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

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 11/10/2011, at 1:58 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote:

> 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 ...


Then, I don't think we will be able to finish a substantively useful statement in time for the IBSA Summit but could only restate the more high-level ideas from our enhanced cooperation statement, since our collective view has not been much refined since then.  That is OK, because it is better to be thoughtful than on time, but if anyone does not wish us to miss the opportunity to contribute ahead of the IBSA Summit then please help to discuss:

How to respond to each of these assertions?
There is an institutional gap in managing global Internet processes and developing policies for Internet at a global level which needs to be addressed.
This requires a new body (outside of the IGF, ITU, OECD, etc.) to coordinate and evolve coherent and integrated global public policies pertaining to the Internet.
If a new body is created, it should be located within the UN system.
If a new body is created, it should develop and establish international public policies on cross-cutting Internet-related global issues.
If a new body is created, it should oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting.
If a new body is created, it should address developmental issues related to the Internet.
If a new body is created, it should undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary.
If a new body is created, it should be responsible for crisis management
If a new body is not formed within the UN system, how else should global public policies for the Internet be set, in cases that fall outside the  competence of any global body?
No institutional change, no global norm-setting in areas not covered by existing institutions, improved consultation in areas that are.
Institutional improvements to the IGF, to enable it to produce policy options which policy makers (including at the national level) can use.
Institutional change outside of the UN system, such as a voluntary network of policy makers that would consult with all stakeholders.

-- 
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

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111011/edcb8ce3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2212 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111011/edcb8ce3/attachment.bin>