[governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Thu Nov 11 09:35:23 EST 2010

Is this an disagreement *with the structure* (IGF producing input for
policy, MAG with role on policy drafting) or *with the issues* that would be
tackled? I used the issues as examples. Could you clarify the exact point of
disagreement and the reason?
Marilia

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

>  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> 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
>> >> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>
>

-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/e8a0627b/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