[governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit?

Fri Oct 7 07:47:36 EDT 2011

Pardon the typos, it's midnight here :)

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually I propose that the IGC does not rely on Nupef's submissions soley.
> It is critical that the global civil society has a view on the issue as we
> could be later blamed for not speaking out when we had the opportunity to do
> so. These are some thoughts:
>
> Noting that reference to the IBSA Multistakeholder meeting on Global
> Internet Governance was restricted to public and private sector within India
> and Brazil and civil society in Brazil although there has been some notable
> contentions by Nupef [insert hyperlink to Nupef’s publicised statement].
>
>
> Acknowledging the advice given to the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) by
> one of the organisers of the IBSA meeting.
>
>
> Noting that the spirit of Global Internet Governance demands that any
> discussions affecting the evolution of internet governance discussions
> should involve the global internet community through the global internet
> governance forums that are convened annually;
>
>
> [Suggestion to IGC: We can hold a white monkey survey and take a vote on
> the issue – although we should be prepared for the results]
>
>
> My personal views on the matter are that the greatest strength of the
> Internet Governance Forum is that it is transparent, democratic and
> multi-stakeholder and to create an institution to manage global internet
> processes to develop processes for internet at global level needs to be
> urgently addressed could threaten vulnerable groups. In WGIG 2005 Report V.
> A. 36 recommended the “creation of new space for dialogue for all
> stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet governance related issues”.
>
>
> Acknowledging that the WGIG in its 2005 report concluded that there is
> merit in improving institutional coordination as well as coordination among
> all stakeholders at the regional, subregional and national levels, the IGC
> believes that this does not justify the creation of an institution.
>
>
> The United Nations Internet Governance Secretariat (“Secretariat”) already
> exists and if the stakeholders within the IBSA feel that coordination can be
> improved then it should communicate to the Secretariat what it feels could
> be strengthened. In my view to bypass the Secretariat and lobby within the
> United Nations General Assembly is to act in bad faith of the machinery that
> is already available to us as members of the Internet Universe.
>
>
> In UN meetings, only governments are given votes and in some instances
> there are forced governments which are not elected etc. In having a forum
> like the current IGF model people can have freedom of expression. The use of
> “multilateral” goes against the grain of the core definition of Internet
> Governance that was developed  in the WGIG 2005 report that the then UN
> Secretary General commissioned which was subsequently endorsed by member
> states of the UN.
>
>
> The WGIG 2005 Report further reinforced the inclusiveness approach and to
> shift the spotlight on a single spectrum, albeit powerful spectrum, is to
> forever alter the “inclusiveness” approach. Did the Tunis Agenda mention
> “multilateral”?
>
>
> In fact Part IV of the WGIG 2005 Report talks about developing a common
> understanding of the roles of government, private sector and civil society.
>
>
> The use of fragmentation of the internet, disjointed policy making needs to
> be substantiated by solid empirical evidence and research so that in a
> transparent nature, the members of the internet universe can decide whether
> and how improvements should be made. For instance, I see it as the
> responsibility of people from within the regions that they are respectively
> from to empower and enlighten their people to participate in policy
> processes. If they are denied the opportunity to participate and participate
> meaningful, then we have a serious problem but until then, we should seek to
> support the multi-stakeholder model.
>
>
> If for some reason, the developing world feels that they are not given the
> opportunity to have their say, then they should speak up and move into
> positions where they can contribute and speak up for their communities.  We
> need to encourage catalysts within regions to work closely with the United
> Nations Internet Governance Secretariat Remote Participation team and
> Network Operator Groups (NOGs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and other
> stakeholders within the region to ensure cohesive participation for all.
> This should be an enhancement of process which is something that the
> Coordinators can lobby and push for in a strategic coherent manner.
>
>
>
>  Sala
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:09 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>> > It's worth stying something, endorse Nupef and go further:  emphasize
>> our
>> > disappointment that the recommendation is misleadingly represented as
>> the
>> > outcome of an multi-stakeholder meeting.  That the IGC strongly
>> disagrees
>> > with the creation of a new body, and strongly disagrees with the six
>> points
>> > about such a body.  Suggest that the creation of an IBSA IG development
>> > observatory based on such misleading interpretations would be ill
>> advised.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>
> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111007/d5c10a1d/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