[governance] MEGIG

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Hi everybody
 
I think we should continue with the debate where we ended in Nairobi. The idea here was to use the existing numerous efforts to propose  "Internet Governance Principles" (including the IBSA proposals and elements from the Shanghai group, the London Agenda, the G 8 Deauville principles as well as the two regional documens from the COE and the OECD etc.) as a "source of inspiration" and to work towards a multistakeholder "Framework of Understanding" or a "Framework of Commitments" (FoU or FoC). This could be done in connection with the IGFs and could be finished in 2015 when the IGF has its 10th anniversary. 
 
The problem is, as we know that the IGF is multistakeholder but has no negotiations capacity (and should not get it). The United Nations do have a negotiations capacity, but are not multistakeholder. With other words, here is a missing link which could be filled by a WGIG type new body (WGIG produced text which was not only adopted by governments but pleased also other stakeholders and developing countries). Such a "Multistakeholder Expert Group on Internet Governance" (MEGIG) should have a very limited manadate (produce nothing more than a text for a FoU or FoC). It could have 48 members, 12 by each stakeholder group selected by the stakeholders themselves (eventually via the MAG). It could hjuse for its work the IGF secretariat service but would work independently.
 
Wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: Fr 06.01.2012 09:49
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] UN GA resolution and enhanced cooperation



		I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations
		in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how
		the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the
		risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments,
		individual government officials and third-parties that could gain
		authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention"
		infrastructures. (Norbert)
		
		

Dear Norbert,

The best way to do what you seek is to get into globally negotiating some kind of framework of principles, which was the idea behind looking at a UN sponsored Framework Convention on the Internet. Once such a framework of principles is in place it can constrain any new agency which is otherwise required to addressed many legitimate global Internet-related public policy concerns from abusing its position and power. Such 'consitutionalism' is the established practice to check executive and legislative power. Civil society groups will be able to use such agreed principles to seek accountability etc. 

As you say, it is time that global IG related civil society, which till now have completely shied away from this subject, other than perhaps considering it as some kind of a conspiracy of the devil, begins to take a considered and nuanced position on this subject which is recognised under the term 'enhanced cooperation'. 

Such a stance of the civil society is even more objectionable when inter-governmental systems consisting of the most powerful governments already direct and control political evolution of the Internet to a considerable extent. Such direction/ control include developing Internet principles, applicable by default to the whole world. And many of the IG civil society who remain mute or strongly oppose the enhanced cooperation subject, do actively support such development of global Internet principles by these globally undemocratic platforms. The latest in this line is a reversal of the June 2011 stand of the CSISAC - the civil society group attached to OECD's Internet policy apparatus - to not support OECD's Internet policy principles, whereby it has now issued a press release welcoming these principles. 

The spectacle of a soft and friendly approach to Internet policy making by the richest countries of the world coupled with a knee jerk rabid opposition to involving all countries in similar global Internet policy making is something which would be anathema to progressive global civil society in any other area. I have never understood how the involved people justify this to themselves. But in any case, coming back to the subject, the Internet Governance Caucus, if it has to lay claim to be a really global CS body, must look into this issue with greater earnestness and prepare a well-thought-out position for the May 2012 consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'.

With wishes for a great 2012 to all!

parminder 




On Monday 02 January 2012 06:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: 

	I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations
	in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how
	the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the
	risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments,
	individual government officials and third-parties that could gain
	authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention"
	infrastructures.
	  

____________________________________________________________
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