[governance] Results of poll and the two IGF speeches

[parminder]

Hi All

It is great that we were not only able to authorise our co-coordinators 
to speak for us in the opening and closing ceremony of the IGF, but also 
that the IGF secretariat was gracious enough to accommodate our request. 
I hope that these kinds of things, which are perhaps serendipitous 
opportunities, could also propel us as IGC to get stronger and more 
purposeful...  anyway, more to the issue at hand... The following are my 
views on what key issues should be a part of our opening and closing 
session statements.

While a little of IGC history and its evolution will be fine, I dont 
think we need to go too much into it. That would be kind of inward 
looking, while the opportunity here is to address the 'outside'. The 
history we mention would just be that kind and that much which helps 
people understand who we are and why we are there. In that sense using 
the opening parts, but also the objectives part, of our mandate too will 
be quite useful. We also need to remember that few things are as 
political as history :), and be careful in framing the 'history' of IGC. 
The IGC mandate on the other hand is  a negotiated and voted upon text.


Most of the the the should of course focus on real IF issues, that are 
topical. The list of issues that were voted upon give us a good basis. 
However, we need also to be able to put enough punch into what we say, 
and thus not be limited to very generic, everyone-will-agree, propositions.

The shape in which the IGF will go forward after its renewal is 
important. Its existing core qualities have to be preserved, but it 
would be good to clearly suggest what kind of improvements are we 
looking for. UN Gen assembly session which will decide on this will take 
place in Oct, and a lot many governments who will take part in the 
proceedings will be listening at the IGF. Also, we should acknowledge 
the CSTD working group on IGF reform and express our desire and 
commitment to work closely with it. As mentioned earlier some CSTD 
members will be on  a kind of initial fishing exercise at the IGF in 
this regard.

On the matter of another key topical global IG issue, enhanced 
cooperation (EC), on which open consultations will take place later this 
year, I read in the top ranking that the issue that CS participation in 
EC got not only the procedural issue pf 'participation' but also a 
rather keen interest of the IGC in EC process . We should respect this 
vote and clearly and strongly mention that the move towards an EC 
process should figure out ways on how to address the urgent imperative 
of developing global institutions to develop global IG policies in 
global public interest. The process of EC, as addressing the imperative 
of 'developing policies' is different from the IGF process which is 
oriented to taking wide inputs, deliberating on options, and feeding 
into the policy developing processes (which largely do not exist at 
present, which is the major reason for some actors putting question 
marks on IGF's usefulness). The two processes are thus complementary 
though clearly distinct. In this regard we should appreciatively 
acknowledge the ECOSOC resolution adopted last month that makes these 
two points. We should also note with appreciation that the stalled 
process of EC is now being sought to be pushed along, as was mandated by 
the WSIS, through the planned open consultations later this year.

We should also make the very important point that we see EC not just as 
a process that will address the issue of CIRS, but that it is supposed 
to address all global IG issues (It is a big point of contention among 
some, and will be discussed at length, I think, at the open 
consultations, and I think we should make our position clear on this. 
(My understanding is that in the IGC there is enough consensus that EC 
process is not just about CIR, but is supposed to address all global IG 
isuses that need addressing. This bit of accent on non-exclusive-CIR 
focus of global IG also comes forom the early history of IGC highlighted 
by Wolgang and Bill).

Finally, we should not fail to mention some very topical specific IG 
issues leike net neutrality It is a bit of travesty that when the whole 
world is talking about NN vis a vis wireless Internet, the main global 
IG forum has no formal place for this issue on its agenda. It is for the 
progressive CS players to fill in such gaps, and make themselves heard 
loudly. We should highlight the fact that the basic architecture of the 
Internet may soon be compromised for ever if we do not collectively act 
together *now* in public interest. We should make bold to specifically 
mention the verizon - google deal which is being hot ly discussed by all 
progressive IG advocates (remember in this case that we have taken on 
ourselves through our mandate to channel in wider CS concerns from 
across the globe into IGF kind of processes).

We shd then, also as per our vote results, mention the crucial role IGC 
has played in bringing the human rights agenda to the IGF, and about all 
the work that has gone into it. However, it shd be pertinent to mention 
here that we take as much interest in economic, social and cultural 
rights and the right to development as in the more often discussed civil 
and political rights, and we work on the principle of indivisibility of 
right highlighted in the opening part of WSIS dec of principles. We can 
perhaps mention that excellent initiative of Brazil which has uniquely 
taken the  HR as the point of departure, which is people-centric, for 
making an IG policy framework rather than the typical state 
interest-centric and big business interest centric forom-the-top IG 
policy framing that is often the way it normally happens.

We shd mention our efforts reg getting development issues and agenda 
into the IGF and how we plan to further work on it. There is a lot work 
ahead of us in this regard.

We shd mention that developing the unique never-before infrastructure of 
remote participatoon at such an extensive scale as is being done at the 
IGF is indeed a big contribution of the civil society, and must 
congratulate the specific actors involved in this effort. This may be 
providing a new set of means and processes for openness and 
participation that may become the default global standard and be 
followed in all global policy process....

Thanks, parminder





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100911/b0043bf0/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