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

[Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google]

Following on my own informal discussions at the IGF with
representation from the Brazilian Government and noting the
willingness of the Brazilians, at least, to discuss, compromise and
collaborate, I am in support of Marilia's and Parminder's position as
well as their rationale re: the proposed IGC Response/Statement ...

On 10/10/11, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> + 1
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> Of Marilia Maciel
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:41 AM
> To: Jeremy Malcolm
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of
> 18-19 Summit?
>
>
> 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 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>
> 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 <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>
> Twitter  <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int> @ConsumersInt
>
> 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
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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