AW: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues

Sat Jan 22 08:54:31 EST 2011

Hi Parminder

like all diplomatic documents you can read them in different ways. The authors say that such an (intergovernmental) mechanism would "complement" the IGF, not "sbstitute" the IGF. With other words, we have a multistkaeholder mechanism and part of this - as a key element in such a multiplayer multilayer mechanism -you have an intergovernmental body which has a special responsibility for development and public policy issues (like other ülayers in the mechanism have a special responsibility for other elements of the whoe diversified and decentrlized mechanism).

Remember the Internet Governance definition adopted by the Head of states of all UN members said that the stakeholder operate "in their respective roles" and should share "principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures". I read this that we have to deal with two layers: Each stakeholder group has its own responsibility (and has its own institutional mechanism). Governments have their intergovernmental organisations like the GAC, ITU,  UN and probably something which will deal with the new Internet related challenges. Other stakeholders have their mechanism (like the private sector has ICANN, IETF, RIRs and probably also new bodies if this is needed). On the upper layer the various stakeholders have to "share decision making" by takling into account the "respective role". 

In practice this means that means that governments are certainly better qualified in a multistakeholder mechanism to contribute to the management of public policy issues while non-governmental technical bodies are better qualified to deal with the technical issues. However all stakeholder groups should have in their "inner life" open, transparent and democratic procedures and have also channels for participation of the other stakeholders. 

Wolfgang 

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Sa 22.01.2011 12:58
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Cc: Ian Peter
Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues

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 recogn
	ize 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
____________________________________________________________
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