[governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Katitza Rodriguez
katitza at eff.org
Thu Nov 11 09:33:40 EST 2010
I definitely disagree. I have strong critics about the unintended
consequence of moving forward that proposal, specially within the
privacy/cybercrime arena.
On 11/11/10 6:28 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> Dear Avri,
>
>
> You said that
>
> "setting up a centralized institutional framework on global level,
> especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just does not seem
> appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be just the sort of
> thing we escaped having happen at the ITU. I do not see why we would
> start advocating that in the IGC".
>
> In my opinion:
>
> - T*he IG regime needs to produce policy and coordinate regulation* on
> substantive matters (access, privacy, etc). The *IGF is the only forum
> where substantive issues are discussed, but the way it is structured
> (which is a feature, not a bug, and should not be changed) makes it
> impossible for the IGF to perform this role.* There is noise and there
> is not a "membership", which generates problems with legitimacy. But
> the IGF needs to be considered when we talk about EC because *the
> substantive inputs to draft policy and regulation need to come from
> the IGF*
>
> - *We do not necessarely need to create new centralized structures to
> draft policy*. We do have a multistakeholder structure in place, the
> MAG (functioning under UN). If the election of its members was made
> more transparent, then its role could be changed, so it could receive
> input from the IGF and have competence to perform the task of
> proposing policy and regulation. MAG could also have an important role
> with coordinating with other organizations to perform its tasks.
>
> Leaving out the details of the propsal (ex: number of MAG members,
> etc), *do you think the above is something you could agree with?*
>
> I get the feeling from this conversation that sometimes we disagree
> because we are mixing up different "parts" of our proposal, that is
> why I proposed to map the positions that have been put forth on the
> list, so we can have a clearer idea of which are exactly our
> agreements and disagreements.
>
> Best,
>
> Marília
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com
> <mailto:avri at psg.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't think anyone is saying that regional setup like the COE
> should not be setup elsewhere, especially if the people in the
> regions think it is necessary. The OECD setup is a new thing and
> I would personally like to know more before we use it as an
> example for other activities.
>
> But setting up a centralized institutional framework on global
> level, especially affiliated with the UN or the UN system, just
> does not seem appropriate at this time and seems to me to be be
> just the sort of thing we escaped having happen at the ITU. I do
> not see why we would start advocating that in the IGC.
>
> a.
>
> On 11 Nov 2010, at 08:13, parminder wrote:
>
> > Baudouin
> >
> > All Partnership with -OECD, with the US, with EU - are fine.
> >
> > My question however is specific
> >
> > What is the problem with the IGC asking for a global
> institutional framework for developing Internet related public
> policies that includes all countries, and their stakeholders, of a
> similar kind that that OECD/ CoE already has?
> >
> > This question is especially to seen in the context of the fact
> that IGC members have enthusiastically supported and engaged with
> the mentioned OECD framework.
> >
> > Why is the need of participation of developing countries, with
> their all stakeholders, not considered relevant or important. That
> is the simple thing that I am seeking with my EC related proposal.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 11 November 2010 05:40 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
> >> Parminder concretely in the context of strengthening
> cooperation or to strengthen cooperation, it would be wise for
> formal exchanges are planned between the OECD and actors from
> other continents to harmonize our views to build a compelling case.
> >> I think this is also part of the delicate task of civil society
> entities. I also understand that such an approach requires costs
> that we must certainly raise.OECD is an ideal partner, especially
> for developing countries.
> >> The process is still long, but if we have land in 2015 with
> force and conviction, it would be desirable to correct any
> mistakes along the way from Tunis 2005.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> >> *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
> >> ACADEMIE DES TIC
> >> *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> >> *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> >> *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)
> >>
> >> Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914
> >> email: b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com>
> >> blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2010/11/11 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> >>
> >> Hi All
> >>
> >> I am still not able to understand how so many of those who are
> against any new institutional framework for evolving global IG
> related public policies, which is democratic in inclusion of all
> countries and stakeholders, have enthusiastically supported a
> similar framework among OECD countries? I mean the OECD's
> Committee For Information, Computer and Communication Policy,
> which has a very active portfolio for helping develop Internet
> policies, esp those with trans-border ramification. Many CS
> members in the IGC have actively organized themselves to associate
> with the work of this OECD's institutional framework.
> >>
> >> Why should such a framework not exist at a global level? And I
> do think that OECD's framework is not multistakeholder enough. My
> proposal is for a global framework of similar kind (to OECD's)
> that will help develop globally applicable Internet related public
> policies, which is what the 'enhanced cooperation' process is
> about, that is much more multistakeholder than the existing OECD one
> >>
> >> I request a specific response for those who have supported the
> OECD framework rather enthusiastically, and this includes most
> here on the IGC list who now oppose similar new institutional
> developments at the global level , how do they justify this
> opposition now, for a similar global institutional framework.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, many developing country IGC members here have
> gone along with this opposition to a global UN anchored body,
> which can be no different from the OECD arrangement. I am able to
> unserstand thier stanc eeven more.
> >>
> >> Should we depend on OECD to make global Internet policies. That
> is what is being said in this support for a OECD framework but
> opposition to a similar global framework one, for addressing the
> urgent need for global Interent related public policies. .
> >>
> >> For this reason I cannot support the present draft statement.
> But if someone can give me some justification clarifying the above
> paradox, I am very much willing to listen.
> >>
> >> Parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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 <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 <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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/0fc068c8/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list