AW: [governance] critique of the IBSA proposal

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Dear Wolf,

OK, just brief comments, as I think Marilia has already taken care of
Milton's reaction.

On 09/18/2011 05:42 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi everybody
> 
> the IBSA initiative is a good case to broaden the ongoing discussion
> about global Internet Governance policy making and the development of
> frameworks as it has been triggered in 2011 by the G8, OECD, Council
> of Europe, the US government and the EU (with its neboulos Internet
> Compact and the confusing six secret ICANN papers). Now the picture
> gets more comprehensive and the only thing we are missing in this
> concert is a Chinese proposal. Anybody can explain why China is
> silent? Do they plan to propose something during the forthcoming G 20
> summit in Cannes? Or during the 66th UN General Assembly? Who
> represents the Chinese government at the forthcoming IGF?

The Chinese can explain it :)

> Anyhow, the IBSA approach is interesting and I share Miltons point
> that it would have been much better to involve the IGF. Unfortunately
> the IBSA countries used the same approach as the G 8 (which was
> widely critisized as arrogant and ignorant) and excluded
> non-governmental stakeholders from the discussion. But it is still in
> the early stage and there will be - hopefully - chances to correct
> this.

Interesting, Wolf, but I have to disagree here on two counts at least in
the case of Brazil: our gov actors have been present in the IGF process,
including the regional preIGFs we have been promoting (organized by CS
and the so-called "technical community" by the way), and the civil
society actors who are participating are in many cases long-time
participants of that process (including representation in the MAG). We
have here a regular dialogue with them who in several cases take the
initiative to call us for meetings and dialogues -- and when they do
not, we can act and receive reasonable feedback. Regarding, for example,
the Latin American and Caribbean intergovernmental e-strategy called
e-LAC (facilitated by ECLAC), CS has been called to participate in all
of its working groups. If the initiative does not work as expected, is
not only the governments' fault in this case.

> For me it is unclear how the IBSA countries position themselves to
> the principle of multistakeholderism (which is singled out as a key
> principle in similar final documents of G 8, OECD, Council of Europe
> etc.). It seems that this is at the moment a purely
> inter-governmental thing.

As Marilia said, there was consensus among all participants in the Rio
IBSA meeting that pluralism (or multistakeholderism) is the way to go.
How this will be expressed in the final statement remains to be seen, as
Marilia pointed out, but it is too early to dismiss something we did not
see yet.

frt rgds

--c.a.
____________________________________________________________
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