[governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Wed Nov 10 10:54:59 EST 2010
I support Avri's recommendations as well. Particularly the suggestion of
getting rid of multilateral.
jeanette
Am 10.11.2010 16:51, schrieb 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> <mailto: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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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