Fwd: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sun Jan 23 10:31:49 EST 2011
Parminder,
Wondered if you had any comment on this email.
I've just read the IBSA statement again and find
it anathema to civil society, everything we've
worked for. Just wondering what parts you
support, specifically. And particularly if you
supported paragraph 8 of the statement.
Thanks,
Adam
>Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:51:28 +0900
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>Subject: Re: AW: [governance] cross-border IG issues
>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>X-Sequence: 219
>Sender: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>X-no-archive: yes
>List-Id: <governance.lists.cpsr.org>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance>
>List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
>List-Owner: <mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>
>List-Post: <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>
>
>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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list