[governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation
Katitza Rodriguez
katitza at eff.org
Thu Nov 11 09:43:57 EST 2010
I think you are wrong Parminder. I will need to map all your answers and
reply to you properly.
On 11/11/10 6:41 AM, parminder wrote:
> Marilia
>
> It may be useful to note that the same people here who are opposing
> any new institutional developments under the EC rubric, are the ones
> who oppose any kind of movement towards IGF being able to give any
> kinds of recommendations.
>
> So they are not confused at all between different parts of our
> proposal (EC/ IGF) at all. They are either generally against public
> policy regimes globally, or are content with those that include only
> developed countries (OECD) and leave out developing countries.
>
> I dont think in any other global civil society group such kind of open
> discrimination could have been countenanced.
>
> Parminder
>
> On Thursday 11 November 2010 07:58 PM, 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/d2b9a357/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