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

Mon Oct 10 22:23:17 EDT 2011

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Organisations already exist to create policies etc. eg. Governments,
Regulators but if in "institutional gap" and global internet processes you
mean IANA/ICANN etc, then they should specify what specific institutional
gaps?

>
>    - 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.
>
> Unfortunately, the world does not work that way. This assertion effectively
requires stakeholders to give up their interests and render it towards this
global body. This is how "social contracts" work and is this feasible. They
can be coerced and forced to give it up through governments across the globe
but how does that place Internet Governance, what you will see then is the
shift to Government as opposed to Governance.

>
>    - If a new body is created, it should be located within the UN system.
>
> Some say that they want a new body but the UN has hundreds of pressing
crises that it is dealing with that involves the prioritisation of resources
and I don't foresee them creating an Institution within the UN but rather
pushing it to an existing institution that is already dealing with it and
the most plausible choice seems to be the ITU.

>
>    - If a new body is created, it should develop and establish
>    international public policies on cross-cutting Internet-related global
>    issues.
>
> Why create a new body when you already have bodies doing this and you can
lobby to improve policies within and processes?

>
>    - If a new body is created, it should oversee the bodies responsible
>    for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global
>    standards setting.
>
> Why create a new body when you already have bodies doing this and you can
lobby to improve policies within and processes?. The ITU creates and sets
ITU-T standards through its working groups etc and IETF has a
democratisation process in the creation and setting of standards which is
workable. What are the implications of having a one stop shop. There is a
saying that the only efficient government is a dictatorship and we are in
danger of creating a global dictatorship and authoritarian regime .

>
>    - If a new body is created, it should address developmental issues
>    related to the Internet.
>
> Countries should take responsibility for their development. The IGF is
simply a forum in which countries should be able to share processes etc for
the development whether it is in the area of e commerce, ICT strategies,
content filtering, capacity development etc. There are institutions that
already exist that address developmental issues, we should just promote
access to these processes such as meaningful participation in global policy
processes not create a new body.

>
>    - If a new body is created, it should undertake arbitration and dispute
>    resolution, where necessary.
>
> My comments above. This infers the creation of a multilateral treaty by
Governments at the expense of marginalising the voices of private sector and
civil society which will include arbitration and dispute resolution.

>
>    - If a new body is created, it should be responsible for crisis
>    management
>
> Firstly since when was it agreed that the body 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.
>
> The Budapest Convention is an example of global norm setting. It does not
attempt to create any institution to look after matters of cyber security as
governments have control and authority in their jurisdictions. You have a
variety of stakeholders such as CERTS, CSIRTs, ISPs, Interpol, etc but no
single institution can claim that it is the sole authority for global policy
processes in relation to cyber security.

>
>    - 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 <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>*
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>

-- 
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/20111011/b53829cf/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