[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