[governance] Definition EC
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Sep 23 22:04:34 EDT 2011
Wolfgang,
On Thursday 22 September 2011 06:21 PM, "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".
Generally I agree with Carlos's characterisation of this definition as
academic and making no reference to real life problems and their real
life governance solutions. Really, what exactly does this translate into
how we go ahead in a currently politically hot global situation vis a
vis global IG? One needs to hear that.
But still giving an academic response to the EC3 definition below.
Enhanced cooperation as the mechanism for developing the needed global
Internet related public policies (that is the definition of enhanced
cooperation) is centrally and foremost a political issue, not a
technical one. You definition of it as 'enhanced communication,
coordination and collaboration (EC3) ' reduces it to a technical
phenomenon. And there are tomes of academic stuff on how the political
and the 'merely technical' are different.
'The political' represents community or society's collective decisions
in pursuance of, and also shaping, the social contract that underpins
it. Just coordination and collaboration can meet the needs of a
status-quoist 'management' of a social system, but not the deeper issues
of the 'social contract' - which implicates rights, and yes,
redistribution and welfare etc.....
Lets try to give a political response to a political issue. My problem
with most North based IG academia that I come across in IG spaces is
such technicalisation and depoliticisation of 'governance', which of
course itself is a political act. It backs the status quo of the current
unjust distribution of power, seeking to keep governance only to issues
of management level adjustments.
Wolfgang, there is currently talk in India to fix the poverty line at
the earning of around 60-65 US cents a day. I think with that poverty
line around 50 percent of Indians will be below poverty line. World Bank
says "80% of India's population lives on less than $2 a day". The
emerging architecture of the Internet which will to a good extent
determine/ influence the emerging social social architecture has deep
implications for these people. Can you tell me what actual governance
mechanisms are proposed that we have a more just and equal society, and
dont have to face these dreary figures in, say, 20 years. Or are these
matters outside IG realm? Please dont tell me that all actors are trying
to solve the same problems and have the same good intentions. If they
had, we wont be here, and you know it.
> This does not exclude special intergovernmental (legally binding or non-binding) arrangements as long as they are embedded into a multistekholder framework,
I suggested that the developing country proposal of an EC mechanism
(with its own multistakeholder platform as well) in 'complementary'
relationship with the IGF seems to seek exactly what you say above. What
are you views on that. These are real alternatives towards enhanced
cooperation (there could be other, better ones) and we need to able to
comment on them and take up the necessary action. Esoteric EC3 like
models serve little purpose in this regard, while, as suggested above,
this particular model fails, even on an academic political analysis.
parminder
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110924/8c333550/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list