[governance] critique of the IBSA proposal

Wed Sep 21 14:14:07 EDT 2011

Dear colleagues:

My intention was not to take a side in the discussion, rather to present
facts. It seems I failed.

I was also an advocate of EC in its very dark beginning.

Nevertheless, Governments negotiating EC in WSIS left out all other actors
on purpose in that paragraph.

Today, I do believe all other actors than Governments should make themselves
heard and claim their space in building the EC process and the
complementarity space or relationship between IGF and EC.

Best,

Miguel

*Disclaimer*
My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
employer or any other institution

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Sorry Miguel,
>
> Not to belabor point, but - Parminder is right.
>
> Frankly, the fumbling of the opportunity around whether to put EC more
> clearly in the IGF mandate has not been IGC's finest hour.
>
> OK, many governments, from North and South, back then were insisting EC was
> only for them.
>
> But yes many around IGC were basically, siding with them.
>
> Some of us, who if we bothered we can probably count on at most 2 hands,
> were actively warning folks that this was a strategic mistake, not just for
> IGC, and IGF, but really for the whole Internet community and all
> stakeholders, not to recognize the opportunity to use IGF as place for -
> dialogue on Enhanced Cooperation. (Milton I definitely will count, and not
> with...that finger ; )
>
> Now that the consequences of that mistake are not to some folks liking -
> well too bad, democratically elected governments representing about 1.5
> billion (or is it 1.6?) people have spoken up and will talk to GA and not
> IGC first.
>
> So now IGC, and IGF, can choose to play catch up in Kenya, and try to get
> with the real EC program, which of course, must involve more than just
> governments - as we IGCers should have always wished, right?
>
> Meaning the logic that claimed IGF could not be - part - of the EC dialogue
> never made sense, as of course we can pull up another paragraph from WSIS
> that offers an alternate interpretation of what governments 'in their
> respective roles' should be contributing, along with others, let's be
> honest.
>
> Now, complaining after the fact that governments of North or South aren't
> bowing to us on this, when we - blew it, big time, back then - well what do
> we expect? The world to wait for us to realize the net's not going away, and
> it kind of matters, in very major way, to the billions in the south who
> didn;t have seats at eg the IETF table when - technical - decisions were
> being made way back when?
>
> Lee
>
> (Speaking in my own capacity ie not for Milton or IGP; but maybe for my
> dual national Brazilian-US wife and kids : )
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of
> Miguel Alcaine [miguel.alcaine at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:11 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
> Subject: Re: [governance] critique of the IBSA proposal
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I want to clarify that the reports on Enhanced Cooperation (2009 and 2010)
> were produced by DESA and not by the CSTD. They are different structures of
> the UN, but their work goes mainly or completely to ECOSOC respectively.
>
> I recall the time when EC was said not to be appropriate to be discussed in
> IGF and I also remember a more recent time when some people said there is
> nothing else to do as EC is already happening. To be fair, the time when it
> was not appropriate to discuss EC in the IGF, the EC process was not lauched
> yet.
>
> I agree that some EC might have already happening.
>
> I would like to make a distinction between EC and EC in the context of the
> WSIS outcomes. If one read the famous paragraphs on EC, it is found that EC
> in the Tunis Agenda refers only to Governments.
>
> While I would had liked to have EC spelled to all actors in the WSIS
> outcome documents; it is not. From here, it is natural that Governments
> backing the idea of EC look for governmental paths, even knowing that any of
> you can show me other relevant paragraphs that talk about
> multi-stakeholderism in the IG chapter.
>
> Nevertheless, It is up to all people involved to clarify and increase the
> scope of EC and its construction to cover all actors.
>
> The possible link and complementarity between EC and IGF was recognized by
> the GA resolution last year (65/141. Information and communications
> technologies for development<
> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/521/00/PDF/N1052100.pdf?OpenElement
> >):
>
> 16. Further recognizes that the Internet governance-related outcomes of the
> World Summit on the Information Society, namely the process towards
> enhanced
> cooperation and the convening of the Internet Governance Forum, are to be
> pursued
> by the Secretary-General through two distinct processes, and recognizes
> that the two
> processes may be complementary;
>
>
> But it needs to be developed. It is a black box or an empty box that needs
> to be filled. It is an opportunity that people may take advantage either to
> define that complementarity or relationship or to declare by "not doing"
> that they are not related and possibly giving credibility to the idea that
> there is no need to do anything else regarding EC.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> Disclaimer
> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my
> employer or any other institution.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Roland Perry <
> roland at internetpolicyagency.com<mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>>
> wrote:
> The UN (CSTD's) 2009 report on Enhanced CoOperation is here:
>
> http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/e2009d92_en.pdf
>
> Including contributions from some invited respondents.
>
> There's also this room document from 2010, which has an updated set of
> responses from all ten:
>
> http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/e2009d92crp1_en.pdf
>
> This should be essential reading for anyone interested in Enhanced
> CoOperation.
> --
> Roland Perry
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110921/b508155f/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