[governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Nov 11 09:34:10 EST 2010
On Thursday 11 November 2010 06:55 PM, Avri Doria 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.
Simply setting such regional entities is not the issue. The issue is
that due to the essentially global nature of the Internet, and the
collective economic and political muscle of the developed countries,
OECD/ CoE policies become the default global ones. Cyber crime treaty is
an existing example, ACTA and emergent one, and more are going to
follow. Can you please address this issue, and its democratic
implications. The only way to address this most pressing problem is to
develop similar globally democratic institutional frameworks, and that
was always the rationale of the EC process. The logic if it is simple, I
think.
> 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.
>
You did however approve of the OECD model in your email a few days back.
Why policy models used by rich countries are not subject to same
scrutiny as the proposed global ones, which would include developing
countries. BTW you can see the Committee for Information, Computer and
Communication Policy website at
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34223_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
and see the range of Internet policy issues they are working on.
We are just asking to get developing countries also on to such / similar
frameworks. You in essence are saying this is not required. And I can
not understand your justification for this.
Parminder
> 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
>>> blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/11/11 parminder<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
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20101111/50c74306/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