AW: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC

Tue Jul 3 04:44:04 EDT 2012

Thanks Jeremy for pushing this forward, 

you are right, time is ripe to bring now the many "small rivers" which emerged from the many "hot and cold springs" in the last two years  into something like a "mainstream" which becomes politically relevant. I fully support a pre-event (The "Quo Vadis" Session) for Baku. I further support the idea, that the IGC produces an own statement (one or two position papers) on principles and EC.  This could be done online with a dateline October 15, 2012 and could be used as background material for the "Quo Vadis" session. Additionally there should be a background paper which just describes briefly all the various initiatives by governmental (IBSA, Shanghai, OECD, CoE etc.) and non-governmental (DC IRP, Brazil, APC, ICC etc.) bodies (something like a "mapping of the scene") so that we have a full overview what has been achieved so far and where we have the gaps.

Wolfgang Benedek is right that each new step should be build on the already existing documents. There is no need for "new water". However we have to recognize that the documents which have emerged in the last couple of years are very often neither universal nor multistakholder. IBSA and Shanghai puts one stakeholder (governments) in the drivers seat. OECD and CoE support multistakehoderism, but are not universal and do have also only governments as signatories. APC and ICC (and IGC) represents only one stakeholder group. As far as I can see only the DC IRP (internationally) and Brazil (nationally) are truly multistakeholder. We have now to go beyond that, that is to include ALL stakeholders and ALL regions on a higher level. 

My understanding is that the "TakingStock" Plenary at the end of Baku will discuss principles and frameworks, which probably include also EC.  Our "Quo Vadis" session should produce a "roadmap" as a concrete proposal for this session coming from the floor to stimulate an open bottom up and transparent process which could lead to a more structured universal and multistakeholder process towards IGF 2013 (eventually via a new DC on Internet Governance Principles and Frameworks).

Additionally we have also to invest a little bit more thinking into the way how we deal with the various Internet layers in a different way. The previous initiatives mix political and technical guidelines which is partly okay but which needs a second check to make sure that political guidelines are compatible with technical architecture principles. Alejandro mentioned human rights as an issue. On the one hand the lower level auf the Internet is "neutral". On the other hand we see now with the Chinese proposal in the IETF on Autonomous Roots that also here we can have serious implications. I think that the IGC could get some credit for pushing a discussion on "human rights by design" into Internet protocols and standards. 

Wolfgang

Von: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Betreff: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC

Following on from the post about the Declaration of Internet Freedom, this had me thinking that at least they have issued a declaration of principles (even if a sub-standard one), which is what the IGC has not done despite talking about doing it since last IGF.  So, I should give credit where credit is due.

But we need to make sure that we don't continue to allow the current Internet governance debates to be monopolised by such popular movements, which are well-intentioned but often rather uninformed and demographically narrow.  With all our criticisms about the IGF failing to deliver outputs, the IGC should practice what it preaches, and produce more concrete results of its own.  (This is no criticism of Izumi or Sala, who would emphasise that the IGC is member-led rather than coordinator-led.)

So it seems to me that there are at least two main areas in which we have long been talking about making a contribution, but are yet to actually get around to doing so.  These are:

1.	the development of a civil society statement of principles on IG and a broader civil society network to subscribe to this; and 
2.	the development of one or two (for CIRs and non-CIR public policy issues) tangible models for enhanced cooperation or at least a working group to develop such.

In respect of the first of these, no progress that I know of has been made since last IGF, and meanwhile the ground is moving under the IGC's feet.  At least three other groups (Access, and two others I'm not sure if I can mention publicly) are trying to take leadership to link NGOs together for purposes of agreeing on principles (I know at least of an Asia-Pacific document) and/or mobilising against bad laws.  This is something that the IGC itself should be doing, and indeed had committed to do last year.

In respect of the second, we have at least four different approaches: Norbert's Enhanced Cooperation Task Force that would develop "Request for Action" documents, Wolfgang's multistakeholder expert group to look into enhanced cooperation mechanisms (much like what the CSTD could have formed but didn't) that he says "could" (but would it?) emerge from the IGF this year, Parminder's suggestion that civil society propose our own concrete models first, and the widely-supported suggestion that we hold a pre-event in Baku to discuss all this (or at least do so in the "Quo Vadis" workshop).

Can those with ownership of these suggestions please give us an update as to whether there is any progress to report?  If not, what is lacking (funding, support, time?), and how could others help?  Would the formation of small working groups with mailing lists on the IGC server assist to convert these ideas into action?  Let's not let another IGF go by without something to show for both of these important areas for action.

-- 

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Follow @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int> 

Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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