[governance] FINAL? DRAFT statement on enhanced cooperation

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Thu Nov 11 10:02:48 EST 2010 

Hi,

While I still refrain from making direct comments about what I think the IGF should or should not do (my contract with them ends at the end of the month), I do see the IGF as an existing international framework whose role, scope, and MAG are still under review by the CSTD and others.

As I have stated earlier, i have issues with any notion of active prescriptive oversight, though have no issues with other forms of reactive/passive oversight mechanisms.  I also have issues with any centralized oversight for all thinks IG, or an international framework that is not open, accountable, transparent and inclusive.


a.

On 11 Nov 2010, at 09:28, 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:
> 
>  
> - The 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

____________________________________________________________
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