[governance] Re: SECOND DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[parminder]

On Monday 08 November 2010 08:59 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 08/11/2010, at 9:49 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>> To make it clearer, I prefer we give our response to EC consultation 
>> under four different parts
>
> I'm not sure it is will be feasible to get such a radical reworking of 
> the existing text through to consensus by Friday, which is when I'd 
> been planning to put the text I'd been working on to a consensus call.
Jeremy

These two distinctions and separations that elucidate the enhanced 
cooperation concept was an important aspect of Tunis Agenda. We need to 
build on them rather than regress from them. The present draft 
statement, as I see it, does in fact regress on these distinctions. I 
would not be part of such a regressive statement. By not saying many 
things and by confusing other things the statement says much. That is 
how it will be read, that would be taken as the political position of 
the IGC. And I do not agree with it, and strongly oppose it.

Cant see for instance how can we say, "The IGF in its present form is a 
very important part of the enhanced cooperation process" (from the 
draft) when we have already said in Vilnius that EC and IGF are distinct 
processes, and this is also said in the ECOSOC resolution. I proposed 
this issues may be perhaps be addressed by making a distinction between 
broader   'conditions creating' process for EC(as per TA) and the core 
process of EC. In fact we should say as we said in Vilnius that EC and 
IGF are distinct but complementary processes. In my understanding of the 
language I cant see how one thing can be  a part of another and also 
complementary to it.

Also I cannot see when giving our statement on EC we can skirt all core 
substantive issues and basically just say - 'whatever you do civil 
society should be there'. That is all I really see said in this 
statement. How , for instance, in an EC statement, at a crucial moment 
where very substantive inputs on what EC means and how to take it 
forward, are being sought,  can we not mention what the whole world 
outside (largely) strongly feels, in my opinion, ' that the US 
supervisory role on CIR management is completely unacceptable to the 
world community' and that this role should immediately be ceded to a 
global body with multistakeholder representation. If we are not able to 
muster enough political will to say this thing, which thing in fact got 
said many times even around the WSIS, I cant be a party to this 
regeressive non-statement.

Also when the marginalized countries and groups are right now suffering 
such deep and extensive exclusion from the way the digital phenomenon - 
the globally applicable policies and the corporate driven digital 
architecture design - is being shaped in the North by powerful corporate 
and state actors, largely a collusion of them - how can we not comment 
on such an exclusion, which 'the real issue' that the EC process is 
supposed to or should address. We must mention what is happening through 
ACTA kind of plurilateral process to the exclusion of all others. 
Silence in an IGC statement on such all-important aspects, which is the 
real stuff that bothers most progressives civil society actors outside 
this charmed circle of IG specialists is not acceptable. Such a 
statement will  not do any credit to the IGC, and will further increase 
the political distance that IGC kind of CS groups have from mainstream 
progressive civil society.

So, well, I cannot support the present statement. I am strongly against 
it being sent on IGC behalf.

(Sorry if some of my responses are not prompt enough, am traveling and 
very time and connectivity constrained)

Parminder





> Partly this is because I am travelling from tomorrow.
>
> But if you think it is feasible and have time, then can you please 
> propose some text?  I suggest that it would be made available in 
> parallel to the existing text, so that people can choose one of the 
> other if and when the consensus call is made.
>
> Meanwhile I will send around a fourth draft of the existing text 
> tomorrow, incorporating the latest comments, but a less ambitious 
> reworking than what you propose.
>
> -- 
>
> *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 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/bbc1b6aa/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