AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues

[Adam Peake]

Parminder,

Thanks for clarifying what you meant about 
architecture of the Internet.  As I said, the 
Twitter matter you mentioned has nothing to do 
with the Internet in and of itself, you keep 
confusing issues of content and infrastructure. 
Can't help you, it's been going on for years, so 
let's just forget it.

About the IBSA statement, I hope you and IT for 
Change had no part in drafting or encouraging 
paragraph 8 of the statement:

"8. Keeping in view the urgency and importance of 
establishing such a platform, the IBSA countries 
reiterate the need to ensure that the present 
consultations result in a clear roadmap for 
operationalizing Enhanced Cooperation.  In this 
context, we would like to propose that an 
inter-governmental working group be established 
under the UN Commission on Science and Technology 
for Development (CSTD), the focal point in the UN 
system-wide follow-up to the outcomes of WSIS. 
The Working Group should be mandated to prepare a 
report on the possible institutional design and 
roadmap for enhanced cooperation in consultation 
with all stakeholders, and asked to submit its 
report to the UN General Assembly in 2011.  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."

It would be ironic given that the IGC's 
nominating committee recommended you as a member 
of the *multistakeholder* working group rather 
than the inter-governmental process the IBSA 
statement suggested. Perhaps you could clarify, 
did you support or accept para 8 of the IBSA 
statement?

I read the IBSA statement as extremely 
detrimental to the Internet (broadly) and the 
interests of civil society and other 
non-governmental stakeholders. Given the list of 
policy issues in the paragraph that precedes it, 
para 6 extremely troubling. Just don't know what 
there is to like about a proposal that only 
favors narrow government interests.

Adam



>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