[governance] FOURTH DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

[Miguel Alcaine]

Dear all,

As I commented to Imran, we can even say "at all levels, particularly at the
regional and the international level", which will be perfectly in agreement
with WSIS outcome documents.

In the implementation and follow-up, many countries governments did not want
any language which may give basis to have "best practices" or peer reviews
implemented, because in practice, performance evaluation comparing countries
lead to political bargaining among and between them. In other words,
countries governments were very keen to protect their space in national
sovereignity terms. For example, read attached paras 85 and 100 of the TA.

I guess, in summary, we can make a call to have EC at all levels, and even
spell out all the levels: local, national, regional and international.
However, we can elaborate further on describing and designing EC, in detail,
for the regional and international level, but my educated guess will be that
as international CS we will not have the opportunity to do the same at the
national and local level, which might need to interface with Governments at
the Governments request and might need to be advocated at the national and
local levels.

Another consideration that I thought when referring only to international
level spelled out (while we can mention the regional level perfectly) and
leaving all others within the phrase "at all levels" is that I thought the
consultations are mainly concerned with the international level, because of
the declared goal of EC in the TA about Governments being equal in the
Internet Governance, although I recognize this is not the priority focus for
CS.

I hope this clarifies my arguments,

Best,

Miguel

*Annex*

85. *Taking into consideration the leading role of governments* in
partnership with other stakeholders in implementing the WSIS outcomes,
including the Geneva Plan of Action, at the national level, we
encouragethose governments that have not yet done so to elaborate, as
appropriate,
comprehensive, forward-looking and sustainable national e-strategies,
including ICT strategies and sectoral e-strategies as
appropriate1<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html#note2>,
as an integral part of national development plans and poverty reduction
strategies, as soon as possible and before 2010.

100. *At the national level, based on the WSIS outcomes, **we
encourage**governments,
* with the participation of all stakeholders and bearing in mind the
importance of an enabling environment, to set up a national
*implementation*mechanism, in which:


   1.

   National e-strategies, where appropriate, should be an integral part of
   national development plans, including Poverty Reduction Strategies, aiming
   to contribute to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals
   and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals.
   2.

   ICTs should be fully mainstreamed into strategies for Official
   Development Assistance (ODA) through more effective information-sharing and
   coordination among development partners, and through analysis and sharing of
   best practices and lessons learned from experience with ICT for development
   programmes.
   3.

   Existing bilateral and multilateral technical assistance programmes,
   including those under the UN Development Assistance Framework, should be
   used whenever appropriate to assist governments in their implementation
   efforts at the national level.
   4.

   Common Country Assessment reports should contain a component on ICT for
   development.





On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

>  Miguel
>
> Can you share with us the arguments why the national level was
> intentionally left out of the international mechanism? Pls.  I would like to
> see emphasis also to the national and regional level. EC should be done at
> the national, regional, and international level. Not all Treaties
> conventions are good, and our countries should not sign or follow those
> recommendation if its affects their own citizens at the national or regional
> level. For example, it is dangerous to see the Budapest Convention exported
> to other countries, as it has serious implications for citizen's fundamental
> rights.  Despite the serious concerns that the Budapest Convention / Council
> of Europe itself contain, the harm to third countries outside Europe, for
> instance, Latin America is dangerous.  While the EU for instance has the
> Ecommerce Directive, The Data Protection Directive, the E-Privacy Directive,
> Charter of Fundamental Rights, and other check and balance in place etc,
> many countries lack of these regulatory frameworks.
>
> I know, it can be worst with the ITU (and the end of anonymity). Please
> read: UN rejects international cybercrime treaty
>
> http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/20/240973/UN-rejects-international-cybercrime-treaty.htm
>
>
>
> 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 *all levels, particularly*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.
>
>
>
> [COMMENT: EC has to happen at all levels, but the consultation is mainly
> towards the global and to some extent to the regional level. The national
> level was intentionally left out of the international mechanisms]
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/35f07236/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