[governance] CIRP+

[Avri Doria]

Not that you asked anyone other than Wolfgang, but
I propose we fix the existing multistakeholder Internet governance organizations and leave the UN out of it.

As for those the regional inter-governmental organizations and the national governments, I propose people from those countries and regions work with them to prevent them from doing anything further that harms civil society.

I, for one, do not endorse your CIRP+ proposal and hope that the IGC does not presume to endorse it as an 'organzation'

avri

avri


parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>Wolfgang,
>
>I have many things to say about your arguments, but about that perhaps 
>we can go on  endlessly. But let me be pragmatic and precise.
>
>Do you agree that
>
>(1) there are many pressing global public policy issues, the kind of 
>which OECD and CoE is so actively dealing with at present
>
>(2) it is not globally democratic that OECD and CoE as clubs of a few 
>rich countries do all this (default) global policy making.
>
>If you do not agree to the above, lets just first discuss this. If you 
>do, lets move to the next step
>
>Vide (2) above, developing countries, their governments as well as 
>people, are obviously not happy with the situation. The May 18th
>meeting 
>is about this specific  problem. And you will also recognise the 
>dangerous directions that our joint statement argues the Internet may
>be 
>moving towards, and the need to address this problem.
>
>Since you seem to have some model in mind, inspired by WGIG or
>whatever, 
>why dont you present a clear proposal of what global institutional 
>mechanism should address the global public policy issues that are today
>
>addressed by OECD/CoE.   Please tell us clearly what would be the 
>structure of this new mechanism, what functions will it perform, and 
>how, what would be its outcomes and how will they be implemented. How 
>would it address the public policy imperatives in all IG areas that
>need 
>global attention.... What would be its relationship with the current 
>technical/ CIR governance system. People are looking for real solutions
>
>to real issues, and the May18 meeting is about that. I would request
>you 
>to be as clear and precise about your model as possible...
>
>Otherwise, just criticising every model for change that is proposed is 
>simply voting for the status quo.
>
>parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sunday 13 May 2012 02:29 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> Parminder:
>> WGIG was an advisory body to the intergovernmental WSIS. It had no
>independent standing or decision making capacity.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> Formally you are right. But de facto, WGIG "decided" to define IG, to
>create the IGF and - as a result of a lack of consensus within WGIG -
>to launch a process for further discussion on oversight (which ended in
>EC). A new WGIG would not just repeat what the old was. It has to take
>the next formal step: From an body which prepares decision to a body
>which is able to produce rough consensus. The innovation with WGIG was
>that all stakeholders participated equally in the discussion and
>drafting of the report. Membership was not "layered". What you propose
>is a "layered" system. This is the hierarchical thinking of the 20th
>century. What we need is a network thinking for the 21st century.
>>
>> Parminder:
>> CIRP proposes three separate advisory bodies which can of course
>draft clear, written recs like WGIG did. I dont even see any special
>barrier for them to do it together if they so wish, but then like WGIG
>report went to WSIS, and it took and left out things that it wanted to
>to draft the authoritative Tunis documents, the same may happen with
>CIRP/ GA.
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>> That is the problem with CIRP. CIRP does no follow the "WGIG model"
>it follows the "WSIS Bureau model" where the non-governmental
>stakeholders were put into isolated baskets (CS&  PS bureaus) on a
>lower layer with the option to give "advise" to the "master layer", the
>intergovernmental bureau. In the reality of the WSIS case, the advise
>from the CS bureau was sidelined.  We made 86 recommendations during
>PrepCom3 (September 2003) and when we analyzed the draft produced by
>the intergovernmental bureau after they got our recommendations we
>discovered, that 82 recommendations were totally ignored and that 4
>recommendations went into very vague paragraphs of the
>intergovernmental document. We called this "ignorance" and "arrogance"
>and this produced a deep crisis for the whole summit with the option of
>a walkout of Civil Society. It needed a lot of diplomatic efforts of
>the Swiss president Pierre Couchepin to keep the CS inside the WSIS
>process (a lot of CS wanted to got to Plan B and to protest and march
>through the streets of Geneva). I remember two night sessions in the
>Swiss embassy in Geneva, a special invitation by the Lord Mayor of the
>City of Geneva and a press conference with Minister Marc Furrer, Pierre
>Couchepin, Utsumi, Karen Banks and me in the conference center. They
>argued that they can not include CS proposals directly into their
>documents which are negotiated among governments. We argued we can not
>give (the wanted) legitimicy to a declaration which is negotiated only
>by governments. CS was invited to WSIS, now we are here and we want to
>participate in Realpolitik. To give us a seat on the table in exchange
>for being silent if it comes to decision making is no option. The
>compromise was to have two final documents in the end: A governmental
>declaration and the civil society declaration. It makes sense (and I
>recommend this not only to you but to everybody) to read again - in the
>light of the experiences of the last ten years - the civil society WSIS
>declaration.
>(http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf).
>>
>> The Geneva compromise was good for the moment. But it was a bad
>experience. It was 2003. At this time the multistakeholder model was
>still a baby. It grew with WGIG. Now it is a child. Not yet an adult.
>And you want to repeat this experience now in 2012? Look forward, not
>backwards and be more innovative. There is no need to continue with the
>mistakes of the past.
>>
>> BTW, you always critisize OECD. Did you notice the problems CISAC
>has? The step forward is that it can make its voice heard. But there is
>long way to participate in decision making. CISAC is on the road, but
>still in the rain. The OECD model - and CIRP is obviously partly
>inspired by it - is good for an existing organisation, but not for a
>new one. If the 2nd Committee of the UNGA (or the ITU) establishes
>advisory bodies for non-govenrmental stakeholders, including civil
>society, this would be an interesting proposal to enhance the
>mechanisms of yesterday. But if you want to create something new, you
>have to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>    


-------------- 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