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

Mon Oct 10 11:40:54 EDT 2011

Dear Jeremy and all,

I would like to make some observations on the idea of making a poll.

- Usually, voting comes right after a time of discussion, like elections
come after a campaign. This gives the range of ideas an opportunity to be
heard and debated and it makes the options (and the arguments behind them)
fresh in the memories of voters. As far as I remember, the last in depth
discussion about EC took place about a year ago (under the thread named
second draft statement on enhanced cooperation). It does not look like a
good procedure to call a vote on those options now, without a new round of
dicussions on the list.

- Taking the risk to be misinterpreted, I need to express that I find that,
the way it is proposed, this approach will probably lead to unintended
results, mainly because:

a) The political timing. After the reaction to the proposal advanced by
China and Russia, the mood is very much "let´s not change anything". I know
I will make a bad comparison, but it reminds me of initiatives that call on
a referendum to forbid abortion right after a baby has been abandoned or
killed. Timing means much in politics and one may wonder why we would be
pushing for an internal poll now, so many months after our substative
discussion.

b) The political use that can be made about this poll, if it is conducted
the way it has been proposed. The governments themselves (without mentioning
CS) have all said that IBSA document needs improvement. Even people that
could support the general idea in some paragraphs will not support it the
way it is. But the external interpretations about CS statement will
certainly not take these nuances and the draft nature of the doc into
account. CS statement will be very exploitable and I think we should avoid
being politically used by other groups.

c) using IBSA´s draft document as a way to find our position on EC is a
political decision with implications. We are not doing the same with more
concrete documents on the same matter, that are still pretty much
under-discussed, such as the ones from the US and the Commission.
Politically, this means that all attention will continue to be on IBSA,
while these other proposals continue to move forward, more or less
unhindered.

Lastly, I believe many of our members are still in "post-IGF rest" and the
activity on the list has diminished. I think it is not a good moment to call
on a poll on such an important issue, that needs dicussion.

My proposal would be to hang on to the idea of the poll (which is a good one
after all), but to conduct it in 1 or 2 months, raising the discussion on
the list first, and doing that based on IGC´s previous statement, and not on
a concrete proposal by any country/group.

Of course, that does not mean that we should not make critics/suggestions to
IBSA doc, to be sent to the summit.

Best wishes,
Marília

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 10/10/2011, at 10:00 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>
> I just would like to reinforce that, as Jeremy mentioned, IGC has produced
> a statememt about enhanced cooperation. I could find it online here:
> http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan043237.pdf
> and I take the opportunity to ask Jeremy to "pull" all our previous
> statements to the current website, as they are one of the most important
> elements of our institutional memory.
>
>
> It's also on our Statements page (http://www.igcaucus.org/statements) at
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43.
>
> On that statement IGC pointed out four general options about EC. The
> discussion to reach this 4 options was a very rich one, and I believe that
> any position from IGC about the institutional aspect of EC should build on
> that 4 options, not start from scratch.
>
> I also take the opportunity to ask for more clarification about the
> suggestion for the poll, as I did not understand what would be the topics
> covered.
>
>
> As it stands in draft, I have pulled out each of the substantive paragraphs
> of the IBSA summary and asked for the respondent to state how strongly they
> agree/disagree, and then I have asked "If there is no new body, then what
> else do you suggest" and given the following options (which draw on, but
> don't replicate, those from our EC submission), plus an "Other" option for
> respondents to enter their own suggestion:
>
>    1. No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered
>    by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are.
>    2. Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce
>    policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can
>    use.
>    3. Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary
>    network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders.
>
> More options are welcome...
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups
> that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and
> authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations
> in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help
> protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> *www.consumersinternational.org*
> *Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>

-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111010/9f224ae1/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