[governance] Re: CIRP+

[parminder]

Wolfgang,

Thanks for your engagement. This is an important issue and needs a 
thorough discussion. I think that if we do discuss it in all earnestness 
we will be closer to agreeing on many things....


On Wednesday 09 May 2012 07:33 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Parminder:
> UN CIRP proposal has as multistakeholder a structure as OECD's Internet policy making mechanism (which is the default global Internet policy making system at present), plus seeking strong linkages with a rather empowered multistakeholder IGF (India IGF proposal). If something else/more is needed and possible that it must be spelt out.
>
> Wolfgang:
> The Problem with the OECD MS model is, that it evolved from an existing (intergovernmental) structure. It did not create a new body. It just added to an IGO with one existing advisory committee to other advisory committees (CS and TC).

OECD's /Committee for Information/, /Computer and Communications Policy 
/was created, I understand, sometime in late 1990s, as a new body/ 
committee of the OECD council, in addition to other such committees. On 
the same lines, UN CIRP is proposed as a new committee, in addition to 
other such committees, of the UN GA (the exact equivalent of OECD 
council if we include all countries).

I fail to understand what difference really are you pointing to here. 
(The only difference I can see is that UN CIRP is proposed to be 
organically linked to the IGF, and OECD CICCP has no equivalent body 
that makes it so participative.)

Indeed, CICCP was first created without a CS advisory body which got 
added a few years back. UN CIRP proposes to start with such a CS 
advisory body.

So, Wolfgang, if you really can see a difference here, pl do tell it 
clearly.

> This was good. But .- as you can see in the drafting of the Internet policy Making guidelines document - not good enough.
Yes, and the CS advisory committee completely capitulated, first 
opposing the principles, and then tamely signing on, even without a 
wider CS discussion, despite my request to the CS advisory committee to 
bring the matter to IGC and other groups etc for a discussion.

>   There is no mechanism how the advisory bodies are directly involved into the decision making procedure.

This is most interesting. Two points

(1) Has the involved CS, at the time the CS advisory commitee was 
formed, or any time later, ever even proposed any such arrangement to 
OECD whereby they should be 'directly involved into decision making 
procedure'. Why did CS agree to join up without such arrangements being 
put in place, in fact, without even proposing them. CS seems to be very 
shy to speak up the to powerful like the OECD, right! Or if there is any 
other reason pl tell me. To me, it does suggest hypocrisy that this 
demand of 'direct involvement in decision making' comes up only when 
forums/ bodies involving all countries are suggested. Can you please 
explain this apparent paradox?

(2) in any case, I am still ready to discuss the arrangement you suggest 
about *direct* involvement of CS,business etc in decision making. Will 
you please propose some such arrangement so that we can discuss it. And 
then perhaps take it up with existing bodies first, before thinking of 
them only in terms of bodies that do not seem likely to come into 
existence any time soon.

May I humbly suggest that the real problem, which perhaps out of 
political correctness some people are hesitant to spell out here, is 
that you and many others here who are making these protestations trust 
the governments of the North and simply do not trust the governments of 
the South.

I am sorry, but we in the South *cannot* take such a view. By god, we 
have more than enough problems with our governments back home, and fight 
them real hard on so many issues. But on the global stage, when up 
against the trenchant onslaught of the two biggest powers on the 
Interent - US gov/OECD and the monopoly internet companies - we know 
what political strategy to take, and not to hide behind convenient 
covers . This is nothing new, and is quite aligned with strategies 
employed in other areas of global governance like IP and trade, 
something strongly suggested by the co-sponsorship of the joint CS 
statement for May 18 meeting by some of the most prominent Southern NGOs 
involved in these latter areas.

parminder


> Remember the Internet Governance definition whre "shared decsion making procedures" are mentioned as a key element similar to the involvement of the various stakeholders in their respective roles.





>
>
> If a new (UN) body should be created to fill a (possible) gap in the existing global Internet Governance Ecosystem, such a new body has to go beyond "advisory committees" and introduce a mechanism which follows the definition of "shared decision making". This would be new, but this is what is needed. We need here innovation and creativity in internaitonal politics. WGIG is a good example that this can work. The UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG has also demonstrated that it can be done. If a renewed CIRP proposal follows the WGIG model, it could be the starting point for a new discussion, embedded into the IGF discussions on a multistakeholder "Framework of Committments".
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120513/1b32e891/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