[governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[Miguel Alcaine]

Dear all,

I support Avri's recommendations. Both of them.

For me, the first is better drafting.

In the second, I can live with getting rid of multilateral and I strongly
support to include open and accountable.

Best,

Miguel

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

>
> On 10 Nov 2010, at 09:40, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > It is now especially critical that the global community give renewed
> attention to these principles, at a time when we see danger of them being
> forgotten - for example, in that a proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
> Agreement that will affect Internet users around the world (including the
> most marginalized), has been shaped almost entirely by powerful corporate
> and state actors from the global North.
> >
>
> I have two recommendations:
>
> 1.
>
> > continue to be addressed, where appropriate through new institutional
> developments that
>
> This seems to imply that new institutional developments are required, as
> opposed to allowable if appropriate.
>
> i think it might read better as:
>
> continue to be addressed through the existing institutions, and where
> appropriate through new institutional developments, that ....
>
> 2.
>
> the ACTA stuff is actually multi-lateral as it is occurring between states.
>  and I understand that WSIS went with multilateral as opposed to a wider
> more inclusive formulation. But why does the IGC want it to be
> multi-lateral, i.e. giving primacy to governments, when that can deliver
> results we find abominable.
>
> I would recommend replacing:
>
> > the WSIS process criteria of being multilateral, transparent, democratic
> and inclusive.
>
> with
>
> the accepted process criteria of being open, accountable, transparent,
> democratic and inclusive.
>
> I think it reasonable that the IGC try to push beyond the WSIS criterion of
> multi-lateraisml that leaves decisions primarily in governments hands, while
> recognizing that of course governments are included as we say it should be
> inclusive.  Please note that I have refrained from using the
> multistakeholder moniker for this process to avoid offending those who have
> a different definition of it than i do.
>
> a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101110/2181ff77/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