[governance] CIRP+

Sun May 13 06:38:30 EDT 2012

On Sunday 13 May 2012 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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.
>    
I am not sure you mean only technical/ CIR governance part of IG or also 
the larger public policies side, the kind of work that OECD's CICCP and 
CoE does. As for the technical/ CIR gov part of IG the joint CS 
statement that we circulated proposes not disturbing the distributed 
governance system, though improvements are needed which you seem to 
agree with. Only the US gov role in that system is not acceptable and 
that should be moved from there.

I dont think it would do to ignore the other side of IG, that I dont see 
you address. CoE writes cyber security policies and export it to other 
countries, OECD writes principles for Internet-policy making and now 
seeks other countries to accept it, same with ACTA, CoE writes search 
engine guidelines, social networking guidelines, and by default they 
will inflate to become global guidlelines or rules. I find this side of 
IG even more important that the tech/CIR side. It is this other side of 
global Internet policy making that is significantly shaping the Internet 
as people of the world experience it, and people want to be able to 
participate equally in the policy making process.

parminder

> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120513/9ef282d5/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