[governance] Re: "Oversight"

[parminder]

On Monday 04 June 2012 09:56 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
Snip
>
> So to summarize:
>
> 1.  We are in agreement that oversight should refer to just the 
> USG/NTIA functions.

Yes.

> 2.  We are in agreement that, as per your recent statement, it is 
> preferable that oversight and broader GPP be addressed in different 
> institutional contexts rather than folded into one body, right?

Yes. That is the main proposition we have been trying to advance. It is 
there in the joint CS statement and it was very clearly articulated in 
my presentation at CSTD (which the US's chief delegate was good enough 
to partly paraphrase to the assembly).

>
> A couple questions follow.  Let me try on my Parminder interrogator 
> hat :-)

Very happy to respond. BTW, I really do think that as CS actors in a 
political space, claiming some kind of representativity of  broader 
social groups, we need to be able boldly ask such clear questions (which 
you call as interrogation), and be always obligated to respond to them 
(something I often dont see happen here). We are not at an evening 
cocktail party; a political space like this one is more akin to say, 
town halls or parliaments, where such cross-questioning and seeking 
clear responses is the normal order. Yes, it may lead occasionally to 
some commotion, but we can live with it. But we can shed our political 
responsibility.

>
> 3.  Do you therefore agree that the G77 & China proposals of new UN 
> bodies that would do both together are ill-considered?  Yes or no?

Are you speaking of the corresponding WGIG models?  Then, yes. I dont 
think a body that is supposed to, for instance, facilitate treaties, 
conventions etc, or discuss Internet intermediary principles, is best 
suited to undertake the direct oversight function. The nature of actors, 
interplay between different kinds of actors, the basic natures of 
functions involved, all are very different, and thus we should have 
different institutional approaches to the CIR oversight and broader GPP 
issues.

At the same time, the kind of bodies that are proposed, with some 
improvements in their participation models, are very much required for 
the broader GPP functions, minus oversight function (aka OECD's CCICP 
functions).

I asked whether it is WGIG models you refer to because since WGIG I 
havent heard of any 'new body' proposals from China et al. They seem to 
be focussing on ITU, and a core group, which can be said to have more 
authoritarian aspirations, has developed some degree of aversion to 'new 
body' proposals. This I think is because of three reasons. One 
legitimate and two not so. The legitimate reason is of pragmatism - new 
bodies are difficult to form and a dialogue focussed on them may merely 
serve to take away from the more plausible possibility - which is going 
down the ITU route. The illegitimate reason is that for some of them, 
there is that 'problematic' distinct possibility that any new body 
created in the current context will certainly be much more MS than they 
may be comfortable with, and secondly, is liable to also raise Internet 
related human rights issues that they may be desirous of suppressing 
even more than they seek democratic global governance of the Internet. 
It may be important, in this context, to note that one of the seven 
functions envisaged for CIRP proposed by India is promotion and 
protection of human rights.

>
> 4.  Do you therefore agree that the IBSA and Indian proposals of a 
> body to "integrate and *oversee* the bodies responsible for technical 
> and operational functioning of the Internet, including global 
> standards setting" along with performing a wide array of GPP functions 
> are similarly ill-considered, and that these may contribute to the 
> lexical confusion?  Yes or no?

Yes, to that they are inadequately considered vis a vis the oversight 
role. No, to being ill-considered, if the prefix ill- begins to suggest 
bad intentionality, which I dont think there was in this case.

Rio proposal was put together in a very short inter-gov meeting 
following the Rio seminar on global Internet governance. The main focus 
was on the 'new body' part which most people fail to notice was a very 
significant going-forward from earlier IBSA statements which says, new 
or existing body (read, ITU). (The absence of good reception of Rio 
proposal in some, powerful, quarters, has simply led some of the 
involved actors to go back to 'existing body or ITU' position.). India's 
CIRP proposal was also similarly developed in a very short time. It 
seems to have pulled together some language from the WGIG model and took 
an improved version of OECD's CCICP stakeholder participation model to 
put forward a proposal which was always meant to be a dialogue starter. 
The oversight part is there as a CIRP function because 
internationalising CIR oversight is an important demand of all 
developing (in fact all non US) countries. Accordingly, a CIRP proposal 
could not be made without that part. There perhaps wasnt time enough to 
configure the oversight role in its performative details, whereby some 
of the issues we are now discussing may have come up. From what I have 
seen from their attitude, I am sure India would be open to suggestions 
that the oversight functions could be taken out of CIRP to a more 
appropriate international structure.

   Also agree that such in-adequately considered proposals can cause 
lexical confusions. Civil society should especially be ready for and 
active in such conceptual clarifications, esp when they have important 
bearing on practical issues.

However, lexical confusions are so common in IG space - like using new, 
confusing, terms like AoC for what is basically a bipartite agreement 
(more of it in another email), trying to claim that 'enhanced 
cooperation' which has a clear global public policy related 
institutional definition in TA, pertains to more people meeting more 
cordially in more conferences,  remaining unclear whether MSism relates 
similarly to all levels of policy process, and similarly to all kinds of 
policy processes (for instance separately for CIR oversight and broader 
GPP issues), or it relates differently, and if so how, which 
clarifications alone can contribute to real MS models that are 
needed.... I agree, we should actively contribute to lexical and 
conceptual clarities before we can seek substantive convergences.

I am delighted that we are making some progress here.

parminder





>
> If we agree on 1 & 2, I don't see how we could disagree on 3 & 4, but 
> maybe I'm missing something.
>
> Either way, let's build on the areas of agreement.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120606/1445e3f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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