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

Thu Oct 13 19:18:54 EDT 2011

The Private Sector of which the International Chamber of Commerce would fall
under also has reservations with the ITU seeking to broaden its role as far
as internet governance is concerned.

See:
http://www.iccwbo.org/home/statements_rules/statements/2005/373_462_ITU.pdf

I am not critiquing ITU merely saying that with global internet governance
to relegate global policy formulation to one single institution is not a
healthy governance model.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi Miguel,
>
> I would think that until such time as the ITU opens itself up to civil
> society there is very little to be done other than to resist its initiatives
> at every turn.  How can civil society possibly support an organization that
> ignores our existence.
>
> avri
>
> On 13 Oct 2011, at 13:43, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>
> > Dear Wolfgang:
> >
> > Very good ideas.
> >
> > In respect to ITU, the oversight is defined in its foundational
> documents. The Plenipotenciary (PP) is the highest organ of decision, where
> many different elections are conducted, including those of the 5 elected
> officers. Between PPs, the Council is charged with overseeing the direction
> of the ITU. Additionally, the 3 sectors have global meetings every 4 years
> and have an advisory organ between them to help the respective elected
> officer. Among them, PP and WRC (radio) are treaty based.
> >
> > All the governance machinery is governmental based. Take into account ITU
> has been around since 1865.
> >
> > ITU has spaces of participation for the private sector in daily business
> and recently ITU has opened a new membership type for academia. Although
> some NGOs collaborate with ITU work, we need to learn how to work together
> better.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Miguel
> >
> > Disclaimer
> > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
> employer or any other institution
> >
> > 2011/10/12 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> > Hi everybody
> >
> > it seems to me that the time has come again to have a very basic
> discussion about what have to be done by whom and where shuld it be done to
> keep the Internet open, free, stable, accessible for everybody, human rights
> oriented and to guarantee - as outlined in the Tunis Agenda - that
> governments have equal rights in determining Internet related public policy
> issues on a global level.
> >
> > 2011 has seen numerous approaches and initiativeas to answer questions
> which have raised in the six years since the adoption of the Tunis Agenda,
> which included IGF and EC as two interelated but distinct processes. A
> number of the proposals are new, others are old wine in net bottles. A
> number of issues from 2005 have been settled now. Other issues are still
> open.
> >
> > >From a CS point of view I think time is ripe now to take a more holistic
> approach, to define more in detail what the "respective role" of CS is in
> this global power struggle, what WE want to achieve in the discussions with
> governments and the private sector and how we shuld re-organize ourselves.
> We should first ask some very concrete questions before we propose general
> policy recommendations and legal actions.
> >
> > The various proposals on the table now (IBSA, COE, G8, OECD, OSCE, NATO,
> USA, EU, Shanghai-Group plus APC, Brazil, DC IRP plus ACTA and numerous
> national laws etc.) have something in common but are also rather different
> and contradict each other. Sometimes one government in one IGO supports a
> principle which is in contrast to another principle in a document adopted by
> another IGO where the same government is a member state. Look at Russia: As
> member of the G 8 it supports the principle of multistakeholder policy, but
> in the joint proposal with the Shanghai Group, it ignores it. Or Germany: It
> supports the more economic approach in the OECD and the more human rights
> aproach in the Council of Europe (which can lead to conflicts in concrete
> cases where you have to balance conflicting interests). The US supports
> freedom of expression but is critical with regard to Wikileaks, which is in
> the eyes of a lot of stakeholders a good example for freedom of expression.
> UK supports in the G8 a free Internet, but works at home to introduce
> drastic limitations, as France does it with HADOPI.
> >
> > And there are differences in approaches. Council of Europe has included
> civil society in drafting its declaration and was lstening to it until the
> very end. OECD included also civil society but ignored the voice in the last
> minute. Both OECD and COE were open for discussion in Nairobi. ISBA (in
> particular the Brazilian and Indian government) were also not afraid to face
> a multistakeholder discussion in Nairobi and they accepted critical
> interventions. But Russia and China rejected any form of multistakeholder
> debate on their proposal in Nairob. They just announced their plan of the
> Code of Conduct and did not answer any question. So we have also different
> discussion cultures on the governmental level.
> >
> > What I propose for our discussiomn is to seperate the issues for a more
> systematic structured discussion. I see three big issues:
> >
> > 1. the need to work towards a general (and global) "Framework of
> Commitments" (FoC) in form of a set of general principles as guidelines for
> "good behaviour" in the Internet (the so-called "constitutional moment", as
> it was discussed in Nairobi). Here one question is whether such a
> Declaration, code of conduct, compact or FoC should be elaborated by
> governments only or should it be a multistakeholder task. And the second
> question is who shoud do this: one of the existing bodies? the UN? the IGF?
> a new multistakeholder body (like the WGIG)?
> >
> > 2. the need to identify gaps in the existing institutional framework. The
> question here is which issues can NOT be settled within the existing
> governmental and non-governmental organisations. In case we can clear define
> what the missing link is what would be the right answer: tzo improve
> existing organisaitons by a reform process? To create a new body? What such
> a new body would do better and why? What would be the concrete mandate, the
> membership, the budget, the oversight?
> >
> > 3. the need to specify global public policies on specific issues like
> social networks, search engines, cloud computing, CIR management, IOT,
> intermediaries etc. with regard to privacy, freedom of expression, security,
> crime prevention, IPR etc. Here we have to identify the specific nature of
> the problem and to look for a concrete answer how to deal with this specific
> problem, whether a best practice guideline, a general political
> recommendation or a legally binding norm is necassary. And again: who should
> do this? We have to be very carefully that we first identify the issue
> before we start to develop policies and move to instruments. Here we need a
> case by case approach. There will be different solutions for different
> issues and at the end there will be a very diversified and distributed
> system of policies and mechanisms to implement (and to oversee/review) those
> policies.
> >
> > 4. the need to develop further a multistakeholder oversight mechanism.
> There new AoC review mechanism is conceptually a good starter to rethink the
> traditional approach to oversight. We need oversight to strengthen
> transparency, legitimacy and accountability, but there is no need to have
> ONE oversight body for all Internet related public policy issues. Each issue
> probably needs a specifically designed oversight mechanism. And such a
> mechanism has to be designed on a multistakeholder basis. Unfortunately the
> first review under the AoC (ATRT) was done in a hurry and was not so
> impressive. But the proposed design is an interesting step into a new
> territory how oversight can be organized issue based, decentralized and on a
> multistakeholder basis. And BTW, who oversees bodies like ITU, WIPO and the
> UN?
> >
> > Part of this issue will be discussed in the IGF Imrpovment working group
> but CS and the Caucus should trs to find its own mechanisms to move foreward
> to make proposals to the various bodies. The letter to the UNGA (the
> Shanghai project) was a good starter. More has to be done.
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
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/20111014/b7682da8/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