[governance] Definition EC

Carlos A. Afonso ca at cafonso.ca
Fri Sep 23 13:32:22 EDT 2011 

Huge advance, Wolf! :) Frankly, what is this? If it were a students'
work, how would you academics grade it?

Sorry about my pessimism...

--c.a.

On 09/22/2011 09:51 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> In an acedemic meeting in Summer 2007 a group of experts tried to
> define EC. Based on the two paras. from the Tunis agenda we deinfed
> it as "enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration (EC3)
> among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders". This does not
> exclude special intergovernmental (legally binding or non-binding)
> arrangements as long as they are embedded into a multistekholder
> framework, do not exclude others, understand themselves as part of a
> network (in their specific roles) and do not put thesmelves on the
> top of a hierarchy.
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Fra: governance at lists.cpsr.org på vegne af Miguel Alcaine Sendt: on
> 21-09-2011 20:14 Til: Lee W McKnight Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org;
> Roland Perry Emne: Re: [governance] critique of the IBSA proposal
> 
> 
> 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   
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 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

More information about the Governance mailing list