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

[Lee W McKnight]

Hi,

I agree with Tracy, Marila and Parminder that a poll is premature, seeing as we would be placing hard votes on what the proponents are stating is a soft and possibly malleable thing, that is, the IBSA proposal; without much time for reflection and online discussion here.

But on other hand, I would not belittle our own EC handiwork from 2010, which remains imho a substantive contribution to the dialogue. So just bringing our '10 formulation of EC alternatives to IBSA's attention is a contribution to the current state of play.

Which includes recognition of the IGF as among other things, a place in which EC happens.  (So..proponents of EC in UN system should be happy since it's already there; and proponents for IG status quo should be happy since IGF...well let's just say, it has certain limitations. ; )

Seriously, the 2010 statement of IGC on EC should be our own starting point, not the particular formulation of an evolving draft from others.  We should push IBSA towards utilizing our own language and formulations, not react to specifics of the IBSA draft without time for much thought or reflection. imho.

Lee




________________________________
From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 8:39 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google
Subject: Re: [governance] Formal IGC response to IBSA proposal ahead of 18-19 Summit?

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<http://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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111011/1fb817d8/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