
Internet Regulating Bodies and Internet core bandwidth Providers.
Important Note: Discussion, Common Dialogue and Consultations are
important process steps to help to resolve the issues but do not resolve them
itself by publishing the proceedings. (Who will follow the decisions made at
Global Forum, without any legal, ethical or at-least moral bondage or
commitment?). I propose that there should be one or more actors or group of
actors responsible to resolve the issues with a solution defined at the end of
the common dialogue. I propose that the Internet Regulating Bodies as well as
Service Providers (Local or Regional), should have a specifically mentioned role
in the membership status of the UN-IGF. The final decisions as a result of
common dialogues of the IG Forum may be submitted to them for proceed further or
to implement, (if related to them).
>* establishing a lightweight multi-stakeholder observatory process perhaps
>hosted under the auspices of the IGF (pursuant to its mandate in paragraph
>72(i));
IAS: I agree with the implementation of lightweight multi-stakeholder
observatory, however in my opinion, we should provide a brief scope observatory
group. Normally such groups directly submit their reports to the Chair.
>* utilising a virtual and voluntary global social community or ecosystem,
>linking together all Internet governance organisations, in which all
>stakeholders would participate; or
IAS: I agree.
>* establishing a new umbrella governance institution for Internet policy
>development, with space for the full participation of each stakeholder group in
>its respective role. This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant
>to a new and supplementary mandate.
IAS: I do not agree with the proposal for the establishment of any new
institution due to any or many shortfall(s) in the development process or
progress of an institute.
However, it is a suitable option at this to develop other segments/groups within
the existing IGF.
I also agree with the statement of a new/supplementary mandate to existing one.
However, should we have to define the contents or elements for new mandate now
or soon?
>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.
IAS: I agree.
--- ends ---
Thanking you and Best Regards
Imran Ahmad Shah
Founder & Executive Member
Urdu Internet Society
Pakistan Internet Governance Forum
________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Tue, 9 November, 2010 5:35:41
Subject: [governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
In addition to the plain text version, I have marked up version below, for those
with graphical email clients or access to the Web archive.
--- 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.
We make three further points. First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all
Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the
existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the
Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and
thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play
an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.
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
to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require
attention and resolution at the global level. 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 its multi-stakeholder process can provide input 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 all other Internet governance
organisations, whether new or established.
If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing
multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
organisations (which may be complementary). 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 ecosystem,
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 full participation of each stakeholder group in
its respective role. This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant
to a new and supplementary mandate.
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.
--- ends ---
Marked up version follows:
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.
We make three further points. First, enhanced cooperation should encompass all
Internet-related public policy issues; second, many of our members believe the
existing arrangements of relevant organisations (including the
Internet Governance Forum) do not fully implement enhanced cooperation, and
thirdly whatever new arrangements may be put in place, civil society must play
an integral part in them, as one of the prerequisites for their legitimacy.
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
to include other substantive Internet related public policy issues that require
attention and resolution at the global level. 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
provide input 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 all other Internet governance
organisations, whether new or established that do not already follow this model.
If institutional changes are to be made, there are various options for enhancing
multi-stakeholder cooperation within and amongst all relevant
organisations (which may be complementary). 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"
ecosystem, 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 full participation of each stakeholder group in
its respective role. This might also be situated within the IGF, but pursuant
to a new and supplementary mandate.
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.
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights
around the world.
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
This incorporates all comments on the third draft, and I would like us to try to
contribute all final comments within the next couple of days, so that we can put
the final text to a consensus call. I realise that, unfortunately, the text may
not satisfy all of those without outlying views. A reminder that the deadline
for our submission is Monday.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101108/f9eaaea2/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