AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues

[parminder]

Wolfgang,

I have read the IBSA statement rather carefully. In fact, let me humbly 
submit that IBSA statement does have important overlaps with IT for 
Change's statement and does draw some inspiration from it, a fact that 
was graciously acknowledged by the authors of the IBSA statement. These 
overlaps are in terms of call for a possible new institutional 
structure, listing of global network neutrality and A2K as key global IG 
issues and call for setting up a CSTD WG on this matter.

Sorry to say but you are completely mistaken  when you say "...the 
objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can 
"enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among 
themselves and and with other stakeholders. " which statement represents 
the general tenor of what you make out the IBSA statement to be.

Yes, IBSA statement does keep a number of options over, but it is very 
clear that 'enhanced cooperation' process has not started yet and thus 
must start at the earliest. What you speak of above are obviously 
ongoing processes. Though, our position is not exactly that of IBSA in 
the below regard, I must quote some passages from the IBSA statement to 
show how clearly have you mis-read it.

          "  Unfortunately, these issues are yet to be discussed among
    UN Member States in depth from a public policy point of view due to
    the absence of an intergovernmental platform mandated to
    systematically discuss them and make decisions as appropriate. It is
    thus necessary for governments to be provided a formal platform
    under the U.N that is mandated to discuss these issues. Such a
    platform would also complement the Internet Governance Forum, a
    multi-stakeholder forum  for discussing, sharing experiences and
    networking on Internet governance."

    " The IBSA believes that this platform once identified and
    established will allow the international community to accomplish the
    developmental objectives of the Tunis Agenda,...."

Further more, about the proposed CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation....

       "The Working Group should also take on board inputs from all
    international organizations including the ITU, and should recommend
    on the feasibility and desirability of placing the Enhanced
    Cooperation mechanism within an existing international organization
    or recommend establishing a new body for dealing with Enhanced
    Cooperation, along with a clear roadmap and timeframe for the process."

Obviously this is noway like your description of the IBSA statement as

"...to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their 
communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and 
and with other stakeholders. "

However I am very eager to hear you argue why you think that this is all 
what they really meant.

Parminder




 
Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
> Parminder: 
>  
> IBSA (India, S Africa and Brazil) countries (as also my own organization) did call for such a possible new global institutional development (a framework convention ?) in their submission to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'.
>
> Wolfgang:
>  
> If you read the IBSA proposal carefully you will discover that this is different from previous proposals for an intergovernmental body. The proposal says very carefully that there is a gap or missing link in the existing architecture of Internet Governance organisations. The proposed intergovernmental body should fill this gap not in a way to substitute exising mechanisms but enhancing the existing mechnisms. With other words, it is about "enhancement", not about "subordination" or "substitution" or "oversight" or "replacement" or "takeover".  And this is an important difference. The Chinese MAG member proposed in the IGF Consultations in 2009 to substitute the multistakeholder dialogue by an intergovernmental negotiation process to move towards an intergovernmental (oversight) body. The ISBA proposal is rather different. This is rather similar to what is considered by the Council of Europe (CoE). What we discuss in the CeO Cross Border Internet Expert Group is that we recognize the need to specifiy the "respective role" of governments in Internet Governance but in a way that this intergovernmental component should be embedded into a multistakeholder framework of commitments. The objective is not to create a new hierachiy for top down policy and decision  making, the objective is to create an enhanced network where stakeholders can "enhance" their communication, coordination and collaboration both among themselves and and with other stakeholders. 
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>   

-- 
PK

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110122/c10dc938/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t